[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 245 (Monday, December 22, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 76456-76673]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28927]



[[Page 76455]]

Vol. 79

Monday,

No. 245

December 22, 2014

Part II





Regulatory Information Service Center





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





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

  Federal Register / Vol. 79 , No. 245 / Monday, December 22, 2014 / 
The Regulatory Plan  

[[Page 76456]]


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

REGULATORY INFORMATION SERVICE CENTER


Introduction to the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and 
Deregulatory Actions

AGENCY: Regulatory Information Service Center.

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

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

SUMMARY: The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires that agencies publish 
semiannual regulatory agendas in the Federal Register describing 
regulatory actions they are developing that may have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities (5 U.S.C. 
602). Executive Order 12866 ``Regulatory Planning and Review,'' signed 
September 30, 1993 (58 FR 51735), and incorporated in Executive Order 
13563, ``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review'' issued on January 
18, 2011 (76 FR 3821) establish guidelines and procedures for agencies' 
agendas, including specific types of information for each entry.
    The Unified Agenda of Federal Regulator and Deregulatory Actions 
(Unified Agenda) helps agencies fulfill these requirements. All Federal 
regulatory agencies have chosen to publish their regulatory agendas as 
part of the Unified Agenda. The complete 2014 Unified Agenda and 
Regulatory Plan, which contains the regulatory agendas for Federal 
agencies, is available to the public at http://reginfo.gov.
    The fall 2014 Unified Agenda publication appearing in the Federal 
Register consists of The Regulatory Plan and agency regulatory 
flexibility agendas, in accordance with the publication requirements of 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Agency regulatory flexibility agendas 
contain only those Agenda entries for rules that are likely to have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
and entries that have been selected for periodic review under section 
610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The complete fall 2014 Unified Agenda contains the Regulatory Plans 
of 30 Federal agencies and the regulatory agendas of 31 other Federal 
agencies.

ADDRESSES: Regulatory Information Service Center (MVE), General 
Services Administration, 1800 F Street NW., 2219F, Washington, DC 
20405.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information about specific 
regulatory actions, please refer to the agency contact listed for each 
entry.
    To provide comment on or to obtain further information about this 
publication, contact: John C. Thomas, Executive Director, Regulatory 
Information Service Center (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: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

    I. What are The Regulatory Plan and the Unified Agenda?
    II. Why are The Regulatory Plan and the Unified Agenda 
published?
    III. How are The Regulatory Plan and the Unified Agenda 
organized?
    IV. What Information appears for each entry?
    V. Abbreviations
    VI. How can users get copies of the Plan and the Agenda?

Introduction to the Fall 2014 Regulatory Plan

AGENCY REGULATORY PLANS

Cabinet Departments

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

Other Executive Agencies

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

Independent Regulatory Agencies

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

AGENCY AGENDAS

Cabinet Departments

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

Other Executive Agencies

Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board
Environmental Protection Agency
General Services Administration
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Small Business Administration
Joint Authority
Department of Defense/General Services Administration/National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration (Federal Acquisition 
Regulation)

Independent Regulatory Agencies

Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Federal Communications Commission
Federal Reserve System
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Securities and Exchange Commission
Surface Transportation Board

INTRODUCTION TO THE REGULATORY PLAN AND THE UNIFIED AGENDA OF FEDERAL 
REGULATORY AND DEREGULATORY ACTIONS

I. What are the Regulatory Plan and the Unified Agenda?

    The Regulatory Plan serves as a defining statement of the 
Administration's regulatory and deregulatory policies and priorities. 
The Plan is part of the fall edition of the Unified Agenda. Each 
participating agency's regulatory plan contains: (1) A narrative 
statement of the agency's regulatory and deregulatory priorities, and, 
for the most part, (2) a description of the most important significant 
regulatory and deregulatory actions that the agency reasonably expects 
to issue in proposed or final form during the upcoming fiscal year. 
This edition includes the regulatory plans of 30 agencies.
    The Unified Agenda provides information about regulations that the 
Government is considering or reviewing. The Unified Agenda has appeared 
in the Federal Register twice each year since 1983 and has been 
available online since 1995. The complete Unified Agenda is available 
to the public at http://reginfo.gov. The online Unified Agenda offers 
flexible search tools and access to the historic Unified Agenda 
database to 1995.
    The fall 2014 Unified Agenda publication appearing in the Federal 
Register consists of The Regulatory Plan and agency regulatory 
flexibility

[[Page 76457]]

agendas, in accordance with the publication requirements of the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act. Agency regulatory flexibility agendas 
contain only those Agenda entries for rules that are likely to have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
and entries that have been selected for periodic review under section 
610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Printed entries display only the 
fields required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Complete agenda 
information for those entries appears, in a uniform format, in the 
online Unified Agenda at http://reginfo.gov.
    These publication formats meet the publication mandates of the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 12866 (incorporated in 
Executive Order 13563), as well as moved the Agenda process to the goal 
of online availability, resulting in a reduced cost in printing. The 
current online format does not reduce the amount of information 
available to the public. The complete online edition of the Unified 
Agenda includes regulatory agendas from 61 Federal agencies. Agencies 
of the United States Congress are not included.
    The following agencies have no entries identified for inclusion in 
the printed regulatory flexibility agenda. An asterisk (*) indicates 
agencies that appear in The Regulatory Plan. The regulatory agendas of 
these agencies are available to the public at http://reginfo.gov.

Department of Housing and Urban Development*
Department of State
Department of Treasury*
Department of Veterans Affairs*
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
Agency for International Development
Commission on Civil Rights
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled
Corporation for National and Community Service
Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of 
Columbia
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission*
Institute of Museum and Library Services
National Archives and Records Administration*
National Endowment for the Arts
National Endowment for the Humanities
National Science Foundation
Office of Government Ethics
Office of Management and Budget
Office of Personnel Management*
Peace Corps
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation*
Railroad Retirement Board
Social Security Administration*
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau*
Consumer Product Safety Commission*
Farm Credit Administration
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Federal Housing Finance Agency
Federal Maritime Commission
Federal Trade Commission*
Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration CouncilNational Credit Union 
Administration
National Credit Union Administration
National Indian Gaming Commission*
National Labor Relations Board
National Transportation Safety Board
Postal Regulatory Commission
Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board
    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 (incorporated in Executive Order 13563). 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 Regulatory Plan and Unified 
Agenda do not create a legal obligation on agencies to adhere to 
schedules in this publication or to confine their regulatory activities 
to those regulations that appear within it.

II. Why Are The Regulatory Plan and the Unified Agenda published?

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

Regulatory Flexibility Act

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

Executive Order 12866

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

Executive Order 13563

    Executive Order 13563 entitled ``Improving Regulation and 
Regulatory Review,'' issued on 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 public 
participation, and orders integration and innovation in coordination 
across agencies; flexible approaches where relevant, feasible, and 
consistent with regulatory approaches; scientific integrity in any 
scientific or technological information and processes used to support 
the agencies' regulatory actions; and retrospective analysis of 
existing regulations.

[[Page 76458]]

Executive Order 13132

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

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

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

Executive Order 13211

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

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

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

III. How Are The Regulatory Plan and the Unified Agenda organized?

    The Regulatory Plan appears in part II in a daily edition of the 
Federal Register. The Plan is a single document beginning with an 
introduction, followed by a table of contents, followed by each 
agency's section of the Plan. Following the Plan in the Federal 
Register, as separate parts, are the regulatory flexibility agendas for 
each agency whose agenda includes entries for rules which are likely to 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities or rules that have been selected for periodic review under 
section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Each printed agenda 
appears as a separate part. The sections of the Plan and the parts of 
the Unified Agenda are organized alphabetically in four groups: Cabinet 
departments; other executive agencies; the Federal Acquisition 
Regulation, a joint authority (Agenda only); and independent regulatory 
agencies. Agencies may in turn be divided into subagencies. Each 
printed agency agenda has a table of contents listing the agency's 
printed entries that follow. Each agency's part of the Agenda contains 
a preamble providing information specific to that agency. Each printed 
agency agenda has a table of contents listing the agency's printed 
entries that follow.
    Each agency's section of the Plan contains a narrative statement of 
regulatory priorities and, for most agencies, a description of the 
agency's most important significant regulatory and deregulatory 
actions. Each agency's part of the Agenda contains a preamble providing 
information specific to that agency plus descriptions of the agency's 
regulatory and deregulatory actions.
    The online, complete Unified Agenda contains the preambles of all 
participating agencies. Unlike the printed edition, the online Agenda 
has no fixed ordering. In the online Agenda, users can select the 
particular agencies whose agendas they want to see. Users have broad 
flexibility to specify the characteristics of the entries of interest 
to them by choosing the desired responses to individual data fields. To 
see a listing of all of an agency's entries, a user can select the 
agency without specifying any particular characteristics of entries.
    Each entry in the Agenda is associated with one of five rulemaking 
stages. The rulemaking stages are:
    1. Prerule Stage--actions agencies will undertake to determine 
whether or how to initiate rulemaking. Such actions occur prior to a 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) and may include Advance Notices of 
Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRMs) and reviews of existing regulations.
    2. Proposed Rule Stage--actions for which agencies plan to publish 
a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking as the next step in their rulemaking 
process or for which the closing date of the NPRM Comment Period is the 
next step.
    3. Final Rule Stage--actions for which agencies plan to publish a 
final rule or an interim final rule or to take other final action as 
the next step.
    4. Long-Term Actions--items under development but for which the 
agency does not expect to have a regulatory action within the 12 months 
after publication of this edition of the Unified Agenda. Some of the 
entries in this section may contain abbreviated information.
    5. Completed Actions--actions or reviews the agency has completed 
or withdrawn since publishing its last agenda. This section also 
includes items the agency began and completed between issues of the 
Agenda.
    Long-Term Actions are rulemakings reported during the publication 
cycle that are outside of the required 12-month reporting period for 
which the Agenda was intended. Completed Actions in the publication 
cycle are rulemakings that are ending their lifecycle either by 
Withdrawal or completion of the rulemaking process. Therefore, the 
Long-Term and Completed RINs do not represent the

[[Page 76459]]

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 http://reginfo.gov to search for 
Completed and Long-Term Actions apart from each other and active RINs.
    A bullet () preceding the title of an entry indicates that 
the entry is appearing in the Unified Agenda for the first time.
    In the printed edition, all entries are numbered sequentially from 
the beginning to the end of the publication. The sequence number 
preceding the title of each entry identifies the location of the entry 
in this edition. The sequence number is used as the reference in the 
printed table of contents. Sequence numbers are not used in the online 
Unified Agenda because the unique Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) is 
able to provide this cross-reference capability.
    Editions of the Unified Agenda prior to fall 2007 contained several 
indexes, which identified entries with various characteristics. These 
included regulatory actions for which agencies believe that the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act may require a Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis, actions selected for periodic review under section 610(c) of 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and actions that may have federalism 
implications as defined in Executive Order 13132 or other effects on 
levels of government. These indexes are no longer compiled, because 
users of the online Unified Agenda have the flexibility to search for 
entries with any combination of desired characteristics. The online 
edition retains the Unified Agenda's subject index based on the Federal 
Register Thesaurus of Indexing Terms. In addition, online users have 
the option of searching Agenda text fields for words or phrases.

IV. What information appears for each entry?

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

(1) Economically Significant

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

(2) Other Significant

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

(3) Substantive, Nonsignificant

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

(4) Routine and Frequent

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

(5) Informational/Administrative/Other

    A rulemaking that is primarily informational or pertains to agency 
matters not central to accomplishing the agency's regulatory mandate 
but that the agency places in the Unified Agenda to inform the public 
of the activity.
    Major--whether the rule is ``major'' under 5 U.S.C. 801 (Pub. L. 
104-121) because it has resulted or is likely to result in an annual 
effect on the economy of $100 million or more or meets other criteria 
specified in that Act. The Act provides that the Administrator of the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs will make the final 
determination as to whether a rule is major.
    Unfunded Mandates--whether the rule is covered by section 202 of 
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). The Act 
requires that, before issuing an NPRM likely to result in a mandate 
that may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of more than 
$100 million in 1 year, agencies, other than independent regulatory 
agencies, shall prepare a written statement containing an assessment of 
the anticipated costs and benefits of the Federal mandate.
    Legal Authority--the section(s) of the United States Code (U.S.C.) 
or Public Law (Pub. L.) or the Executive order (E.O.) that authorize(s) 
the regulatory action. Agencies may provide popular name references to 
laws in addition to these citations.
    CFR Citation--the section(s) of the Code of Federal Regulations 
that will be affected by the action.
    Legal Deadline--whether the action is subject to a statutory or 
judicial deadline, the date of that deadline, and whether the deadline 
pertains to an NPRM, a Final Action, or some other action.
    Abstract--a brief description of the problem the regulation will 
address; the need for a Federal solution; to the extent available, 
alternatives that the agency is considering to address the problem; and 
potential costs and benefits of the action.
    Timetable--the dates and citations (if available) for all past 
steps and a projected date for at least the next step for the 
regulatory action. A date displayed in the form 12/00/14 means the 
agency is predicting the month and year the action will take place but 
not the day it will occur. In some instances, agencies may indicate 
what the next action will be, but the date of that action is ``To Be 
Determined.'' ``Next Action Undetermined'' indicates the agency does 
not know what action it will take next.
    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required--whether an analysis is 
required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) 
because the rulemaking action is likely to have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities as defined by the Act.
    Small Entities Affected--the types of small entities (businesses, 
governmental jurisdictions, or organizations) on which the rulemaking 
action is likely to have an impact as defined by the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act. Some agencies have chosen to indicate likely effects 
on small entities even though they believe

[[Page 76460]]

that a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis will not be required.
    Government Levels Affected--whether the action is expected to 
affect levels of government and, if so, whether the governments are 
State, local, tribal, or Federal.
    International Impacts--whether the regulation is expected to have 
international trade and investment effects, or otherwise may be of 
interest to the Nation's international trading partners.
    Federalism--whether the action has ``federalism implications'' as 
defined in Executive Order 13132. This term refers to actions ``that 
have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship 
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution 
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' 
Independent regulatory agencies are not required to supply this 
information.
    Included in the Regulatory Plan--whether the rulemaking was 
included in the agency's current regulatory plan published in fall 
2014.
    Agency Contact--the name and phone number of at least one person in 
the agency who is knowledgeable about the rulemaking action. The agency 
may also provide the title, address, fax number, email address, and TDD 
for each agency contact.
    Some agencies have provided the following optional information:
    RIN Information URL--the Internet address of a site that provides 
more information about the entry.
    Public Comment URL--the Internet address of a site that will accept 
public comments on the entry. Alternatively, timely public comments may 
be submitted at the Governmentwide e-rulemaking site, http://www.regulations.gov.
    Additional Information--any information an agency wishes to include 
that does not have a specific corresponding data element.
    Compliance Cost to the Public--the estimated gross compliance cost 
of the action.
    Affected Sectors--the industrial sectors that the action may most 
affect, either directly or indirectly. Affected sectors are identified 
by North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes.
    Energy Effects--an indication of whether the agency has prepared or 
plans to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for the action, as 
required by Executive Order 13211 ``Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' signed May 
18, 2001 (66 FR 28355).
    Related RINs--one or more past or current RIN(s) associated with 
activity related to this action, such as merged RINs, split RINs, new 
activity for previously completed RINs, or duplicate RINs.
    Statement of Need--a description of the need for the regulatory 
action.
    Summary of the Legal Basis--a description of the legal basis for 
the action, including whether any aspect of the action is required by 
statute or court order.
    Alternatives--a description of the alternatives the agency has 
considered or will consider as required by section 4(c)(1)(B) of 
Executive Order 12866.
    Anticipated Costs and Benefits--a description of preliminary 
estimates of the anticipated costs and benefits of the action.
     Risks--a description of the magnitude of the risk the action 
addresses, the amount by which the agency expects the action to reduce 
this risk, and the relation of the risk and this risk reduction effort 
to other risks and risk reduction efforts within the agency's 
jurisdiction.

V. Abbreviations

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

[[Page 76461]]

same RIN throughout its development but will generally have different 
sequence numbers if it appears in different printed editions of the 
Unified Agenda. Sequence numbers are not used in the online Unified 
Agenda.
    U.S.C.--The United States Code is a consolidation and codification 
of all general and permanent laws of the United States. The U.S.C. is 
divided into 50 titles, each title covering a broad area of Federal 
law.

VI. How can users get copies of the plan and the agenda?

    Copies of the Federal Register issue containing the printed edition 
of The Regulatory Plan and the Unified Agenda (agency regulatory 
flexibility agendas) are available from the Superintendent of 
Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, P.O. Box 371954, 
Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954. Telephone: (202) 512-1800 or 1-866-512-1800 
(toll-free).
    Copies of individual agency materials may be available directly 
from the agency or may be found on the agency's Web site. Please 
contact the particular agency for further information.
    All editions of The Regulatory Plan and the Unified Agenda of 
Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions since fall 1995 are 
available in electronic form at http://reginfo.gov, along with flexible 
search tools.
    The Government Printing Office's GPO FDsys Web site contains copies 
of the Agendas and Regulatory Plans that have been printed in the 
Federal Register. These documents are available at http://www.fdsys.gov.

    Dated: September 19, 2014.
 John C. Thomas,
Executive Director.

INTRODUCTION TO THE 2014 REGULATORY PLAN

    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 these Executive Orders, the Office of Information 
and Regulatory Affairs is providing the 2014 Unified Regulatory Agenda 
(Agenda) and the Regulatory Plan (Plan) for public review. The Agenda 
and Plan are preliminary statements of regulatory and deregulatory 
policies and priorities under consideration. The Agenda and Plan 
include ``active rulemakings'' that agencies could possibly conclude 
over the next year. As in previous years, however, this list may also 
include some rules that agencies will not end up issuing in the coming 
year.
    The Plan provides a list of important regulatory actions that 
agencies are considering for issuance in proposed or final form during 
the 2015 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 but on which they are actively working.
    A central purpose of the Agenda is to involve the public, including 
State, local, and tribal officials, in federal regulatory planning. The 
public examination of the Agenda and Plan will facilitate public 
participation in 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.'' We emphasize that rules listed on 
the Agenda must still undergo significant development and review before 
they are issued. No regulatory action can become effective until it has 
gone through the legally required processes, which generally include 
public notice 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.
    Among other information, the Agenda also provides an initial 
classification of whether a rulemaking is ``significant'' or 
``economically significant'' under the terms of Executive Orders 12866 
and 13563. 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) does not necessarily indicate whether it imposes high 
costs on the private sector. Economically significant actions may 
impose small costs or even no costs.
    Regulations may count as economically significant because they 
confer large benefits or remove significant burdens. For example, the 
Department of Health and Human Services issues regulations on an annual 
basis, pursuant to statute, to govern annual changes in Medicare 
payments. These payment regulations effectively authorize transfers of 
billions of dollars to hospitals and other health care providers each 
year. Regulations might therefore 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.

EOs 13563 and 13610: The Retrospective Review of Regulation

    Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles, structures, and 
definitions in Executive Order 12866, which has long governed 
regulatory review. Executive Order 13563 explicitly points to the need 
for predictability and certainty, as well as for use of the least 
burdensome means to achieving regulatory ends. These Executive Orders 
include 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; they establish 
public participation, integration and innovation, flexible approaches, 
scientific integrity, and retrospective review as areas of emphasis in 
regulation. In particular, Executive Order 13563 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 addresses new regulations that are under 
development as well as retrospective review of 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 
a rule's likely impacts, and the actual costs and benefits of a 
regulation may be lower or higher than what was anticipated when the 
rule was originally developed.
    Executive Order 13610, Identifying and Reducing Regulatory Burdens, 
issued in 2012, institutionalizes the retrospective or lookback 
mechanism set out in Executive Order 13563 by requiring agencies to 
report to OMB and the public twice each year (January and July) on the 
status of their retrospective review efforts, to ``describe progress, 
anticipated accomplishments, and proposed timelines for relevant 
actions.''
    Executive Orders 13563 and 13610 recognize that circumstances may 
change in a way that requires reconsideration of regulatory 
requirements. Lookback analysis allows agencies to reevaluate existing 
rules and to streamline, modify, or eliminate those regulations that do 
not make sense in their current form. The agencies' lookback efforts so 
far during this Administration have yielded nearly $20 billion in near 
term savings for the

[[Page 76462]]

American public, with significantly more to come.
    The Administration is continuing to work with agencies to 
institutionalize retrospective review so that agencies regularly review 
existing rules on the books to ensure they remain effective, cost-
justified, and based on the best available science. By 
institutionalizing retrospective review of regulations, the 
Administration will continue to examine what is working and what is 
not, and eliminate unjustified and outdated regulations.
    Regulatory lookback is an ongoing exercise, and continues to be a 
high priority for the Administration. As part of that prioritization, 
the Administration requires that agencies regularly report about recent 
progress and coming initiatives. In accordance with Executive Order 
13610 and Executive Order 13563, in July 2014, agencies submitted to 
OIRA the latest updates of their retrospective review plans. Federal 
agencies will again update their retrospective review plans this 
winter. We have also asked agencies to continue to emphasize regulatory 
lookbacks in their latest Regulatory Plans.
    Reflecting that focus, the current agenda lists 83 rules that are 
characterized as retroactively reviewing existing programs. Below are 
some examples of agency plans to reevaluate current practices, in 
accordance with Executive Orders 13563 and 13610:

--The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is working on a 
rule to revise the requirements that Long-Term Care facilities must 
meet to participate in the Medicare and Medicaid programs. These 
proposed changes are necessary to reflect the substantial advances that 
have been made over the past several years in the theory and practice 
of service delivery and safety. These proposals are also an integral 
part of HHS's efforts to achieve broad-based improvements both in the 
quality of health care furnished through Federal programs, and in 
patient safety, while at the same time reducing procedural burdens on 
providers.
--The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is working on a 
final rule to streamline the inspection and home warranty requirements 
for Federal Housing Administration (FHA) single family mortgage 
insurance and, in doing so, would increase choice and lower the costs 
for FHA borrowers. First, HUD would remove regulations that require the 
use of an inspector from the FHA Inspector Roster as a condition for 
FHA mortgage insurance. This change is based on the recognition of the 
sufficiency and quality of inspections carried out by local 
jurisdictions, and HUD expects the rule will increase competition and 
choice of inspectors among lenders. Second, this rule would also remove 
the regulations requiring homeowners to purchase 10-year protection 
plans from FHA-approved warranty issuers in order to qualify for high 
loan-to-value FHA-insured mortgages. This change is based on the 
increased quality of construction materials and the standardization of 
building codes and building code enforcement, and HUD expects the rule 
will reduce burden on homeowners that do not want to purchase 
warranties and increase choice for the homeowners that still want to 
purchase warranties. In total, HUD estimates up to $29 million in 
warranty expenditures avoided, $100,000 in paperwork burden savings for 
the public, and $50,000 in administrative cost savings for HUD.
--The Department of Labor is working to revise existing Sex 
Discrimination Guidelines, which have not been substantively updated 
since 1973, and to replace them with regulations that align with 
current law and legal principles in order to address their application 
to current workplace practices and issues.

E.O. 13609: International Regulatory Cooperation

    In addition to using regulatory lookback as a tool to make our 
regulatory system more efficient, the Administration has been focused 
on promoting international regulatory cooperation. International 
regulatory cooperation supports economic growth, job creation, 
innovation, trade and investment, while also protecting public health, 
safety, and welfare. In May 2012 President Obama issued Executive Order 
13609, Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation, which emphasizes 
the importance of these efforts as a key tool for eliminating 
unnecessary differences in regulation between the United States and its 
major trading partners. Additionally, as part of the regulatory 
lookback 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.''
    Executive Order 13609 also directed agencies to submit a Regulatory 
Plan that includes ``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, Executive Order 13609 requires agencies to ``ensure 
that significant regulations that the agency identifies as having 
significant international impacts are designated as such'' in the 
Regulatory Agenda. In furtherance of this focus on international 
regulatory cooperation, this summer, the Administration and Canada 
released the U.S.-Canada Regulatory Cooperation Council (RCC) Joint 
Forward Plan.\1\ The Forward Plan represents a significant pivot point 
for the Administration's regulatory cooperation relationships with 
Canada, and outlines new Federal agency-level partnership arrangements 
to help institutionalize the way our regulators work together. The 
Forward Plan will help remove duplicative requirements, develop common 
standards, and identify potential areas where future regulation may 
unnecessarily differ. This kind of international cooperation on 
regulations between the United States and Canada will help eliminate 
barriers to doing business in the United States or with U.S. companies, 
grow the economy, and create jobs. The Forward Plan identifies 24 areas 
of cooperation where the United States and Canada will work together to 
implement over the next three to five years in order to modernize our 
thinking around international regulatory cooperation and develop a 
toolbox of strategies to address international regulatory issues as 
they arise. We expect that future Agendas will reflect strong evidence 
of this partnership.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/oira/irc/us-canada-rcc-joint-forward-plan.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Administration continues to foster a regulatory system that 
emphasizes that 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.

[[Page 76463]]



                                            Department of Agriculture
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Regulation
         Sequence No.                     Title             identifier No.             Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.............................  National Organic Program,         0581-AD08  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Origin of Livestock, NOP-
                                 11-0009.
2.............................  National Organic Program,         0581-AD20  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Organic Pet Food
                                 Standards.
3.............................  National Organic Program,         0581-AD31  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Organic Apiculture
                                 Practice Standard, NOP-
                                 12-0063.
4.............................  National Organic                  0581-AD34  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Program_Organic
                                 Aquaculture Standards.
5.............................  Exemption of Producers            0581-AD37  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 and Handlers of Organic
                                 Products From Assessment
                                 Under a Commodity
                                 Promotion Law.
6.............................  Noninsured Crop Disaster          0560-AI20  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Assistance Program.
7.............................  Conservation Compliance..         0560-AI26  Final Rule Stage.
8.............................  Conservation Reserve              0560-AI30  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Program (CRP).
9.............................  Brucellosis and Bovine            0579-AD65  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Tuberculosis; Update of
                                 General Provisions.
10............................  Establishing a                    0579-AD71  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Performance Standard for
                                 Authorizing the
                                 Importation and
                                 Interstate Movement of
                                 Fruits and Vegetables.
11............................  Viruses, Serums, Toxins,          0579-AD64  Final Rule Stage.
                                 and Analogous Products;
                                 Single Label Claim for
                                 Veterinary Biological
                                 Products.
12............................  User Fees for                     0579-AD77  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Agricultural Quarantine
                                 and Inspection Services.
13............................  Emergency Supplemental            0584-AE00  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Nutrition Assistance for
                                 Victims of Disasters
                                 Procedures.
14............................  Child Nutrition Program           0584-AE08  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Integrity.
15............................  Child and Adult Care Food         0584-AE18  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Program: Meal Pattern
                                 Revisions Related to the
                                 Healthy, Hunger-Free
                                 Kids Act of 2010.
16............................  Enhancing Retailer                0584-AE27  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Eligibility Standards in
                                 SNAP.
17............................  Supplemental Nutrition            0584-AD88  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Assistance Program: Farm
                                 Bill of 2008 Retailer
                                 Sanctions.
18............................  Child Nutrition Programs:         0584-AE25  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Local School Wellness
                                 Policy Implementation
                                 Under the Healthy,
                                 Hunger-Free Kids Act of
                                 2010.
19............................  SNAP: Employment and              0584-AE33  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Training (E&T)
                                 Performance Measurement,
                                 Monitoring and Reporting
                                 Requirements.
20............................  Requirements for the              0583-AD54  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Disposition of Non-
                                 Ambulatory Disabled Veal
                                 Calves.
21............................  Mandatory Inspection of           0583-AD36  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Fish of the order
                                 Siluriformes and
                                 Products Derived From
                                 Such Fish.
22............................  Electronic Export                 0583-AD41  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Application and
                                 Certification as a
                                 Reimbursable Service and
                                 Flexibility in the
                                 Requirements for
                                 Official Export
                                 Inspection Marks,
                                 Devices, and
                                 Certificates.
23............................  Descriptive Designation           0583-AD45  Final Rule Stage.
                                 for Needle- or Blade-
                                 Tenderized (Mechanically
                                 Tenderized) Beef
                                 Products.
24............................  Records to be Kept by             0583-AD46  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Official Establishments
                                 and Retail Stores That
                                 Grind Raw Beef Products.
25............................  Forest Service Manual             0596-AC82  Final Rule Stage.
                                 2020_Ecological
                                 Restoration and
                                 Resilience Policy.
26............................  Land Management Planning          0596-AD06  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Rule Policy.
27............................  Rural Energy for America          0570-AA76  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Program.
28............................  Business and Industry             0570-AA85  Final Rule Stage.
                                 (B&I) Guaranteed Loan
                                 Program.
29............................  Biorefinery, Renewable            0570-AA93  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Chemical, and Biobased
                                 Product Manufacturing
                                 Assistance Program.
30............................  Agricultural Conservation         0578-AA61  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Easement Program.
31............................  Environmental Quality             0578-AA62  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Incentives Program
                                 (EQIP) Interim Rule.
32............................  Conservation Stewardship          0578-AA63  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Program Interim Rule.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                             Department of Commerce
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Regulation
         Sequence No.                     Title             identifier No.             Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
33............................  Requirements for                  0648-AY15  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Importation of Fish and
                                 Fish Product under the
                                 U.S. Marine Mammal
                                 Protection Act.
34............................  Designation of Critical           0648-AY54  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Habitat for the North
                                 Atlantic Right Whale.
35............................  Revision of Hawaiian Monk         0648-BA81  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Seal Critical Habitat.
36............................  Revision of the National          0648-BB92  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Standard 1 Guidelines.
37............................  Fishery Management Plan           0648-AS65  Final Rule Stage.
                                 for Regulating Offshore
                                 Marine Aquaculture in
                                 the Gulf of Mexico.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                              Department of Defense
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Regulation
         Sequence No.                     Title             identifier No.             Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
38............................  Limitations on Terms of           0790-AJ10  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Consumer Credit Extended
                                 to Service Members and
                                 Dependents.
39............................  Defense Industrial Base           0790-AJ14  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 (DIB) Cyber Security/
                                 Information Assurance
                                 (CS/IA) Activities:
                                 Amendment.
40............................  Service Academies........         0790-AI19  Final Rule Stage.

[[Page 76464]]

 
41............................  Foreign Commercial                0750-AI32  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Satellite Services
                                 (DFARS Case 2014-D010).
42............................  CHAMPUS/TRICARE: Pilot            0720-AB60  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Program for Refills of
                                 Maintenance Medications
                                 for TRICARE For Life
                                 Beneficiaries Through
                                 the TRICARE Mail Order
                                 Program.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                             Department of Education
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Regulation
         Sequence No.                     Title             identifier No.             Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
43............................  Pay As You Earn..........         1840-AD18  Proposed Rule Stage.
44............................  Workforce Innovation and          1830-AA21  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Opportunity Act.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                              Department of Energy
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Regulation
         Sequence No.                     Title             identifier No.             Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
45............................  Energy Conservation               1904-AD09  Prerule Stage.
                                 Standards for General
                                 Service Lamps.
46............................  Energy Efficiency                 1904-AC11  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Standards for
                                 Manufactured Housing.
47............................  Energy Conservation               1904-AD20  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Standards for
                                 Residential Non-
                                 weatherized Gas Furnaces.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                     Department of Health and Human Services
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Regulation
         Sequence No.                     Title             identifier No.             Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
48............................  Current Good                      0910-AG10  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Manufacturing Practice
                                 and Hazard Analysis and
                                 Risk-Based Preventive
                                 Controls for Food for
                                 Animals.
49............................  Standards for the                 0910-AG35  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Growing, Harvesting,
                                 Packing, and Holding of
                                 Produce for Human
                                 Consumption.
50............................  Current Good                      0910-AG36  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Manufacturing and Hazard
                                 Analysis, and Risk-Based
                                 Preventive Controls for
                                 Human Food.
51............................  Reports of Distribution           0910-AG45  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 and Sales Information
                                 for Antimicrobial Active
                                 Ingredients Used in Food-
                                 Producing Animals.
52............................  Foreign Supplier                  0910-AG64  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Verification Program.
53............................  ``Tobacco Products''              0910-AG38  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Subject to the Federal
                                 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
                                 Act, as Amended by the
                                 Family Smoking
                                 Prevention and Tobacco
                                 Control Act.
54............................  Food Labeling: Calorie            0910-AG56  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Labeling of Articles of
                                 Food Sold in Vending
                                 Machines.
55............................  Food Labeling: Nutrition          0910-AG57  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Labeling of Standard
                                 Menu Items in
                                 Restaurants and Similar
                                 Retail Food
                                 Establishments.
56............................  Accreditation of Third-           0910-AG66  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Party Auditors/
                                 Certification Bodies to
                                 Conduct Food Safety
                                 Audits and to Issue
                                 Certifications.
57............................  Revision of Postmarketing         0910-AG88  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Reporting Requirements
                                 Discontinuance or
                                 Interruption in Supply
                                 of Certain Products
                                 (Drug Shortages).
58............................  Supplemental Applications         0910-AG94  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Proposing Labeling
                                 Changes for Approved
                                 Drugs and Biological
                                 Products.
59............................  Veterinary Feed Directive         0910-AG95  Final Rule Stage.
60............................  Reform of Requirements            0938-AR61  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 for Long-Term Care
                                 Facilities (CMS-3260-P).
61............................  Mental Health Parity and          0938-AS24  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Addiction Equity Act of
                                 2008; the Application to
                                 Medicaid Managed Care,
                                 CHIP, and Alternative
                                 Benefit Plans (CMS-2333-
                                 P).
62............................  Electronic Health Record          0938-AS26  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 (EHR) Incentive
                                 Programs_Stage 3 (CMS-
                                 3310-P).
63............................  CY 2016 Revisions to              0938-AS40  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Payment Policies under
                                 the Physician Fee
                                 Schedule and Other
                                 Revisions to Medicare
                                 Part B (CMS-1631-P).
64............................  Hospital Inpatient                0938-AS41  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Prospective Payment
                                 System for Acute Care
                                 Hospitals and the Long-
                                 Term Care Hospital
                                 Prospective Payment
                                 System and FY 2016 Rates
                                 (CMS-1632-P).
65............................  CY 2016 Hospital                  0938-AS42  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Outpatient PPS Policy
                                 Changes and Payment
                                 Rates and Ambulatory
                                 Surgical Center Payment
                                 System Policy Changes
                                 and Payment Rates (CMS-
                                 1633-P).
66............................  Eligibility Notices, Fair         0938-AS27  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Hearing and Appeal
                                 Processes for Medicaid
                                 and Exchange Eligibility
                                 Appeals, and Other
                                 Eligibility and
                                 Enrollment Provisions
                                 (CMS-2334-F2).
67............................  Child Care and                    0970-AC53  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Development Fund Reforms
                                 to Support Child
                                 Development and Working
                                 Families.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 76465]]


                                         Department of Homeland Security
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Regulation
         Sequence No.                     Title             identifier No.             Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
68............................  Ammonium Nitrate Security         1601-AA52  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Program.
69............................  Asylum and Withholding            1615-AA41  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Definitions.
70............................  New Classification for            1615-AA67  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Victims of Criminal
                                 Activity; Eligibility
                                 for the U Nonimmigrant
                                 Status.
71............................  Exception to the                  1615-AB89  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Persecution Bar for
                                 Asylum, Refugee, and
                                 Temporary Protected
                                 Status, and Withholding
                                 of Removal.
72............................  Administrative Appeals            1615-AB98  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Office: Procedural
                                 Reforms to Improve
                                 Efficiency.
73............................  Classification for                1615-AA59  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Victims of Severe Forms
                                 of Trafficking in
                                 Persons; Eligibility for
                                 T Nonimmigrant Status.
74............................  Application of                    1615-AB77  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Immigration Regulations
                                 to the Commonwealth of
                                 the Northern Mariana
                                 Islands.
75............................  Special Immigrant                 1615-AB81  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Juvenile Petitions.
76............................  Employment Authorization          1615-AB92  Final Rule Stage.
                                 for Certain H-4
                                 Dependent Spouses.
77............................  Enhancing Opportunities           1615-AC00  Final Rule Stage.
                                 for H-1B1, CW-1, and E-3
                                 Nonimmigrants and EB-1
                                 Immigrants.
78............................  Vessel Requirements for           1625-AA99  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Notices of Arrival and
                                 Departure, and Automatic
                                 Identification System.
79............................  Inspection of Towing              1625-AB06  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Vessels.
80............................  Transportation Worker             1625-AB21  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Identification
                                 Credential (TWIC); Card
                                 Reader Requirements.
81............................  Amendments to Importer            1651-AA98  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Security Filing and
                                 Additional Carrier
                                 Requirements.
82............................  Air Cargo Advance                 1651-AB04  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Screening (ACAS).
83............................  Changes to the Visa               1651-AA72  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Waiver Program To
                                 Implement the Electronic
                                 System for Travel
                                 Authorization (ESTA)
                                 Program.
84............................  Implementation of the             1651-AA77  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver
                                 Program.
85............................  Definition of Form I-94           1651-AA96  Final Rule Stage.
                                 to Include Electronic
                                 Format.
86............................  Security Training for             1652-AA55  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Surface Mode Employees.
87............................  Standardized Vetting,             1652-AA61  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Adjudication, and
                                 Redress Services.
88............................  Passenger Screening Using         1652-AA67  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Advanced Imaging
                                 Technology.
89............................  Adjustments to                    1653-AA63  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Limitations on
                                 Designated School
                                 Official Assignment and
                                 Study By F-2 and M-2
                                 Nonimmigrants.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                   Department of Housing and Urban Development
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Regulation
         Sequence No.                     Title             identifier No.             Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
90............................  Economic Opportunities            2529-AA91  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 for Low- and Very Low-
                                 Income Persons (FR-4893).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                              Department of Justice
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Regulation
         Sequence No.                     Title             identifier No.             Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
91............................  Implementation of the ADA         1190-AA60  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Amendments Act of 2008
                                 (Section 504 of the
                                 Rehabilitation Act of
                                 1973).
92............................  Nondiscrimination on the          1190-AA61  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Basis of Disability;
                                 Accessibility of Web
                                 Information and Services
                                 of Public Accommodations.
93............................  Nondiscrimination on the          1190-AA63  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Basis of Disability;
                                 Movie Captioning and
                                 Audio Description.
94............................  Nondiscrimination on the          1190-AA65  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Basis of Disability:
                                 Accessibility of Web
                                 Information and Services
                                 of State and Local
                                 Governments.
95............................  Implementation of the ADA         1190-AA59  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Amendments Act of 2008
                                 (Title II and Title III
                                 of the ADA).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                               Department of Labor
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Regulation
         Sequence No.                     Title             identifier No.             Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
96............................  Workforce Innovation and          1205-AB73  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Opportunity Act.
97............................  Respirable Crystalline            1219-AB36  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Silica.
98............................  Criteria and Procedures           1219-AB72  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 for Proposed Assessment
                                 of Civil Penalties.
99............................  Proximity Detection               1219-AB78  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Systems for Mobile
                                 Machines in Underground
                                 Mines.
100...........................  Proximity Detection               1219-AB65  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Systems for Continuous
                                 Mining Machines in
                                 Underground Coal Mines.
101...........................  Infectious Diseases......         1218-AC46  Prerule Stage.
102...........................  Occupational Exposure to          1218-AB70  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Crystalline Silica.

[[Page 76466]]

 
103...........................  Improve Tracking of               1218-AC49  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Workplace Injuries and
                                 Illnesses.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                          Department of Transportation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Regulation
         Sequence No.                     Title             identifier No.             Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
104...........................  Operation and                     2120-AJ60  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Certification of Small
                                 Unmanned Aircraft
                                 Systems (sUAS).
105...........................  Slot Management and               2120-AJ89  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Transparency for
                                 LaGuardia Airport, John
                                 F. Kennedy International
                                 Airport, and Newark
                                 Liberty International
                                 Airport.
106...........................  Drug and Alcohol Testing          2120-AK09  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 of Certain Maintenance
                                 Provider Employees
                                 Located Outside of the
                                 United States.
107...........................  Pilot Records Database            2120-AK31  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 (HR 5900).
108...........................  Safety Management Systems         2120-AJ86  Final Rule Stage.
                                 for Certificate Holders.
109...........................  National Goals and                2125-AF53  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Performance Management
                                 Measures (MAP-21).
110...........................  National Goals and                2125-AF54  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Performance Management
                                 Measures (MAP-21).
111...........................  Carrier Safety Fitness            2126-AB11  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Determination.
112...........................  Electronic Logging                2126-AB20  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Devices and Hours of
                                 Service Supporting
                                 Documents (MAP-21).
113...........................  Commercial Driver's               2126-AB18  Final Rule Stage.
                                 License Drug and Alcohol
                                 Clearinghouse (MAP-21).
114...........................  Fuel Efficiency Standards         2127-AL52  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 for Medium- and Heavy-
                                 Duty Vehicles and Work
                                 Trucks: Phase 2.
115...........................  Sound for Hybrid and              2127-AK93  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Electric Vehicles.
116...........................  Electronic Stability              2127-AK97  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Control Systems for
                                 Heavy Vehicles (MAP-21).
117...........................  State Safety Oversight            2132-AB19  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 (MAP-21).
118...........................  Pipeline Safety: Safety           2137-AE66  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 of On-Shore Liquid
                                 Hazardous Pipelines.
119...........................  Pipeline Safety: Gas              2137-AE72  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Transmission (RRR).
120...........................  Hazardous Materials:              2137-AE91  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Enhanced Tank Car
                                 Standards and
                                 Operational Controls for
                                 High-Hazard Flammable
                                 Trains.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                         Department of Veterans Affairs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Regulation
         Sequence No.                     Title             identifier No.             Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
121...........................  Expedited Senior                  2900-AP30  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Executive Removal
                                 Authority.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                         Environmental Protection Agency
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Regulation
         Sequence No.                     Title             identifier No.             Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
122...........................  Review of the National            2060-AP38  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Ambient Air Quality
                                 Standards for Ozone.
123...........................  Review of the National            2060-AQ44  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Ambient Air Quality
                                 Standards for Lead.
124...........................  Carbon Pollution Emission         2060-AR33  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Guidelines for Existing
                                 Stationary Sources: EGUs
                                 in Indian Country and
                                 U.S. Territories.
125...........................  Greenhouse Gas Emissions          2060-AS16  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 and Fuel Efficiency
                                 Standards for Medium-
                                 and Heavy-Duty Engines
                                 and Vehicles_Phase 2.
126...........................  Renewable Fuel 2015               2060-AS22  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Volume Standards.
127...........................  Pesticides; Certification         2070-AJ20  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 of Pesticide Applicators.
128...........................  Polychlorinated Biphenyls         2070-AJ38  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 (PCBs); Reassessment of
                                 Use Authorizations.
129...........................  Lead; Renovation, Repair,         2070-AJ56  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 and Painting Program for
                                 Public and Commercial
                                 Buildings.
130...........................  Revisions to the National         2050-AE87  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Oil and Hazardous
                                 Substances Pollution
                                 Contingency Plan;
                                 Subpart J Product
                                 Schedule Listing
                                 Requirements.
131...........................  User Fee Schedule for             2050-AG80  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Electronic Hazardous
                                 Waste Manifest.
132...........................  Modernization of the              2050-AG82  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Accidental Release
                                 Prevention Regulations
                                 Under Clean Air Act.
133...........................  Petroleum Refinery Sector         2060-AQ75  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Risk and Technology
                                 Review and New Source
                                 Performance Standards.
134...........................  Standards of Performance          2060-AQ91  Final Rule Stage.
                                 for Greenhouse Gas
                                 Emissions From New
                                 Stationary Sources:
                                 Electric Utility
                                 Generating Units.
135...........................  Implementation of the             2060-AR34  Final Rule Stage.
                                 2008 National Ambient
                                 Air Quality Standards
                                 for Ozone: State
                                 Implementation Plan
                                 Requirements.
136...........................  Carbon Pollution                  2060-AR88  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Standards for Modified
                                 and Reconstructed
                                 Stationary Sources:
                                 Electric Utility
                                 Generating Units.
137...........................  Pesticides; Agricultural          2070-AJ22  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Worker Protection
                                 Standard Revisions.
138...........................  Formaldehyde; Third-Party         2070-AJ44  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Certification Framework
                                 for the Formaldehyde
                                 Standards for Composite
                                 Wood Products.

[[Page 76467]]

 
139...........................  Formaldehyde Emissions            2070-AJ92  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Standards for Composite
                                 Wood Products.
140...........................  Standards for the                 2050-AE81  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Management of Coal
                                 Combustion Residuals
                                 Generated by Commercial
                                 Electric Power Producers.
141...........................  Revising Underground              2050-AG46  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Storage Tank
                                 Regulations_Revisions to
                                 Existing Requirements
                                 and New Requirements for
                                 Secondary Containment
                                 and Operator Training.
142...........................  Effluent Limitations              2040-AF14  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Guidelines and Standards
                                 for the Steam Electric
                                 Power Generating Point
                                 Source Category.
143...........................  Water Quality Standards           2040-AF16  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Regulatory Revisions.
144...........................  Definition of ``Waters of         2040-AF30  Final Rule Stage.
                                 the United States''
                                 Under the Clean Water
                                 Act.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                     Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Regulation
         Sequence No.                     Title             identifier No.             Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
145...........................  Federal Sector Equal              3046-AB00  Prerule Stage.
                                 Employment Opportunity
                                 Process.
146...........................  The Federal Sector's              3046-AA94  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Obligation To Be a Model
                                 Employer of Individuals
                                 With Disabilities.
147...........................  Amendments to Regulations         3046-AB01  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Under the Americans With
                                 Disabilities Act.
148...........................  Amendments to Regulations         3046-AB02  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Under the Genetic
                                 Information
                                 Nondiscrimination Act of
                                 2008.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                         Social Security Administration
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Regulation
         Sequence No.                     Title             identifier No.             Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
149...........................  Revised Medical Criteria          0960-AG65  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 for Evaluating Digestive
                                 Disorders (3441P).
150...........................  Revisions to                      0960-AH63  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Representative Code of
                                 Conduct (3835P).
151...........................  Revised Medical Criteria          0960-AF35  Final Rule Stage.
                                 for Evaluating
                                 Neurological Impairments
                                 (806F).
152...........................  Revised Medical Criteria          0960-AF88  Final Rule Stage.
                                 for Evaluating
                                 Hematological Disorders
                                 (974F).
153...........................  Revised Medical Criteria          0960-AG28  Final Rule Stage.
                                 for Evaluating Growth
                                 Disorders and Weight
                                 Loss in Children (3163F).
154...........................  Use of Date of Written            0960-AG58  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Statement as Filing Date
                                 (3431F).
155...........................  Revised Medical Criteria          0960-AG71  Final Rule Stage.
                                 for Evaluating Immune
                                 (HIV) System Disorders
                                 (3466F).
156...........................  Revised Medical Criteria          0960-AH43  Final Rule Stage.
                                 for Evaluating Cancer
                                 (Malignant Neoplastic
                                 Diseases) (3757F).
157...........................  Submission of Evidence in         0960-AH53  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Disability Claims
                                 (3802F).
158...........................  Social Security Number            0960-AH68  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Card Applications
                                 (3855I).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                          Nuclear Regulatory Commission
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Regulation
         Sequence No.                     Title             identifier No.             Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
159...........................  Revision of Fee                   3150-AJ44  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Schedules: Fee Recovery
                                 for FY 2015 [NRC-2014-
                                 0200].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BILLING CODE 6820-27-P

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (USDA)

Statement of Regulatory Priorities

    In FY 2015, USDA will focus on a number of high-priority 
regulations necessary to implement the Agricultural Act of 2014 (Farm 
Bill). This legislation, which was signed into law on February 7, 2014, 
provides authorization for services and programs that impact every 
American and millions of people around the world. The new Farm Bill 
builds on historic economic gains in rural America over the past five 
years, while achieving meaningful reform and billions of dollars in 
savings for the taxpayer. The new Farm Bill will allow USDA to continue 
record accomplishments on behalf of the American people, while 
providing new opportunity and creating jobs across rural America. It 
will enable USDA to further expand markets for agricultural products at 
home and abroad, strengthen conservation efforts, create new 
opportunities for local and regional food systems and grow the biobased 
economy. It will provide a dependable safety net for America's farmers, 
ranchers and growers. It will maintain important agricultural research 
and ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all Americans. USDA's 
regulatory efforts in the coming year will modify existing regulations 
and introduce new regulatory actions necessary to implement the 2014 
Farm Bill and to achieve the following goals identified in the 
Department's Strategic Plan for 2010-2015:
     Assist rural communities to create prosperity so they are 
self-sustaining, re-populating, and economically thriving. USDA is the 
leading advocate for rural America. The Department supports rural 
communities and enhances quality of life for rural residents by 
improving

[[Page 76468]]

their economic opportunities, community infrastructure, environmental 
health, and the sustainability of agricultural production. The common 
goal is to help create thriving rural communities with good jobs where 
people want to live and raise families where children have economic 
opportunities and a bright future.
     Ensure our national forests and private working lands are 
conserved, restored, and made more resilient to climate change, while 
enhancing our water resources. America's prosperity is inextricably 
linked to the health of our lands and natural resources. Forests, 
farms, ranches, and grasslands offer enormous environmental benefits as 
a source of clean air, clean and abundant water, and wildlife habitat. 
These lands generate economic value by supporting the vital agriculture 
and forestry sectors, attracting tourism and recreational visitors, 
sustaining green jobs, and producing ecosystem services, food, fiber, 
timber and non-timber products. They are also of immense social 
importance, enhancing rural quality of life, sustaining scenic and 
culturally important landscapes, and providing opportunities to engage 
in outdoor activity and reconnect with the land.
     Help America promote agricultural production and 
biotechnology exports as America works to increase food security. A 
productive agricultural sector is critical to increasing global food 
security. For many crops, a substantial portion of domestic production 
is bound for overseas markets. USDA helps American farmers and ranchers 
use efficient and sustainable production, biotechnology, and other 
emergent technologies to enhance food security around the world and 
find export markets for their products.
     Ensure that all of America's children have access to safe, 
nutritious, and balanced meals. A plentiful supply of safe and 
nutritious food is essential to the well-being of every family and the 
healthy development of every child in America. USDA provides nutrition 
assistance to children and low-income people who need it and works to 
improve the healthy eating habits of all Americans, especially 
children. In addition, the Department safeguards the quality and 
wholesomeness of meat, poultry, and processed egg products, and it 
addresses and prevents loss or damage from pests and disease outbreaks.
    Important regulatory activities supporting the accomplishment of 
these goals in 2015 will include the following:
     Strengthening Food Safety Inspection. USDA will continue 
to develop science-based regulations that improve the safety of meat, 
poultry, and processed egg products in the least burdensome and most 
cost-effective manner. Existing regulations will be revised to address 
emerging food safety challenges, streamlined to remove excessively 
prescriptive requirements, and updated to be made consistent with 
Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point principles. Among other 
actions, USDA will amend regulations so that information presented on 
food packaging is useful in assisting consumers with purchasing and 
preparation decisions. The agency will also use technology to 
streamline and improve the integrity of export certificates. To help 
small businesses comply with food safety regulatory requirements, FSIS 
will continue its collaboration with other USDA and State partners in 
its small business outreach program.
    Improving Access to Nutrition Assistance and Dietary Behaviors. As 
changes are made to the nutrition assistance programs, USDA will work 
to ensure access to program benefits, strengthen program integrity, 
improve diets and healthy eating, and promote physical activity 
consistent with the national effort to reduce obesity. In support of 
these activities in 2014, the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) plans to 
publish a proposed rule updating meal pattern revisions for the Child 
and Adult Care Food Program, as well as a proposal to enhance the 
eligibility standards for SNAP retailers to increase access to more 
healthful foods. FNS will continue to work to implement rules that 
minimize participant and vendor fraud in its nutrition assistance 
programs.
     Collaborating with Producers to Conserve Natural 
Resources. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) is 
amending the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) and Environmental 
Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) regulations to incorporate 
programmatic changes as authorized by the Farm Bill. CSP promotes 
consultation at the local level to identify priority resource concerns 
in geographic areas within a State. CSP encourages producers to address 
environmental concerns while improving and conserving the quality and 
condition of natural resources in a comprehensive manner. EQIP provides 
assistance to landowners to address natural resource issues that impact 
soil, water and related natural resources, including grazing lands, 
wetlands, and wildlife habitat. The Farm Bill folded the former 
Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP) into EQIP.
     Promoting Innovation through Partnerships. NRCS has a long 
history of providing science-based, technically sound, and proven 
conservation practices, advice, and alternatives to America's farmers 
and ranchers. Traditionally, NRCS has worked with USDA agencies, 
universities, and other nongovernmental organizations to identify and 
refine new cutting-edge technology through on-farm trials and research. 
Using this approach, NRCS continually reviews and revises conservation 
practices based on new research or changes in technology.
    Through the Conservation Innovation Grants (CIG) component of EQIP, 
NRCS involves additional partners in identifying and demonstrating new 
approaches for possible NRCS adoption. CIG's purpose is to stimulate 
the adoption of innovative conservation approaches and technologies in 
agricultural production and leverage additional investments in 
conservation. Partners assist NRCS with meeting the CIG goals of 
identifying new conservation technologies and practices, conducting 
demonstrations and field tests, and integrating widely applicable 
technologies and practices into NRCS' toolkit of practices and 
activities to help agricultural producers better address natural 
resource concerns. NRCS is updating the CIG section of the EQIP 
regulation to be consistent with Farm Bill amendments.
     Protecting Productive Agricultural Lands and Wetlands. The 
Farm Bill combined several NRCS easement programs, including the 
Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP), the Farm and Ranch Lands Protection 
Program (FRPP), and the Grassland Reserve Program (GRP) into the new 
Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP). ACEP will require 
its own regulation to replace those of the repealed WRP, FRPP, and GRP 
programs. ACEP will have two components: an agricultural land easement 
component under which NRCS assists eligible entities to protect 
agricultural land by limiting non-agricultural land uses and a wetland 
reserve easement component under which NRCS provides technical and 
financial assistance directly to landowners to restore, protect and 
enhance wetlands through the purchase of wetlands reserve easements. 
NRCS will maintain the existing easements and contracts formed under 
the previous programs; however, they will all be considered part of 
ACEP enrollment.
     Addressing Conservation Concerns on a Regional Level. The 
Farm Bill established the Regional Conservation

[[Page 76469]]

Partnership Program (RCPP) to promote the implementation of 
conservation activities through providing support for agreements 
between producers and partner groups. Producers receive technical and 
financial assistance through RCPP while NRCS and its partners help 
producers install and maintain conservation activities. These projects 
may focus on water quality and quantity, soil erosion, wildlife 
habitat, drought mitigation, flood control, and other regional 
priorities. Partners include producer associations, State or local 
governments, Indian tribes, non-governmental organizations, and 
institutions of higher education. RCPP projects affect multiple 
agricultural or nonindustrial private forest operations on a local, 
regional, State, or multistate level. The Farm Bill combined several 
regional conservation initiatives into this program. RCPP is 
implemented through an announcement of program funding through 
Grants.gov; however, NRCS is publishing updates in the CSP, EQIP and 
ACEP regulations to indicate that these are covered programs through 
which RCPP can operate.
     Establish Framework for Managing our Nation's Forests and 
Grasslands. The Forest Service will publish proposed guidance for 
implementation of the 2012 Land Management Planning Rule. This guidance 
will provide the detailed monitoring, assessment, and documentation 
requirements that the managers of our national forests and grasslands 
require to begin revising their land management plans under the 2012 
Planning Rule. Currently 70 of the 120 Forest Service's Land Management 
Plans are expired and in need of revision.
     Making Marketing and Regulatory Programs More Focused. The 
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) plans to amend its 
veterinary biologics regulations to provide for the use of a simpler, 
uniform label format to better meet the needs of veterinary biologics 
consumers. APHIS also plans to revise tuberculosis and brucellosis 
regulations to better reflect the distribution of these diseases and 
thereby minimize the impacts on livestock producers while continuing to 
address these livestock diseases. In the area of plant health, APHIS 
proposes to expand the streamlined method of considering the 
importation and interstate movement of fruits and vegetables. The 
Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) will support the organic sector by 
updating the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances as 
advised by the National Organic Standards Board, streamlining organic 
regulatory enforcement actions, developing organic pet food standards, 
and proposing that all existing and replacement dairy animals from 
which milk or milk products are intended to be sold as organic must be 
managed organically from the last third of gestation.
     Promoting Biobased Products. USDA will continue to promote 
sustainable economic opportunities to create jobs in rural communities 
through the purchase and use of biobased products through the 
BioPreferred[supreg] program. USDA will finalize regulations to revise 
the BioPreferred[supreg] program guidelines to continue adding 
designated product categories to the preferred procurement program, 
including intermediates and feedstocks and finished products made of 
intermediates and feedstocks. The Federal preferred procurement and the 
certified label parts of the program are voluntary; both are designed 
to assist biobased businesses in securing additional sales.
Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations
    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 plans, as well as periodic 
status updates for each initiative, are available online at http://www.whitehouse.gov/21stcenturygov/actions/21st-century-regulatory-system.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Significantly
           RIN                       Title            reduce burdens on
                                                       small businesses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0583-AC59................  Prior Labeling Approval   Yes.
                            System: Generic Label
                            Approval.
0583-AD41................  Electronic Export         Yes.
                            Application and
                            Certification Fee.
0583-AD32................  Modernization of Poultry  Yes.
                            Slaughter Inspection.
0570-AA76................  Rural Energy America      Yes.
                            Program.
0570-AA85................  Business and Industry     Yes.
                            Loan Guaranteed Program.
0575-AC91................  Community Facilities      Yes.
                            Loan and Grants.
0596-AD01................  National Environmental    Yes.
                            Policy Act (NEPA)
                            Efficiencies.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Subsequent to EO 13563 and consistent with its goals as well as the 
importance of public participation, President Obama issued Executive 
Order 13610 on Identifying and Reducing Regulatory Burdens in May 2012. 
Executive Order 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:
     Increase Use of Generic Approval and Regulations 
Consolidation. FSIS is finalizing a rule that will expand the 
circumstances in which the labels of meat and poultry products will be 
deemed to be generically approved by FSIS. The rule will reduce 
regulatory burdens and generate a discounted Agency cost savings of 
$3.3 million over 10 years (discounted at 7 percent).
     Implement Electronic Export Application for Meat and 
Poultry Products. FSIS is finalizing a rule to provide exporters a fee-
based option for transmitting U.S. certifications to foreign importers 
and governments electronically. Automating the export application and 
certification process will facilitate the export of U.S. meat, poultry, 
and egg products by streamlining the processes that are used while 
ensuring that foreign regulatory requirements are met.
     Streamline Forest Service National Environmental Policy 
Act (NEPA) Compliance. The Forest Service, in cooperation with the 
Council on Environmental Quality, is promulgating rulemaking to 
establish three new Categorical Exclusions for simple restoration 
activities. These Categorical Exclusions will improve and streamline 
the NEPA process and reduce the paperwork burden, as it applies to 
Forest Service projects without reducing environmental protection.

[[Page 76470]]

     Increase Accessibility to the Rural Energy for America 
Program (REAP). Under REAP, Rural Development provides guaranteed loans 
and grants to support the purchase, construction, or retrofitting of a 
renewable energy system. This rulemaking will streamline the 
application process for grants, lessening the burden on the applicant. 
The rulemaking is expected to reduce the information collection.
     Reduced Duplication in Farm Programs. The Farm and Foreign 
Agricultural Services (FFAS) mission area is reducing the paperwork 
burden on program participants by consolidating the information 
collections required to participate in farm programs administered by 
the Farm Service Agency (FSA) and the Federal crop insurance program 
administered by the Risk Management Agency (RMA). As a result, 
producers will be able to spend less time reporting information to 
USDA. Additionally, FSA and RMA will be better able to share 
information, thus improving operational efficiency. FFAS is simplifying 
and standardizing, to the extent practical, acreage reporting 
processes, program dates, and data definitions across the various USDA 
programs and agencies. FFAS is making improvements to allow producers 
to use information from their farm-management and precision agriculture 
systems for reporting production, planted and harvested acreage, and 
other key information needed to participate in USDA programs. FFAS is 
also streamlining the collection of producer information by FSA and RMA 
with the agricultural production information collected by the National 
Agricultural Statistics Service. These process changes allow for 
program data that is common across agencies to be collected once and 
utilized or redistributed to agency programs in which the producer 
chooses to participate. FFAS will conduct a pilot project in spring 
2015 to test the ability of FSA county offices to receive electronic 
acreage reports through a third-party service provider; the pilot will 
add additional States following the 2014 small ``proof-of-concept'' in 
Illinois.
    Periodic status updates for these burden-reducing initiatives can 
be found online at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/21stcenturygov/actions/21st-century-regulatory-system.
    In addition to regulatory review initiatives identified under 
Executive Order 13563 and the paper work burden reduction initiatives 
identified under the Executive Order 13610, USDA has plans to initiate 
the following additional streamlining initiatives in 2015.
     Simplify FSA NEPA Compliance. FSA proposed revisions to 
its regulations that implement NEPA to update, improve, and clarify 
requirements. It also proposed new categorical exclusions and removing 
obsolete provisions. FSA will revise the regulations with any 
additional improvements being made based on public comments to the 
proposed rule. Annual cost savings to FSA as a result of this rule 
could be $345,000 from conducting 314 fewer environmental assessments 
per year, while retaining strong environmental protection.
     Simplify Equipment Contracts for Rural Utilities Service 
(RUS) Loans. RUS is proposing a rule that would result in a new 
standard Equipment Contract Form for use by Telecommunications Program 
borrowers. This new standardized contract would ensure that certain 
standards and specifications are met, and this new form would replace 
the current process that requires all construction providers to use 
their own resources to develop a contract for each project.
     Consolidate Community Facilities Programs Loan and Grant 
Requirements. The Rural Housing Service (RHS) is proposing to 
consolidate seven of the regulations used to service Community 
Facilities direct loans and grants into one streamlined regulation. 
This rule will reduce the time burden on RHS staff and provide the 
public with a single document that clearly outlines the requirements 
for servicing Community Facilities direct loans and grants.
     Update Tuberculosis and Brucellosis Programs. Given the 
success USDA has had in nearly eradicating tuberculosis and brucellosis 
in ruminants, APHIS will propose rulemaking to update and consolidate 
its regulations regarding these diseases to better reflect the current 
distribution of these diseases and the changes in which cattle, bison, 
and captive cervid are produced in the United States.

Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation Under Executive Order 
13609:

    President Obama issued Executive Order 13609 on promoting 
international regulatory cooperation in May 2012. The Executive order 
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 Executive order 
also directs agencies to identify factors that should be taken into 
account in 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 Executive order. 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 Executive 
order 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, and animal and plant health. Projects related to 
electronic certification, equivalence, meat nomenclature, and the 
efficient and safe flow of plants, animals and food across our shared 
borders are all regulatory cooperation pursuits these agencies are 
undertaking in order to secure better alignment among 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, that are so critical to American agriculture.

Major Regulatory Priorities

    This following represents summary information on prospective 
priority regulations as called for in Executive Orders 12866 and 13563:
Food and Nutrition Service
    Mission: FNS works to end hunger and obesity through the 
administration of federal nutrition assistance programs including WIC, 
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and school meals.

[[Page 76471]]

    Priorities: In addition to responding to provisions of legislation 
authorizing and modifying Federal nutrition assistance programs, FNS's 
2015 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:
     Increase Access to Nutritious Food. This objective 
represents FNS's efforts to improve nutrition by providing access to 
program benefits (food consumed at home, school meals, commodities) and 
distributing State administrative funds to support program operations. 
To advance this objective, FNS plans to publish a final rule 
implementing the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010's Community 
Eligibility Provision, which eliminates the burden of household 
applications and increases access to free school lunches and breakfasts 
for children in eligible high-poverty schools. FNS will also publish a 
proposed rule to codify procedures for providing temporary SNAP 
benefits during emergencies for victims of disasters.
     Improve Program Integrity. FNS also plans to publish a 
number of rules to increase efficiency, reduce the burden of program 
operations, and further reduce improper payments. Program integrity 
provisions will continue to be strengthened in the SNAP and Child 
Nutrition programs to ensure Federal taxpayer dollars are spent 
effectively. To support this objective, FNS plans to publish a final 
rule from the 2008 Farm Bill that increases the penalty for SNAP 
authorized stores that are involved in the trafficking of Program 
benefits. Additionally, FNS plans to publish a proposed rule to 
establish consistent, outcome-focused performance measures for the SNAP 
Employment and Training Program. For Child Nutrition, FNS plans to 
publish a proposed rule to strengthen oversight requirements and 
institution disqualification procedures, allow the imposition of fines 
by USDA or State agencies for egregious and/or repeated program 
violations, and address several deficiencies identified through program 
audits and reviews.
     Promote Healthy Diet and Physical Activity Behaviors. This 
objective represents FNS's efforts to ensure that program benefits meet 
appropriate standards to effectively improve nutrition for program 
participants, to improve the diets of its clients through nutrition 
education, and to support the national effort to reduce obesity by 
promoting healthy eating and physical activity. To implement provisions 
included in the Healthy Hunger Free Kids Act of 2010. FNS plans to 
publish a proposed rule that updates the meal patterns for the Child 
and Adult Care Food Program to align them with the latest Dietary 
Guidelines for Americans and final rules that establish professional 
standards for school food service and State child nutrition program 
directors, require schools to develop local wellness policies that 
promote the health of students and address the growing problem of 
childhood obesity. Additionally, FNS plans to publish a proposed rule 
to implement the 2014 Farm Bill governing the eligibility of retail 
food stores participating in SNAP that will improve SNAP participants' 
access to healthy food options.
Food Safety and Inspection Service
    Mission: FSIS is responsible for ensuring that meat, poultry, and 
processed egg products in interstate and foreign commerce are 
wholesome, not adulterated, and are properly marked, labeled, and 
packaged.
    Priorities: FSIS is committed to developing and issuing science-
based regulations intended to ensure that meat, poultry, and processed 
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's 
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:
     Implement Inspection of Certain Fish, Including Catfish 
and Catfish Products. FSIS plans to issue a final rule to implement a 
new inspection system for all fish of the order Siluriformes, as 
required by the 2014 Farm Bill. The rule will define inspection 
requirements for this type of fish and will take into account the 
conditions under which the fish is raised and transported to a 
processing establishment.
     Streamline Export Application Processes through the Public 
Health Information System (PHIS). To support its food safety inspection 
activities, FSIS is continuing to implement PHIS, a user-friendly and 
Web-based system that automates many of the Agency's business 
processes. PHIS also enables greater exchange of information between 
FSIS and other Federal agencies, such as U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection, which is involved alongside FSIS in tracking cross-border 
movement of import and export shipments of meat, poultry, and processed 
egg products. To facilitate the implementation of some PHIS components, 
FSIS is finalizing regulations to provide for electronic export 
application and certification processes.
     Update Nutrition Facts Panels for Meat and Poultry 
Products. FSIS will propose to amend its regulations so that the 
nutrition labeling requirements for meat and poultry products reflect 
recent scientific research and dietary recommendations and to improve 
the presentation of nutrition information to assist consumers in 
maintaining healthy dietary practices. These revisions will be 
consistent with the recent changes that the Food and Drug 
Administration proposed for conventional foods and will ensure that 
there is consistency in how nutrition information is presented across 
the food supply.
     Ensure Accurate Labeling of Mechanically Tenderized Beef. 
FSIS has concluded that without proper labeling, raw or partially 
cooked mechanically tenderized beef products could be mistakenly 
perceived by consumers to be whole, intact muscle cuts. The fact that a 
cut of beef has been needle or blade-tenderized is a characterizing 
feature of the product and, as such, is a material fact likely to 
affect consumers' purchase decisions and should affect their 
preparation of the product. FSIS has also concluded that the addition 
of validated cooking instruction is required to ensure that potential 
pathogens throughout the product are destroyed. Without thorough 
cooking, pathogens that may have been introduced to the interior of the 
product during the tenderization process may remain in the product. The 
Agency will finalize regulations requiring that raw, mechanically 
tenderized (needle or blade) beef products be labeled to indicate that 
they are ``mechanically tenderized.''
     Improve the Efficiency of Product Recalls. FSIS is 
developing a final rule that will amend recordkeeping regulations to 
specify that all official establishments and retail stores that grind 
or chop raw beef products for sale in commerce must keep records that 
disclose the identity of the supplier of all source materials that they 
use in the preparation of each lot of raw ground or chopped product and 
identify the names of those source materials. FSIS

[[Page 76472]]

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. Access to this information will improve FSIS's ability to 
conduct timely and effective consumer foodborne illness investigations 
and other public health activities throughout the stream of commerce.
     Improve Compliance with the Humane Methods of Slaughter 
Act. FSIS has concluded that prohibiting the slaughter of all non-
ambulatory disabled veal calves will improve compliance with the Humane 
Methods of Slaughter Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.) and will also 
improve the Agency's inspection efficiency by eliminating the time that 
FSIS inspection program personnel spend re-inspecting non-ambulatory 
disabled veal calves. FSIS plans to propose to amend its regulations on 
ante-mortem inspection to remove a provision that permits 
establishments to set apart and hold for treatment veal calves that are 
unable to rise from a recumbent position and walk because they are 
tired or cold (9 CFR 309.13(b)). Under the proposed rule, non-
ambulatory disabled veal calves that are offered for slaughter will be 
condemned and promptly euthanized.
     FSIS Small Business Implications. The great majority of 
businesses regulated by FSIS are small businesses. FSIS conducts a 
small business outreach program that provides critical training, access 
to food safety experts, and information resources, such as compliance 
guidance and questions and answers on various topics, in forms that are 
uniform, easily comprehended, and consistent. FSIS collaborates in this 
effort with other USDA agencies and cooperating State partners. For 
example, FSIS makes plant owners and operators aware of loan programs 
available through USDA's Rural Business and Cooperative programs to 
help them in upgrading their facilities. FSIS employees will meet with 
small and very small plant operators to learn more about their specific 
needs and explore how FSIS can tailor regulations to better meet the 
needs of small and very small establishments, while maintaining the 
highest level of food safety.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
    Mission: A major part of the mission of APHIS is to protect the 
health and value of American agricultural and natural resources. APHIS 
conducts programs to prevent the introduction of exotic pests and 
diseases into the United States and conducts surveillance, monitoring, 
control, and eradication programs for pests and diseases in this 
country. These activities enhance agricultural productivity and 
competitiveness and contribute to the national economy and the public 
health. APHIS also conducts programs to ensure the humane handling, 
care, treatment, and transportation of animals under the Animal Welfare 
Act.
    Priorities: APHIS continues to pursue initiatives to update its 
regulations to make them more flexible and performance-based. For 
example, in the area of animal health, APHIS is preparing a final rule 
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 has also prepared 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 has prepared 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.
Agricultural Marketing Service
    Mission: AMS's mission is to facilitate the competitive and 
efficient marketing of agricultural products. 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 intends to support the government's initiative to 
streamline regulatory actions by establishing a process to communicate 
fees for our voluntary user fee programs annually through publication 
of a Federal Register notice. AMS is also committed to ensuring the 
integrity of USDA organic products in the U.S. and throughout the 
world. In addition to its ongoing work to develop organic pet food, 
apiculture, and aquaculture standards, the Agency is moving forward 
with the following priority rulemakings that affect the organic 
industry:
     Research and Promotion Programs Organic Exemption. USDA 
intends to implement the 2014 Farm Bill provision to expand the organic 
exemption for research and promotion program assessments. This action 
would exempt organic operations with ``100 percent organic'' and 
``organic'' products, including certain split operations, from paying 
research and promotion program assessments.
     Transitioning Dairy Animals into Organic Production. 
Members of the organic community, including dairy producers, organic 
interest groups, and the National Organic Standards Board have 
advocated for rulemaking on the allowance for transitioning dairy 
animals into organic production. Stakeholders have interpreted the 
current standard differently, creating inconsistencies across dairy 
producers. AMS has submitted a proposed rule for clearance on this 
issue. This proposed change to the organic standards is intended to 
level the playing field for organic dairy producers.
Farm Service Agency
    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 has successfully expedited the implementation of several 
major regulatory priorities resulting from the 2014 Farm Bill, 
including new programs such as the Agriculture Risk Coverage Program, 
Price Loss Coverage Program, Margin Protection Program for Dairy, Dairy 
Product Donation Program, Cotton Transition Assistance Program, and 
improvements to existing programs such as disaster assistance programs, 
entity eligibility for Farm Loan Programs, and Microloans. 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

[[Page 76473]]

agricultural producers. The largest program is the Conservation Reserve 
Program, which protects up to 32 million acres of environmentally 
sensitive land.
    Priorities: FSA is focused on continuing to implement the 2014 Farm 
Bill while providing the best possible service to producers while 
protecting the environment by updating and streamlining environmental 
compliance. FSA's priority initiatives are as follows:
     Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program (NAP). FSA 
will revise its NAP regulations to implement the 2014 Farm Bill 
changes. The 2014 Farm Bill changes include enhanced protection under 
NAP, which is also known as NAP buy-up to allow producers to buy 
additional NAP coverage for an additional premium; revised NAP 
eligibility requirements for coverage on tilled native sod; added 
coverage for sweet sorghum and biomass sorghum; service fee waivers for 
beginning and socially disadvantaged farmers.
     Conservation Compliance. FSA, working in coordination with 
NRCS and RMA, will revise the USDA conservation compliance regulations 
to implement the 2014 Farm Bill changes. The 2014 Farm Bill changes 
linking eligibility for any premium subsidy paid by FCIC on a policy or 
plan of federally reinsured crop insurance to be in compliance with 
Highly Erodible Land Conservation and Wetlands Conservation provisions. 
Since enactment of the 1985 Farm Bill, eligibility for most commodity, 
disaster, and conservation programs has been linked to compliance with 
the Highly Erodible Land Conservation and Wetland Conservation 
provisions. The 2014 Farm Bill continues the requirement that producers 
adhere to conservation compliance guidelines to be eligible for most 
programs administered by FSA and NRCS.
     Marketing Assistance Loans (MAL) and Loan Deficiency 
Payments (LDP). FSA will revise its MAL and LDP regulations to 
implement the 2014 Farm Bill changes. The 2014 Farm Bill changes 
reauthorize MAL and LDP for all eligible commodities including cotton, 
honey, and sugar loans, for the 2014 through 2018 crop years. The MAL 
and LDP Programs allow producers to receive short-term loans against 
their crops so that producers can market their crops at a time that is 
convenient for them, rather than being forced to sell immediately after 
harvest to pay the bills. The MAL and LDP programs are continued with 
no changes to the loan rates except for cotton, and there are no other 
changes to the basic structure of the programs. The changes extend the 
program years and add clarity to the regulations. MALs, LDPs and sugar 
loans are Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) programs administered by 
the Farm Service Agency (FSA).
     Farm Loan Programs (FLP) changes. FSA will revise its FLP 
regulations to implement the 2014 Farm Bill changes. The 2014 Farm Bill 
changes include expanding lending opportunities for thousands of 
farmers and ranchers to begin and continue operations, including 
greater flexibility in determining eligibility, raising loan limits, 
and emphasizing beginning and socially disadvantaged producers. 
Specific changes include: Eliminating loan term limits for guaranteed 
operating loans, modifying the definition of beginning farmers, 
allowing debt forgiveness on youth loans, increasing the guaranteed 
amount on conservation loans from 75 to 80 percent and 90 percent for 
beginning farmers and socially disadvantaged producers, changing the 
interest rate on Direct Farm Ownership loans that are made in 
conjunction with other lenders, and increasing the maximum loan amount 
for the down payment loan program from $225,000 to $300,000.
     Biomass Crop Assistance Program (BCAP). FSA will revise 
its BCAP regulations to implement the 2014 Farm Bill changes. The 2014 
Farm Bill changes include extending BCAP through 2018 and revising BCAP 
to add some new payment amounts and eligibility restrictions. Specific 
changes include: revising eligible materials to remove bagasse, add 
materials used for research material, and require that all woody 
biomass be harvested directly from the land and reducing the payment 
for collection, harvest, storage, and transportation matching payments 
to $20 per dry ton. BCAP provides financial assistance to producers who 
establish and harvest biomass crops and requires at least 10 percent of 
payments to be matching payments.
     Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). FSA will revise its 
CRP regulations to implement the 2014 Farm Bill changes. The 2014 Farm 
Bill changes include extending the authority to enroll acreage in CRP 
through September 30, 2018, and requiring enrollment to be no more than 
24 million acres beginning October 1, 2016. There are 25.6 million 
acres enrolled in CRP, of which 2 million expired on September 30, 
2014.
     Streamline Environmental Compliance (NEPA). FSA will 
revise its regulations that implement NEPA. The changes improve the 
efficiency, transparency, and consistency of NEPA implementation. 
Changes include aligning the regulations to NEPA regulations and 
guidance from the President's Council on Environmental Quality, 
providing a single set of regulations that reflect the Agency's current 
structure, clarifying the types of actions that require an 
Environmental Assessment (EA), and adding to the list of actions that 
are categorically excluded from further environmental review because 
they have no significant effect on the human environment. FSA will 
develop any additional changes resulting from public comments to the 
proposed rule.
Forest Service
    Mission: FS's mission 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. FS regulatory priorities support 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: FS 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. FS 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's priority initiatives are as 
follows:
     Implement Land Management Planning Framework. The Forest 
Service promulgated a new Land Management Planning Rule at 36 CFR part 
219 in April 2012 that sets out the requirements for developing, 
amending, and revising land management plans for units of the National 
Forest System. The planning directives, once finalized, will be used to 
implement the planning framework which fosters collaboration with the 
public during land management planning, is science-based and responsive 
to change and promotes

[[Page 76474]]

social, economic, and ecological sustainability.
     Strengthen Ecological Restoration Policies. This policy 
would recognize the adaptive capacity of ecosystems and includes the 
role of natural disturbances and uncertainty related to climate and 
other environmental change. The need for ecological restoration of 
National Forest System lands is widely recognized, and the Forest 
Service has conducted restoration-related activities across many 
programs for decades. ``Restoration'' is a common way of describing 
much of the Agency's work, and the concept is threaded throughout 
existing authorities, program directives, and collaborative efforts 
such as the National Fire Plan, a 10-Year comprehensive strategy and 
implementation plan, and the Healthy Forests Restoration Act. However, 
the Agency did not have a definition of ``restoration'' established in 
policy. The lack of a definition was identified as a barrier to 
collaborating with the public and partners to plan and accomplish 
restoration work.
Rural Development
    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, advance energy efficiency and the 
bioeconomy, and strengthen local and regional food systems 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 Rural Business-Cooperative Service oversight.
     Increase Accessibility to the Rural Energy for America 
Program (REAP). Under REAP, Rural Development provides guaranteed loans 
and grants to support the purchase, construction, or retrofitting of a 
renewable energy system. This rulemaking will streamline the 
application process for grants, lessening the burden to the customer. 
The rulemaking is expected to reduce the information collection. REAP 
will also be revised to ensure a larger number of applicants will be 
made available through the issuing of smaller grants. As a result, 
funding will be distributed evenly across the applicant pool and 
encourage greater development of renewable energy.
     Broadband Access Loans. Increasing access to broadband 
service is a critical factor in improving the quality of life in rural 
America and in providing the foundation needed for creating jobs. The A 
2014 Farm Bill revises program provisions particularly with regard to 
broadband speed and application priority. Revised regulations for the 
Broadband Access Loan Program are anticipated to be published in the 
Federal Register in the spring of 2015.
     Modify review of Single Family Housing Direct Loans. RD 
will publish the certified loan packager regulation to streamline 
oversight of the agency's vast network of committed Agency-certified 
packagers. This action will help low- and very low-income people become 
homeowners. It will also reduce the burden on program staff, enabling 
them to focus on implementation and delivery, and will ensure 
specialized support is available to them to complete the application 
for assistance, improving the quality of loan application packages.

Departmental Management

    Mission: Departmental Management's mission is to provide management 
leadership to ensure that USDA administrative programs, policies, 
advice and counsel meet the needs of USDA programs, consistent with 
laws and mandates, and provide safe and efficient facilities and 
services to customers.
Priorities:
     Promote Biobased Products: In support of the Department's 
goal to increase prosperity in rural areas, USDA's Departmental 
Management plans to publish regulations to implement the requirement in 
the Agricultural Act of 2014 (Farm Bill) to establish eligibility 
criteria for forest and other traditional biobased products in the 
BioPreferred[supreg] program.
Aggregate Costs and Benefits
    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 2015, USDA's 
focus will be to implement the changes to programs in such a way as to 
provide benefits while minimizing program complexity and regulatory 
burden for program participants.

USDA--Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS)

Proposed Rule Stage

1. National Organic Program, Origin of Livestock, NOP-11-0009

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 7 U.S.C. 6501
    CFR Citation: 7 CFR 205.
    Legal Deadline: NPRM, Statutory, December 31, 2014.
    The proposed action would eliminate the two-track system and 
require that upon transition, all existing and replacement dairy 
animals from which milk or milk products are intended to be sold, 
labeled, or represented as organic, must be managed organically from 
the last third of gestation.
    Abstract: The current regulations provide two tracks for replacing 
dairy animals which are tied to how dairy farmers transition to organic 
production. Farmers who transition an entire distinct herd must 
thereafter replace dairy animals with livestock that has been under 
organic management from the last third of gestation. Farmers who do not 
transition an entire distinct herd may perpetually obtain replacement 
animals that have been managed organically for 12 months prior to 
marketing milk or milk products as organic. The proposed action would 
eliminate the two-track system and require that upon transition, all 
existing and replacement dairy animals from which milk or milk products 
are intended to be sold, labeled, or represented as organic must be 
managed organically from the last third of gestation.
    Statement of Need: This action is being taken because of concerns 
raised by various parties, including the National Organic Standards 
Board (NOSB), about the dual tracks for dairy replacement animals. The 
proposed action would institute the same requirements across all 
producers.

[[Page 76475]]

    Summary of Legal Basis: The National Organic Program regulations 
stipulate the requirements for dairy replacement animals in section 
205.236(a)(2) Origin of Livestock. In addition, in response to the 
final ruling in the 2005 case, Harvey v. Johanns, the USDA committed to 
rulemaking to address the concerns about dairy replacement animals.
    Alternatives: The program considered initiating the rulemaking with 
an ANPRM. It was determined that there is sufficient awareness of the 
expectations of the organic community to proceed with a proposed rule. 
As alternatives, we considered the status quo, however, this would 
continue the disparity between producers who can continually transition 
conventional dairy animals into organic production and producers who 
source dairy animals that are organic from the last third of gestation. 
We also considered an action that would restrict the source of breeder 
stock and movement of breeder stock after they are brought onto an 
organic operation; however, this would minimize the flexibility of 
producers to purchase breeder stock from any source as specified under 
the Organic Foods Production Act.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
    Risks: Continuation of the two-track system jeopardizes the 
viability of the market for organic heifers. A potential risk 
associated with the rulemaking would be a temporary supply shortage of 
dairy replacement animals due to the increased demand.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   12/00/14  .......................
Final Action........................   05/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Organizations.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Melissa R. Bailey, Director, Standards Division, 
Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service, 14th & 
Independence Avenue SW., Room 2646-South Building, Washington, DC 
20250, Phone: 202 720-3252, Fax: 202 205-7808, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 0581-AD08

USDA--AMS

2. National Organic Program, Organic Pet Food Standards

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 7 U.S.C. 6501.
    CFR Citation: 7 CFR 205.
    Legal Deadline: NPRM, Statutory, April 30, 2015.
    The National Organic Program (NOP) is establishing national 
standards governing the marketing of organically produced agricultural 
products.
    Abstract: The National Organic Program (NOP) is establishing 
national standards governing the marketing of organically produced 
agricultural products. In 2004, the National Organic Standards Board 
(NOSB) initiated the development of organic pet food standards, which 
had not been incorporated into the NOP regulations, by forming a task 
force which included pet food manufacturers, organic consultants, etc. 
Collectively, these experts drafted organic pet food standards 
consistent with the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990, Food and Drug 
Administration requirements, and the Association of American Feed 
Control Officials (AAFCO) Model Regulations for Pet and Specialty Pet 
Food. The AAFCO regulations are scientifically based regulations for 
voluntary adoption by State jurisdictions to ensure the safety, 
quality, and effectiveness of feed. In November 2008, the NOSB approved 
a final recommendation for organic pet food standards incorporating the 
provisions drafted by the pet food task force.
    Statement of Need: This action is necessary to ensure consistency 
in the composition and labeling of pet food products bearing organic 
claims. While the NOP has maintained that pet food may be certified in 
accordance with the existing USDA organic regulations, the requirements 
for processed products are intended for human foods and are not 
entirely applicable to pet food. The uncertainty about pet food 
composition and labeling requirements causes confusion in the 
marketplace with potentially negative impacts for the credibility of 
the organic label in general. This action responds to a 2008 
recommendation of the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) and 
industry requests for organic pet food standards.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 
(OFPA) authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to establish an organic 
certification program for producers and handlers of agricultural 
products that have been produced using organic methods (7 U.S.C. 
6503(a)). The OFPA also authorizes the NOSB to provide recommendations 
to the Secretary regarding the implementation of the National Organic 
Program (7 U.S.C. 6518(k)(1)).
    Alternatives: AMS has considered the implications of developing 
specific composition and labeling standards for organic pet food versus 
maintaining the status quo and not pursuing regulatory action. In 
addition, AMS is examining options regarding potential implementation 
periods. Finally, AMS considered the viability of composition 
requirements that vary from those recommended by the NOSB.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This proposed rule would facilitate 
the marketing of organic pet food by establishing clear, enforceable 
requirements for the composition and labeling of these products. This 
action will clarify how pet food may be produced, certified, and 
marketed as organic and the significance of organic claims on pet food. 
That standardization would provide certainty to pet food handlers and 
certifying agents for manufacturing and certifying pet foods, 
respectively, and bolster consumer confidence. AMS does not expect this 
action to result in significant costs for the $109 million organic pet 
food sector (2012 sales). This action may be an incentive for some 
handlers that are using organic claims on noncertified pet food 
products to pursue certification. AMS intends to solicit specific 
public comments to validate this expectation.
    Risks: AMS does not anticipate risks to be associated with this 
action. The NOSB and industry participated in the development of 
organic pet food standards and have strongly encouraged their adoption 
since 2008. This action may provoke questions about the Agency's intent 
with regard to a separate 2013 NOSB recommendation that would, in 
effect, prohibit the use of certain amino acids in organic pet food. 
AMS is evaluating the impact of that action; however, that recent 
recommendation is not expected to affect this rulemaking.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   04/00/15  .......................
Final Action........................   08/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Organizations.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, Tribal.
    Agency Contact: Melissa R. Bailey, Director, Standards Division, 
Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service, 14th & 
Independence Avenue SW., Room 2646-South Building, Washington, DC 
20250,

[[Page 76476]]

Phone: 202 720-3252, Fax: 202 205-7808, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 0581-AD20

USDA--AMS

3. National Organic Program, Organic Apiculture Practices Standard, 
NOP-12-0063

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 7 U.S.C. 6501.
    CFR Citation: 7 CFR 205.
    Legal Deadline: NPRM, Statutory, July 31, 2015.
    This action proposes to amend the USDA organic regulations to 
reflect an October 2010 recommendation submitted to the Secretary by 
the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) concerning the production 
of organic apicultural (i.e. beekeeping) products.
    Abstract: This action proposes to amend the USDA organic 
regulations to reflect an October 2010 recommendation submitted to the 
Secretary by the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) concerning the 
production of organic apicultural (i.e. beekeeping) products. Instead 
of continuing to allow certifying agents to certify apiculture to the 
organic livestock standards, this action would establish certification 
standards specifically for organic bees and bee products.
    Statement of Need: This action is necessary to establish uniform 
standards for certification of organic apiculture operations. 
Currently, certifying agents adapt the organic livestock standards to 
certify organic apiaries. This action is necessary to distinguish 
apiculture as a unique production system that merits separate organic 
standards and would address practices that are not covered in the 
general organic livestock requirements. This action is needed to ensure 
consistency across certifying agents in the inspection and 
certification of apiculture operations.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Bees are regarded as ``nonplant life'' 
under definitions in the current Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) 
and implementing regulations. Based on these definitions, apicultural 
products (bees and bee products) may currently be certified under the 
livestock provisions of the USDA organic regulations (7 CFR part 205).
    Alternatives: AMS is considering variations in the implementation 
period needed for any existing organic honey producers to comply with a 
new proposed forage zone requirement. The agency is also considering an 
alternative to align with Canadian and EU apiculture which require land 
within the forage zone to be ``organically managed,'' rather than 
certified as crop or wild crop.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Issuing standards for management of 
bees and bee products will benefit the industry by bringing greater 
consistency across certifiers. The introduction of formal standards 
will encourage new producers to enter the market and increase consumer 
confidence in apiculture products marketed under the USDA organic seal. 
In terms of costs, accredited certifying agents that currently certify 
apiculture operations as livestock would be required to request to 
extend the scope (current possible scopes of accreditation are crops, 
livestock, handling, and wild crop) of their accreditation to include 
apiculture. AMS is currently evaluating how the new rule would impact 
the costs to existing organic producers.
    Risks: AMS does not expect controversy as a result of this action. 
One provision that AMS anticipates public comment on during rulemaking 
pertains to a 1.8 mile forage zone radius around bee hives. Under the 
proposed standard, this forage zone would need to be comprised of 
certified organic cropland and/or certified wild crop harvest area. 
This provision may limit new producers in some parts of the world from 
entering the market. However, there is widespread recognition of the 
proposed requirements among certified operations, as many certifiers 
have started using the 2010 NOSB recommendation as guidance for 
certification of apiculture operations.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   07/00/15  .......................
Final Action........................   12/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, 
Organizations.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State, Tribal.
    Agency Contact: Melissa R. Bailey, Director, Standards Division, 
Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service, 14th & 
Independence Avenue SW., Room 2646-South Building, Washington, DC 
20250, Phone: 202 720-3252, Fax: 202 205-7808, Email: 
[email protected]
    RIN: 0581-AD31

USDA--AMS

4.  National Organic Program--Organic Aquaculture Standards

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
    Legal Authority: 7 U.S.C. 6501 to 6522
    CFR Citation: 7 CFR 205.
    Legal Deadline: NPRM, Statutory, February 28, 2015.
    This action will establish standards for organic farmed aquatic 
animals and their products to allow U.S. producers to compete in the 
organic seafood market. The Organic Foods Production Act authorizes the 
NOP to regulate organic claims on fish used for food. The USDA organic 
regulations do not include organic aquaculture standards. This action 
will open the market for U.S. organic aquaculture production and ensure 
that organic aquatic animal products sold in the U.S. meet a consistent 
standard.
    Abstract: This action proposes to establish standards for organic 
production and certification of farmed aquatic animals and their 
products in the USDA organic regulations. This action would also add 
aquatic animals as a scope of certification and accreditation under the 
National Organic Program. This action is necessary to establish 
standards for organic farmed aquatic animals and their products which 
would allow U.S. producers to compete in the organic seafood market. 
This action is also necessary to address multiple recommendations 
provided by USDA by the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB). In 
2007 through 2009, the NOSB made five recommendations to establish 
standards for the certification of organic farmed aquatic animals and 
their products. Finally, the U.S. currently has organic standards 
equivalence arrangements with Canada and the European Union (EU). Both 
Canada and the EU have recently established standards for organic 
aquaculture products. Because the U.S. does not have organic 
aquaculture standards, the U.S. is unable to include aquaculture in the 
scope of these arrangements. Establishing U.S. organic aquaculture may 
provide a basis for expanding those trade partnerships.
    Statement of Need: In 2005, The Secretary of Agriculture appointed 
an Aquaculture Working Group to advise the National Organic Standards 
Board (NOSB) on drafting a recommendation on the production of organic 
farmed aquatic animals. The NOSB considered the Aquaculture Working 
Group's draft recommendations and provided USDA with a series of five 
recommendations

[[Page 76477]]

from 2007-2009 for technical standards for the production and 
certification of organic farmed aquatic animals. Based on the NOSB 
recommendations, this action proposed to establish standards for 
organic production and certification of farmed aquatic animals and 
their products in the USDA organic regulations. This action would also 
add aquatic animals as an area of certification and accreditation under 
NOP.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) 
National Organic Program (NOP) is authorized by the Organic Foods 
Production Act of 1990 (OFPA) to establish national standards governing 
the marketing of organically produced agricultural products (7 U.S.C. 
6501-6522). The USDA organic regulations set the requirements for the 
organic certification of agricultural products (7 CFR Part 205). 
Participation under the NOP is voluntary. However, if organic producers 
or handlers choose to sell, represent, or label more than $5,000 in 
organic products, certification under the USDA organic regulations is 
required.
    Alternatives: An alternative to providing organic aquatic animal 
standards would be to not publish such standards and allow aquatic 
animal products to continue to be sold as organic based on private 
standards or other countries standards. Organic seafood producers have 
expressed a strong interest in having USDA organic standards for fish 
and other aquatic animal products. U.S. aquaculture operations are 
generally hesitant to invest in organic aquaculture without published 
standards for organic aquatic animals and their products. Selecting 
such an alternative could result in failure for this sector of organic 
agriculture to develop in the United States.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The cost for existing conventional 
aquaculture operations to convert and participate in this voluntary 
marketing program will generally be incurred in the cost of changing 
management practices, increased feed costs, and obtaining organic 
certification. There will also be some costs to certifying agents who 
would need to add aquaculture to their areas of accreditation under the 
USDA organic regulations. These costs include application fees and 
expanded audits to ensure certifying agents meet the accreditation 
requirements needed for providing certification services to aquaculture 
operations. Certification of organic operations under the NOP is 
provided as a user-fee service by AMS-accredited private sector 
certifying agents and State agencies. AMS provides accreditation 
services to private and State agency certifiers on a cost-recovery, 
user-fee basis. AMS will not require additional appropriated funds to 
implement this program. By providing organic standards for organic 
aquatic animal products, producers will be able to sell certified 
organic aquatic animal products for up to 75-100 percent above the 
price of conventionally produced seafood. In addition, organic aquatic 
animal products imported into the U.S. from other countries will be 
required to meet a consistent, enforced standard. Organic consumers 
will be assured that organic aquatic animal products comply with the 
USDA organic regulations. The new standards will also provide the basis 
for expanding our organic standards equivalency agreements to include 
this additional area of organic products.
    Risks: There are no known risks to providing these additional 
standards for certification of organic products.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   02/00/15  .......................
Final Action........................   07/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Organizations.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal.
    Federalism: This action may have federalism implications as defined 
in EO 13132.
    Agency Contact: Melissa R. Bailey, Director, Standards Division, 
Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service, 14th & 
Independence Avenue SW., Room 2646-South Building, Washington, DC 
20250, Phone: 202 720-3252, Fax: 202 205-7808, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 0581-AD34

USDA--AMS

5.  Exemption of Producers and Handlers of Organic Products 
From Assessment Under a Commodity Promotion Law

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
    Legal Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7401; Pub. L. 113-79.
    CFR Citation: 7 CFR 900.
    Legal Deadline: NPRM, Statutory, November 30, 2014.
    This action would amend the general regulations that apply to the 
29 marketing orders for fruits, vegetables, and specialty crops and the 
orders and/or rules and regulations of the 22 research and promotion 
programs under AMS oversight.
    Abstract: As a result of this action, certified ``organic'' 
commodities (those comprising at least 95 percent organic components) 
would no longer be subject to assessment for promotion activities 
conducted under marketing order or research and promotion programs. In 
addition, certified organic commodities that are produced, handled, 
marketed, or imported by operations that also deal in conventional 
products would be eligible for exemptions. Currently, only products 
that are certified ``100 percent organic'' and that are produced and 
handled by entities that deal exclusively with organic products are 
exempt from assessments. This action is expected to reduce the 
assessment obligation for organic industry operators by as much as 
$13.7 million. Conversely, the impact on the marketing programs will be 
a loss of approximately $13.7 million in funds for generic commodity 
promotions.
    Statement of Need: Section 501 of the Federal Agriculture 
Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 7401) (FAIR Act), as 
amended, currently exempts entities that produce and market solely 100 
percent organic products from payment of assessments under commodity 
promotion laws. Section 10004 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (Pub. L. 
113-79) (Farm Bill) further amended the FAIR Act to provide exemptions 
for all certified organic products, including those produced and 
handled by operators that also deal in conventional products. This 
action is needed to bring existing Federal regulations governing 
commodity promotion activities into compliance with the FAIR Act, as 
amended by the Farm Bill.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Section 10004 of the Agricultural Act of 
2014 (Pub. L. 113-79) (Farm Bill) further amended the FAIR Act to 
provide exemptions for all certified organic products, including those 
produced and handled by operators that also deal in conventional 
products. This action is needed to bring existing Federal regulations 
governing commodity promotion activities into compliance with the FAIR 
Act, as amended by the Farm Bill.
    Alternatives: Currently, only products that are certified ``100 
percent organic'' and that are produced and handled by entities that 
deal exclusively with organic products are exempt from assessments. So 
the alternative, would be to continue in this manner.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This action is expected to reduce 
the assessment obligation for organic

[[Page 76478]]

industry operators by as much as $13.7 million.
    Risks: Conversely, the impact on the marketing programs will be a 
loss of approximately $13.7 million in funds for generic commodity 
promotions.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   11/00/14  .......................
Final Action........................   07/00/15  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Governmental Jurisdictions.
    Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
    Agency Contact: Michael V. Durando, Chief, Marketing Order 
Administration Branch, Department of Agriculture, Agricultural 
Marketing Service, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, 
DC 20250-0237, Phone: 202 720-2491, Fax: 202 720-8938.
    RIN: 0581-AD37

USDA--Farm Service Agency (FSA)

Final Rule Stage

6. Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7333.
    CFR Citation: 7 CFR 1437.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) is amending 
regulations for the Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program (NAP). 
NAP is administered for CCC by the Farm Service Agency (FSA). NAP 
provides producers of crops that are not eligible for crop insurance 
with a basic level of risk management coverage. NAP provides financial 
assistance to producers of non-insurable crops when low yield, loss of 
inventory, or prevented plantings occur due to a natural disaster. The 
rule includes changes to NAP required by the 2014 Farm Bill. The 
changes include revised NAP eligibility requirements for coverage on 
tilled native sod, and added coverage for sweet sorghum and biomass 
sorghum. Beginning and socially disadvantaged farmers will be eligible 
for service fee waivers. New ``buy up'' provisions will allow producers 
to buy additional NAP coverage for an additional premium. While the 
rule does not have a statutory deadline, the 2014 Farm Bill requires 
changes to the NAP program beginning with the 2015 coverage year, which 
begins as early as May 2014. In addition to the 2014 Farm Bill changes, 
the rule also makes the following changes:
     Adds NAP coverage for organic crops.
     Expands NAP coverage for mollusks, a common aquaculture 
crop. Specifically, it removes the current requirement that eligible 
mollusk inventory be seeded and raised in containers or similar devices 
designed to protect the aquaculture species.
    Statement of Need: This rule is needed to update the FSA 
regulations to implement the 2014 Farm Bill changes.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The Agricultural Act of 2014 (Pub. L. 113-
79).
    Alternatives: There are no alternatives to this rule, the changes 
are legislatively mandated.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: A cost benefit analysis was prepared 
for this rule and will be made available when the rule is published.
    Risks: None.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule..................   12/00/14  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    URL For Public Comments: regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Deirdre Holder, Director, Regulatory Review Group, 
Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency, 1400 Independence 
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-0572, Phone: 202 205-5851, Fax: 202 
720-5233, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 0560-AI20

USDA--FSA

7.  Conservation Compliance

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 3811 and 3812; 16 
U.S.C. 3821 and 3822.
    CFR Citation: 7 CFR 12.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The interim rule implements mandatory changes to the 
conservation compliance regulations in 7 CFR part 12 as required by the 
Agricultural Act of 2014 (the 2014 Farm Bill). The current regulations 
require participants in most USDA programs to comply with conservation 
compliance measures on any land that is highly erodible or that is 
considered a wetland. The 2014 Farm Bill expands current conservation 
compliance requirements to apply to producers who obtain subsidized 
Federal crop insurance under the Federal Crop Insurance Act. It also 
slightly modifies the existing wetlands ``Mitigation Banking'' program 
to remove the requirement that USDA hold easements in the mitigation 
program.
    Statement of Need: This rule is needed to update the FSA 
regulations to implement the 2014 Farm Bill changes.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The Agricultural Act of 2014 (Pub. L. 113-
79).
    Alternatives: There are no alternatives to this rule; the changes 
are legislatively mandated.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: A cost benefit analysis was prepared 
for this rule and will be made available when the rule is published.
    Risks: None.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule..................   02/00/15  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    URL For Public Comments: regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Deirdre Holder, Director, Regulatory Review Group, 
Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency, 1400 Independence 
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-0572, Phone: 202 205-5851, Fax: 202 
720-5233, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 0560-AI26

USDA--FSA

8.  Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 16 U.S.C. 3831 to 3835.
    CFR Citation: 7 CFR 1410.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The rule implements changes to CRP required by the 2014 
Farm Bill. CRP assists producers in conserving and improving soil, 
water, and wildlife resources by converting highly erodible and other 
environmentally sensitive acreage to a long-term vegetative cover. The 
core scope of CRP will not change. The changes required by the 2014 
Farm Bill include providing an ``early out'' for contract cancellations 
in 2015, removing the requirement for a payment reduction for emergency 
haying and grazing, and allowing non-cropland (grasslands) in CRP. CRP 
is a Commodity Credit

[[Page 76479]]

Corporation (CCC) program administered by the Farm Service Agency 
(FSA).
    Statement of Need: This rule is needed to update the FSA 
regulations to implement the 2014 Farm Bill changes.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The Agricultural Act of 2014 (Pub. L. 113-
79).
    Alternatives: There are no alternatives to the rule; the changes 
are legislatively mandated.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: A cost-benefit analysis will be 
prepared for the rule and will be made available when the rule is 
published.
    Risks: None.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule..................   04/00/15  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    URL For Public Comments: regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Deirdre Holder, Director, Regulatory Review Group, 
Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency, 1400 Independence 
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-0572, Phone: 202 205-5851, Fax: 202 
720-5233, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 0560-AI30

USDA--Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)

Proposed Rule Stage

9. Brucellosis and Bovine Tuberculosis; Update of General Provisions

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1622; 7 U.S.C. 8301 to 8317; 15 U.S.C. 
1828; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 31 U.S.C. 9701.
    CFR Citation: 9 CFR 50 and 51; 9 CFR 71; 9 CFR 76 to 78; 9 CFR 86; 
9 CFR 93; 9 CFR 161.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This rulemaking would consolidate the regulations 
governing bovine tuberculosis (TB), currently found in 9 CFR part 77, 
and those governing brucellosis, currently found in 9 CFR part 78. As 
part of this consolidation, we are proposing to transition the TB and 
brucellosis programs away from a State status system based on disease 
prevalence. Instead, States and tribes would implement an animal health 
plan that identifies sources of the diseases within the State or tribe 
and specifies mitigations to address the risk posed by these sources. 
The consolidated regulations would also set forth standards for 
surveillance, epidemiological investigations, and affected herd 
management that must be incorporated into each animal health plan, with 
certain limited exceptions; conditions for the interstate movement of 
cattle, bison, and captive cervids; and conditions for APHIS approval 
of tests for bovine TB or brucellosis. Finally, the rulemaking would 
revise the import requirements for cattle and bison to make these 
requirements clearer and ensure that they more effectively mitigate the 
risk of introduction of the diseases into the United States.
    Statement of Need: The current regulations were issued during a 
time when the prevalence rates for the disease in domestic, cattle, 
bison, and captive cervids were much higher than they are today. As a 
result, the regulations specify measures that are necessary to prevent 
these diseases from spreading through the interstate movement of 
infected animals. The regulations are effective in this regard, but do 
not address reservoirs of tuberculosis and brucellosis that exist in 
certain States. Moreover, the regulations presuppose one method of 
dealing with infected herds--whole-herd depopulation--and do not take 
into consideration the development of other methods, such as test-and-
remove protocols, that are equally effective but less costly for APHIS 
and producers. Finally, our current regulations governing the 
importation of cattle and bison do not always address the risk that 
such animals may pose of spreading brucellosis or bovine tuberculosis, 
and need to be updated to allow APHIS to take appropriate measures when 
prevalence rates for bovine tuberculosis or brucellosis increase or 
decrease in foreign regions.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Under the Animal Health Protection Act (7 
U.S.C. 8301 et seq.), the Secretary of Agriculture has the authority to 
issue orders and promulgate regulations to prevent the introduction 
into the United States and the dissemination within the United States 
of any pest or disease of livestock.
    Alternatives: One alternative would be to leave the current 
regulations unchanged. As noted above, the current regulations are 
effective in preventing the interstate movement of infected animals, 
but do not address reservoirs of brucellosis and tuberculosis that 
exist in certain States and thus do not address the root cause of such 
infection. They also are written in a prescriptive manner which does 
not allow States to take into consideration scientific developments and 
other emerging information in determining how best to deal with 
infected animals and herds. Finally, APHIS' current regulations 
governing the importation of cattle and bison do not always address the 
risk that such animals may pose of spreading bovine tuberculosis or 
brucellosis.
    A second alternative considered was to limit the scope of the 
regulatory changes to the Agency's domestic tuberculosis and 
brucellosis program. However, in recent years, when tuberculosis-
affected animals have been discovered at slaughtering facilities within 
the United States, these animals have usually been of foreign origin. 
This has led us to reexamine the current import regulations. As a 
result of this reevaluation, we have determined that the import 
regulations need to be revised to assure that they more effectively 
mitigate the risk of introduction of these diseases into the United 
States.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Certain additional costs may be 
incurred by producers as a result of this rule. For example, the 
proposed rule would impose new interstate movement restrictions on 
rodeo, event, and exhibited cattle and bison and impose additional 
costs for producers of such cattle and bison. These new testing 
requirements could cost, in aggregate, between $651,000 and $1 million. 
Also, the proposed additional restrictions for the movement of captive 
cervids could result in additional costs for producers. Adhering to 
these new requirements may have a total cost to the captive cervid 
industry of between about $157,000 and $485,000 annually. 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

[[Page 76480]]

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.
    Risks: If we do not issue this proposed rule, reservoirs of 
brucellosis and tuberculosis that exist in certain States will not be 
adequately evaluated and addressed. Additionally, our current 
regulations regarding the importation of cattle and bison do not always 
address the risk that such animals may pose of spreading brucellosis or 
bovine tuberculosis.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   01/00/15  .......................
NPRM Comment Period End.............   03/00/15  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions.
    Government Levels Affected: Local, State, Tribal.
    Additional Information: Additional information about APHIS and its 
programs is available on the Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov.
    Agency Contact: Langston Hull, National Center for Import and 
Export, VS, Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health 
Inspection Service, 4700 River Road, Unit 39, Riverdale, MD 20737, 
Phone: 301 851-3300.
    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, Phone: 970 494-7378.
    RIN: 0579-AD65

USDA--APHIS

10. Establishing a Performance Standard for Authorizing the Importation 
and Interstate Movement of Fruits and Vegetables

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 7 U.S.C. 450; 7 U.S.C. 7701 to 7772; 7 U.S.C. 7781 
to 7786; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a.
    CFR Citation: 7 CFR 318 and 319.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This rulemaking would amend our regulations governing the 
importations of fruits and vegetables by broadening our existing 
performance standard to provide for consideration of all new fruits and 
vegetables for importation into the United States using a notice-based 
process. Rather than authorizing new imports through proposed and final 
rules and specifying import conditions in the regulations, the notice-
based process uses Federal Register notices to make risk analyses 
available to the public for review and comment, with authorized 
commodities and their conditions of entry subsequently being listed on 
the Internet. It would also remove the region- or commodity-specific 
phytosanitary requirements currently found in these regulations. 
Likewise, we are proposing an equivalent revision of the performance 
standard in our regulations governing the interstate movements of 
fruits and vegetables from Hawaii and the U.S. territories (Guam, 
Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands) and 
the removal of commodity-specific phytosanitary requirements from those 
regulations. This proposal would allow for the consideration of 
requests to authorize the importation or interstate movement of new 
fruits and vegetables in a manner that enables a more flexible and 
responsive regulatory approach to evolving pest situations in both the 
United States and exporting countries. It would not, however, alter the 
science-based process in which the risk associated with importation or 
interstate movement of a given fruit or vegetable is evaluated or the 
manner in which risks associated with the importation or interstate 
movement of a fruit or vegetable are mitigated.
    Statement of Need: The revised regulations are needed to streamline 
the administrative process involved in consideration of fruits and 
vegetables currently not authorized for interstate movement or 
importation, while continuing to provide opportunity for public comment 
and engagement on the science and risk-based analysis associated with 
such imports and interstate movements. The proposal would also enable 
us to adapt our import requirements more quickly in the event of any 
changes to a country's pest or disease status or as a result of new 
scientific information or treatment options.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Under section 7701 of the Plant Protection 
Act (PPA), given that the smooth movement of enterable plants and plant 
products into, out of, or within the United States is vital to the U.S. 
economy, it is the responsibility of the Secretary of Agriculture to 
facilitate exports, imports, and interstate commerce in agricultural 
products and other commodities that pose a risk of harboring plant 
pests or noxious weeds in ways that will reduce, to the extent 
practicable, as determined by the Secretary, the risk of dissemination 
of plant pests or noxious weeds. Decisions regarding exports, imports, 
and interstate commerce are required to be based on sound science.
    Alternatives: We considered taking no action at this time and 
leaving the regulations as they are currently written. We decided 
against this alternative because leaving the regulations unchanged 
would not address the needs identified immediately above.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Consumers and businesses would 
benefit from the more timely access to fruits and vegetables for which 
entry or movement would currently require rulemaking. This benefit 
would be reduced to the extent that certain businesses would face 
increased competition for the subject fruits and vegetables sooner due 
to their more timely approval. APHIS has not identified other costs 
that may be incurred because of the proposed rule.
    Risks: The performance-based process more closely links APHIS' 
decision to authorize importation of a fruit or vegetable with the pest 
risk assessment and brings us in line with other countries that 
authorize importation of a fruit or vegetable with the pest risk 
assessment. Some countries have viewed the rulemakings for fruits and 
vegetables that follow completion of the pest risk assessment as a non-
technical trade barrier and may have slowed the approval of U.S. 
exports (including, but not limited to, fruits and vegetables) into 
their markets, or placed additional restrictions on existing exports 
from the United States.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   09/09/14  79 FR 53346
NPRM Comment Period End.............   11/10/14  .......................

[[Page 76481]]

 
Final Rule..........................   04/00/15  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal.
    International Impacts: This regulatory action will be likely to 
have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise be of 
international interest.
    Additional Information: Additional information about APHIS and its 
programs is available on the Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov.
    Agency Contact: Matthew Rhoads, Associate Executive Director, Plant 
Health Programs, PPQ, Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant 
Health Inspection Service, 4700 River Road, Unit 131, Riverdale, MD 
20737-1231, Phone: 301 851-2133.
    RIN: 0579-AD71

USDA--APHIS

Final Rule Stage

11. Viruses, Serums, Toxins, and Analogous Products; Single Label Claim 
for Veterinary Biological Products

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 21 U.S.C. 151 to 159
    CFR Citation: 9 CFR 112.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This rulemaking will amend the Virus-Serum-Toxin Act 
regulations to replace the current label format, which reflects any of 
four different levels of effectiveness, with a single, uniform label 
format. It will also require biologics licensees to provide a 
standardized summary, with confidential business information removed, 
of the efficacy and safety data submitted to the Animal and Plant 
Health Inspection Service in support of the issuance of a full product 
license or conditional license. A single label format along with 
publicly available safety and efficacy data will help biologics 
producers to more clearly communicate product performance to their 
customers.
    Statement of Need: The intent of this proposal is to address a 
request made by our stakeholders and to more clearly communicate 
product performance information to the user by requiring a uniform 
label format and a summary of efficacy and safety data (with 
confidential business information removed).
    Summary of Legal Basis: APHIS administers and enforces the Virus-
Serum-Toxin Act, as amended (21 U.S.C. 151 to 159). The regulations 
issued pursuant to the Act are intended to ensure that veterinary 
biological products are pure, safe, potent, and efficacious when used 
according to label instructions.
    Alternatives: We could retain the current APHIS labeling guidance, 
but maintaining the status quo would not address the concern reported 
by stakeholders concerning the interpretation of product performance.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: APHIS anticipates that the only 
costs associated with the proposed labeling format would be one-time 
costs incurred by licensees and permittees in having labels for 
existing licensed products updated in accordance with the proposed new 
format. A simpler, uniform label format 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.
    Risks: APHIS has not identified any risks associated with this 
proposed action.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice..............................   05/24/11  76 FR 30093
Comment Period End..................   07/25/11  .......................
NPRM................................   04/21/14  79 FR 22048
NPRM Comment Period End.............   06/20/14  .......................
Final Action........................   05/00/15  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Additional Information: Additional information about APHIS and its 
programs is available on the Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov.
    Agency Contact: Donna L Malloy, Operational Support Section, Center 
for Veterinary Biologics, Policy, Evaluation, and Licensing, VS, 
Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 
4700 River Road, Unit 148, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231, Phone: 301 851-
3426.
    RIN: 0579-AD64

USDA--APHIS

12. User Fees for Agricultural Quarantine and Inspection Services

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Legal Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7701 to 7772; 7 U.S.C. 7781 to 7786; 7 
U.S.C. 8301 to 8317; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 49 U.S.C. 80503
    CFR Citation: 7 CFR 354.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This rulemaking will amend the user fee regulations by 
adding new fee categories and adjusting current fees charged for 
certain agricultural quarantine and inspection services that are 
provided in connection with certain commercial vessels, commercial 
trucks, commercial railroad cars, commercial aircraft, and 
international passengers arriving at ports in the customs territory of 
the United States. It will also adjust the fee caps associated with 
commercial vessels, commercial trucks, and commercial railcars. Based 
on the conclusions of a third party assessment of the user fee program 
and on other considerations, we have determined that revised user fee 
categories and revised user fees are necessary to recover the costs of 
the current level of activity, to account for actual and projected 
increases in the cost of doing business, and to more accurately align 
fees with the costs associated with each fee service.
    Statement of Need: Regarding certain agricultural quarantine and 
inspection services that are provided in connection with certain 
commercial vessels, commercial trucks, commercial railroad cars, 
commercial aircraft, and international passengers arriving at ports in 
the customs territory of the United States, we have determined that 
revised user fee categories and revised user fees are necessary to 
recover the costs of the current level of activity, to account for 
actual and projected increases in the cost of doing business, and to 
more accurately align fees with the costs associated with each fee 
service.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Section 2509(a) of the Food, Agriculture, 
Conservation, and Trade (FACT) Act of 1990 (21 U.S.C. 136a) authorizes 
APHIS to collect user fees for certain agricultural quarantine and 
inspection (AQI) services. The FACT Act was amended on April 4, 1996, 
and May 13, 2002. The FACT Act, as amended, authorizes APHIS to collect 
user fees for AQI services provided in connection with the arrival, at 
a port in the customs territory of the United States, of commercial 
vessels, commercial trucks, commercial railroad cars, commercial 
aircraft, and international passengers. According to the FACT Act, as 
amended, these user fees should recover the costs of:

[[Page 76482]]

     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.
    Alternatives: APHIS focused on three alternatives composed of 
different combinations of paying classes. The first or preferred 
alternative is the proposed rule; the second alternative differed from 
the first by not including user fees for recipients of AQI treatment 
services; and under the third alternative, recipients of commodity 
import permits and pest import permits would pay user fees, in addition 
to the classes that would pay fees under the proposed rule. The latter 
two alternatives were rejected.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The proposed changes in user fees 
would ensure that the program can continue to protect America's 
agricultural industries and natural resource base against invasive 
species and diseases while more closely aligning, by class, the cost of 
AQI services provided and user fee revenue received.
    Risks: AQI services benefit U.S. agricultural and natural resources 
by protecting them from the inadvertent introduction of foreign pests 
and diseases that may enter the country and the threat of intentional 
introduction of pests or pathogens as a means of agroterrorism. In the 
extreme, failure to maintain the nation's biosecurity could disrupt 
American agricultural production, erode confidence in the U.S. food 
supply, and destabilize the U.S. economy.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   04/25/14  79 FR 22895
NPRM Comment Period End.............   06/24/14  .......................
NPRM Comment Period Reopened........   07/01/14  79 FR 37231
NPRM Comment Period Reopened End....   07/24/14  .......................
Final Rule..........................   12/00/14  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal.
    International Impacts: This regulatory action will be likely to 
have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise be of 
international interest.
    Additional Information: Additional information about APHIS and its 
programs is available on the Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov.
    Agency Contact: William E Thomas, Senior Agriculturist, Office of 
the Deputy Administrator, PPQ, Department of Agriculture, Animal and 
Plant Health Inspection Service, 4700 River Road, Unit 130, Riverdale, 
MD 20737, Phone: 301 851-2306.
    Kris Caraher, Branch Chief, Review and Analysis, Financial 
Management Division, MRPBS, Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant 
Health Inspection Service, 4700 River Road, Unit 55, Riverdale, MD 
20737, Phone: 301 851-2834.
    RIN: 0579-AD77

USDA--FOOD AND NUTRITION SERVICE (FNS)

Proposed Rule Stage

13. Emergency Supplemental Nutrition Assistance for Victims of 
Disasters Procedures

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: Food and Nutrition Act of 2008
    CFR Citation: 7 CFR 280.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (FNA) provides 
authority for the Secretary of Agriculture to establish temporary 
emergency standards of eligibility for the duration of an emergency for 
households who are victims of a disaster that disrupts commercial 
channels of food distribution. FNS plans to publish a Proposed Rule for 
D-SNAP that will codify longstanding policies disseminated through 
previous guidance.
    Statement of Need: A 2007 Office of Inspector General (OIG) report 
(Audit 27099-49-Te: Disaster Food Stamp Program for Hurricanes Katrina 
and Rita--Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas--Final Report) found some 
deficits in the design and review of State D-SNAP plans of operation 
and inadequate controls to prevent recipient fraud and duplicate 
participation. OIG attributed the deficits, in part, to a lack of 
detailed procedures in regulations and, in response, recommended that 
FNS amend D-SNAP policy on those specific topics and promulgate D-SNAP 
regulations.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (FNA) 
provides authority for the Secretary of Agriculture to establish 
temporary emergency standards of eligibility for the duration of an 
emergency for households who are victims of a disaster which disrupts 
commercial channels of food distribution.
    Alternatives: None identified; this Proposed Rule primarily will 
codify long-standing D-SNAP procedures.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: As the Proposed Rule primarily will 
codify longstanding D-SNAP procedures, FNS anticipates that this rule 
will not result in any significant costs.
    Risks: No risks are anticipated as the proposed rule will codify 
longstanding procedures.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   03/00/15  .......................
NPRM Comment Period End.............   05/00/15  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Government Levels Affected: Local, State.
    Agency Contact: Charles H. Watford, Regulatory Review Specialist, 
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, 3101 Park Center 
Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302, Phone: 703 605-0800, Email: 
[email protected].
    Lynnette M. Thomas, Chief, Planning and Regulatory Affairs Branch, 
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, 3101 Park Center 
Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302, Phone: 703 605-4782, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 0584-AE00

USDA--FNS

14. Child Nutrition Program Integrity

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: Pub. L. 111-296.
    CFR Citation: 7 CFR 210; 7 CFR 215; 7 CFR 220; 7 CFR 225; 7 CFR 
226; 7 CFR 235.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This rule proposes to codify three provisions of the 
Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 (the Act). Section 303 of the Act 
requires the Secretary to establish criteria for imposing fines against 
schools, school food authorities, or State agencies that fail to 
correct severe mismanagement of the program,

[[Page 76483]]

fail to correct repeat violations of program requirements, or disregard 
a program requirement of which they had been informed. Section 322 of 
the Act requires the Secretary to establish procedures for the 
termination and disqualification of organizations participating in the 
Summer Food Service Program (SFSP). Section 362 of the Act requires 
that any school, institution, service institution, facility, or 
individual that has been terminated from any program authorized under 
the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act or the Child Nutrition 
Act of 1966, and appears on either the SFSP or the Child and Adult Care 
Food Program's (CACFP's) disqualified list, may not be approved to 
participate in or administer any other programs authorized under those 
two Acts.
    Statement of Need: There are currently no regulations imposing 
fines on schools, school food authorities, or State agencies for 
program violations and mismanagement. This rule will: (1) Establish 
criteria for imposing fines against schools, school food authorities, 
or State agencies that fail to correct severe mismanagement of the 
program or repeated violations of program requirements; (2) establish 
procedures for the termination and disqualification of organizations 
participating in the Summer Food Service Program (SFSP); and (3) 
require that any school, institutions, or individual that has been 
terminated from any Federal Child Nutrition Program and appears on 
either the SFSP or the Child and Adult Care Food Program's (CACFP's) 
disqualified list may not be approved to participate in or administer 
any other Child Nutrition Program.
    Summary of Legal Basis: This rule codifies Sections 303, 322, and 
362 of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-296).
    Alternatives: None identified; this rule implements statutory 
requirements.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This rule is expected to help 
promote program integrity in all of the child nutrition programs. FNS 
anticipates that these provisions will have no significant costs and no 
major increase in regulatory burden to States.
    Risks: None identified.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   01/00/15  .......................
NPRM Comment Period End.............   03/00/15  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Government Levels Affected: Local, State.
    Federalism: This action may have federalism implications as defined 
in EO 13132.
    Agency Contact: James F Herbert, Regulatory Review Specialist, 
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, 3101 Park Center 
Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302, Phone: 703 305-2572, Email: 
[email protected].
    Lynnette M Thomas, Chief, Planning and Regulatory Affairs Branch, 
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, 3101 Park Center 
Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302, Phone: 703 605-4782, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 0584-AE08

USDA--FNS

15. Child and Adult Care Food Program: Meal Pattern Revisions Related 
to the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: Pub. L. 111-296
    CFR Citation: 7 CFR 210; 7 CFR 215; 7 CFR 220; 7 CFR 226.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This proposal would implement section 221 of the Healthy, 
Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-296; the Act) which requires 
USDA to review and update, no less frequently than once every 10 years, 
requirements for meals served under the Child and Adult Care Food 
Program (CACFP) to ensure that meals are consistent with the most 
recent Dietary Guidelines for Americans and relevant nutrition science.
    Statement of Need: Section 221 of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act 
of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-296, the Act) requires USDA to review and update, 
no less frequently than once every 10 years, requirements for meals 
served under the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) to ensure 
that meals are consistent with the most recent Dietary Guidelines for 
Americans and relevant nutrition science. The Act also clarifies the 
purpose of the program, restricts the use of food as a punishment or 
reward, outlines requirements for milk and milk substitution, and 
introduces requirements for the availability of water. This rule will 
establish the criteria and procedures for implementing these provisions 
of the Act.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Section 221 of the Healthy, Hunger-Free 
Kids Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-296).
    Alternatives: There are several instances throughout this rule and 
its associated Regulatory Impact Analysis that offer alternatives for 
review and comment to the various criteria and procedures discussed in 
this proposed rule.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This rule is expected to improve the 
nutritional quality of meals served and the overall health of children 
participating in the CACFP. Most CACFP meals are served to children 
from low-income households. At this time, we cannot estimate the 
financial impact the proposed rule will have on State agencies, 
sponsoring organizations, and child care institutions, but we expect 
that there will be a small cost increase associated with the 
implementation of improved meal pattern requirements. A regulatory 
impact analysis will be conducted to determine these cost implications.
    Risks: None identified.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   11/00/14  .......................
NPRM Comment Period End.............   01/00/15  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Governmental Jurisdictions.
    Government Levels Affected: Local, State.
    Agency Contact: James F. Herbert, Regulatory Review Specialist, 
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, 3101 Park Center 
Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302, Phone: 703 305-2572, Email: 
[email protected].
    Lynnette M. Thomas, Chief, Planning and Regulatory Affairs Branch, 
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, 3101 Park Center 
Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302, Phone: 703 605-4782, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 0584-AE18

USDA--FNS

16. Enhancing Retailer Eligibility Standards In SNAP

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: Sec 3, U.S.C. 2012; sec 9, U.S.C. 2018
    CFR Citation: 7 CFR 271.2; 7 CFR 278.1.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This rulemaking will address the criteria used to 
authorize redemption of SNAP benefits (especially by restaurant-type 
operations).
    Statement of Need: The 2014 Farm Bill amended the Food and 
Nutrition

[[Page 76484]]

Act of 2008 to increase the requirement that certain SNAP authorized 
retail food stores have available on a continual basis at least three 
varieties of items in each of four staple food categories to a 
mandatory minimum of seven. The 2014 Farm Bill also amended the Act to 
increase for certain SNAP authorized retail food stores the minimum 
number of categories in which perishable foods are required from two to 
three. This rule would codify these mandatory requirements. Further, 
using existing authority in the Act and feedback from an expansive 
Request for Information, the rulemaking also proposes changes to 
address depth of stock, redefine staple and accessory foods, and amend 
the definition of retail food store to clarify when a retailer is a 
restaurant rather than a retail food store.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Section 3(k) of the Food and Nutrition Act 
of 2008 (the Act) generally (with limited exception) (1) requires that 
food purchased with SNAP benefits be meant for home consumption and (2) 
forbids the purchase of hot foods with SNAP benefits. The intent of 
those statutory requirements can be circumvented by selling cold foods, 
which may be purchased with SNAP benefits, and offering onsite heating 
or cooking of those same foods, either for free or at an additional 
cost. In addition, Section 9 of the Act provides for approval of retail 
food stores and wholesale food concerns based on their ability to 
effectuate the purposes of the Program.
    Alternatives: Because this proposed rule is under development, 
alternatives are not yet articulated.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The proposed changes will allow FNS 
to improve access to healthy food choices for SNAP participants and to 
ensure that participating retailers effectuate the purposes of the 
Program. FNS anticipates that these provisions will have no significant 
costs to States.
    Risks: None identified.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   08/00/15  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Government Levels Affected: State.
    Agency Contact: Charles H. Watford, Regulatory Review Specialist, 
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, 3101 Park Center 
Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302, Phone: 703 605-0800, Email: 
[email protected].
    Lynnette M. Thomas, Chief, Planning and Regulatory Affairs Branch, 
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, 3101 Park Center 
Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302, Phone: 703 605-4782, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 0584-AE27

USDA--FNS

Final Rule Stage

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

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Legal Authority: Pub. L. 110-246
    CFR Citation: 7 CFR 276.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This final rule would implement provisions under section 
4132 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, giving the 
Department of Agriculture's Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) the 
authority to assess a civil penalty and to disqualify a retail or 
wholesale food store authorized to participate in SNAP.
    Statement of Need: This final rule implements the provisions of the 
2008 Farm Bill that provide the U.S. Department of Agriculture greater 
flexibility in assessing sanctions against retail food stores and 
wholesale food concerns found in violation of the Supplemental 
Nutrition Assistance Program rules. This rule updates SNAP retailer 
sanction regulations to include authority granted in the 2008 Farm Bill 
to allow the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) to impose a civil penalty 
in addition to disqualification, raise the allowable penalties per 
violation and provide greater flexibility to the Department for minor 
violations.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Section 4132, Food, Conservation, and 
Energy Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-246).
    Alternatives: For the new trafficking civil penalty, FNS considered 
alternatives for assessing a civil penalty in addition to permanent 
disqualification for stores sanctioned for trafficking.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The changes to the retailer sanction 
regulations will improve program integrity by increasing the deterrent 
effect of sanctions on the small number of authorized firms that commit 
program violations.
    Risks: The risk that retail or wholesale food stores will violate 
SNAP rules, or continue to violate SNAP rules, is expected to be 
reduced by refining program sanctions for participating retailers and 
wholesalers.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   08/14/12  77 FR 48461
NPRM Comment Period End.............   10/15/12  .......................
Final Action........................   01/00/15  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Government Levels Affected: State.
    Additional Information: Note: This RIN replaces the previously 
issued RIN 0584-AD78.
    Agency Contact: Charles H. Watford, Regulatory Review Specialist, 
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, 3101 Park Center 
Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302, Phone: 703 605-0800, Email: 
[email protected].
    Lynnette M. Thomas, Chief, Planning and Regulatory Affairs Branch, 
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, 3101 Park Center 
Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302, Phone: 703 605-4782, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 0584-AD88

USDA--FNS

18. Child Nutrition Programs: Local School Wellness Policy 
Implementation Under the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: Pub. L. 111-296
    CFR Citation: 7 CFR 210; 7 CFR 220.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This final rule codifies a provision of the Healthy, 
Hunger-Free Kids Act (Pub. L. 111-296; the Act) under 7 CFR parts 210 
and 220. Section 204 of the Act requires each local educational agency 
(LEA) to establish, for all schools under its jurisdiction, a local 
school wellness policy. The Act requires that the wellness policy 
include goals for nutrition, nutrition education, physical activity, 
and other school-based activities that promote student wellness. In 
addition, the Act requires that local educational agencies ensure 
stakeholder participation in development of their local school wellness 
policies, and periodically assess compliance with the policies, and 
disclose information about the policies to the public.
    Statement of Need: Schools play a critical role in promoting 
student health, preventing childhood obesity, and combating problems 
associated with poor nutrition and physical inactivity. To formalize 
and encourage this role, section 204 of the Child Nutrition and WIC 
Reauthorization Act of 2004 (Pub. L. 108-265), required each

[[Page 76485]]

local educational agency (LEA) participating in the National School 
Lunch Program (NSLP) and/or the School Breakfast Program (SBP) to 
establish a local school wellness policy by School Year 2006. 
Subsequently, section 204 of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 
(HHFKA, Pub. L. 111-296, December 13, 2010) added a new section 9A to 
the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (NSLA) (42 U.S.C. 
1758b) which expands the scope of wellness policies; brings additional 
stakeholders into the development, implementation, and review of local 
school wellness policies; and requires public updates on the content 
and implementation of the wellness policies.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Section 204 of the Child Nutrition and WIC 
Reauthorization Act of 2004 (Pub. L. 108-265); Section 204 of the 
Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 (HHFKA, Pub. L. 111-296).
    Alternatives: Alternatives to some of the policy provisions were 
outlined in the proposed rule and will be discussed in the final rule.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The rule strengthens local school 
wellness policy requirements. As described in the Regulatory Impact 
Analysis, we expect this to improve health outcomes for students, 
though we are not able to quantify these benefits. Minimal 
administrative expenses are estimated in relation to additional 
reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
    Risks: None identified.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   02/26/14  79 FR 10693
NPRM Comment Period End.............   04/28/14  .......................
Final Action........................   04/00/15  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Governmental Jurisdictions.
    Government Levels Affected: Local, State.
    Agency Contact: James F. Herbert, Regulatory Review Specialist, 
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, 3101 Park Center 
Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302, Phone: 703 305-2572, Email: 
[email protected].
    Lynnette M. Thomas, Chief, Planning and Regulatory Affairs Branch, 
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, 3101 Park Center 
Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302, Phone: 703 605-4782, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 0584-AE25

USDA--FNS

19.  SNAP: Employment and Training (E&T) Performance 
Measurement, Monitoring and Reporting Requirements

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: Pub. L. 113-79
    CFR Citation: 7 CFR 273.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This rule will implement the E&T provisions of section 
4022 of The Agricultural Act of 2014. The provisions of the 
Agricultural Act of 2014 require reporting measures for States' E&T 
programs.
    Statement of Need: Section 4022 of Agricultural Act of 2014 states 
that ``Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this 
Act, the Secretary shall issue interim final regulations implementing 
the amendments made by subsection (a)(2).'' This interim rule will 
address the amendments in subsection (a)(2). This rule will also 
address the USDA Office of Inspector General (OIG) audit entitled 
``Food Stamp Employment and Training Program'' (OIG #27601-16-AT), 
released March 31, 2008, that recommended FNS establish performance 
measures for the SNAP E&T Program. This rule will bring closure to that 
audit recommendation.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Section 4022 of Agricultural Act of 2014.
    Alternatives: Alternatives will be identified in the interim final 
rule.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Costs and Benefits will be 
identified in the interim final rule.
    Risks: Risks, if applicable, will be identified in the interim 
final rule.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule..................   04/00/15  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Government Levels Affected: Local, State.
    Agency Contact: Charles H. Watford, Regulatory Review Specialist, 
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, 3101 Park Center 
Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302, Phone: 703 605-0800, Email: 
[email protected].
    Lynnette M. Thomas, Chief, Planning and Regulatory Affairs Branch, 
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, 3101 Park Center 
Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302, Phone: 703 605-4782, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 0584-AE33

USDA--Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)

Proposed Rule Stage

20. Requirements for the Disposition of Non-Ambulatory Disabled Veal 
Calves

    Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 
undetermined.
    Legal Authority: Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 601 et 
seq.)
    CFR Citation: 9 CFR 309.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: FSIS is proposing to amend the ante-mortem inspection 
regulations to remove a provision that permits establishments to set 
apart and hold for treatment veal calves that are unable to rise from a 
recumbent position and walk because they are tired or cold (9 CFR 
309.13(b)). The regulations permit such calves to proceed to slaughter 
if they are able to rise and walk after being warmed or rested. FSIS is 
proposing to require that non-ambulatory disabled (NAD) veal calves 
that are offered for slaughter be condemned and promptly euthanized. 
The existing regulations require that NAD mature cattle be condemned on 
ante-mortem inspection and that they be promptly euthanized (9 CFR 
309.3(e)). FSIS believes that prohibiting the slaughter of all NAD veal 
calves would improve compliance with the Humane Methods of Slaughter 
Act of 1978 (HMSA), and the humane slaughter implementing regulations. 
It would also improve the Agency's inspection efficiency by eliminating 
the time that FSIS inspection program personnel (IPP) spend assessing 
and supervising the treatment of NAD veal calves.
    Statement of Need: Removing the provision from 9 CFR 309.13(b) 
would eliminate uncertainty as to what is to be done with veal calves 
that are non-ambulatory disabled because they are tired or cold, or 
because they are injured or sick, thereby ensuring the appropriate 
disposition of these animals. In addition, removing the provision in 9 
CFR 309.13(b) would improve inspection efficiency by eliminating the 
time that FSIS IPP spend assessing the treatment of non-ambulatory 
disabled veal calves.
    Summary of Legal Basis: 21 U.S.C. 603 (a) and (b).
    Alternatives: The Agency considered two alternatives to the 
proposed amendment: The status quo and prohibiting the slaughter of 
non-ambulatory disabled ``bob veal,'' which are calves generally less 
than one week old.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: If the proposed rule is adopted, 
non-

[[Page 76486]]

ambulatory disabled veal calves will not be re-inspected during ante-
mortem inspection. The veal calves that are condemned during ante-
mortem inspection will be euthanized. The estimated annual cost to the 
veal industry would range between $2,368 and $161,405.
    The expected benefits of this proposed rule are not quantifiable. 
However, the proposed rule will ensure the humane disposition of the 
non-ambulatory disabled veal calves. It will also increase the 
efficiency and effective implementation of inspection and humane 
handling requirements at official establishments.
    Risks: None.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   04/00/15  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Dr. Daniel L. Engeljohn, Assistant Administrator, 
Office of Policy and Program Development, Department of Agriculture, 
Food Safety and Inspection Service, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, 349-E 
JWB, Washington, DC 20250, Phone: 202 205-0495, Fax: 202 720-2025, 
Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 0583-AD54

USDA--FSIS

Final Rule Stage

21. Mandatory Inspection of Fish of the Order Siluriformes and Products 
Derived From Such Fish

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Legal Authority: Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) (21 U.S.C. 601 
to 695); Pub. L. 110-246, sec 11016; Pub. L. 113-79, sec 12106
    CFR Citation: 9 CFR ch III, subchapter F (new).
    Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, Final Regulations not later than 
60 days after enactment of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (Pub. L. 113-
79). The Agriculture Act of 2014 directs the Department to publish 
final regulations not later than 60 days after the date of enactment.
    Abstract: The 2008 Farm Bill (Pub. L. 110-246, sec. 11016), amended 
the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) to make ``catfish'' a species 
amenable to the FMIA and, therefore, subject to FSIS inspection. In 
addition, the 2008 Farm Bill gave FSIS the authority to define the term 
``catfish.'' On February 24, 2011, FSIS published a proposed rule that 
outlined a mandatory catfish inspection program and presented two 
options for defining ``catfish.'' The 2014 Farm Bill (Pub. L. 113-79, 
sec. 12106), amended the FMIA to remove the term ``catfish'' and to 
make ``all fish of the order Siluriformes'' subject to FSIS 
jurisdiction and inspection. As a result, FSIS inspection of 
Siluriformes is mandated by law and non-discretionary.
    Statement of Need: The 2008 and 2014 Farm Bills amended the Federal 
Meat Inspection Act, making all fish of the order Siluriformes amenable 
species to the FMIA, requiring FSIS inspection.
    Summary of Legal Basis: 21 U.S.C. 601 to 695, Public Law 110-246, 
section 11016, Public Law 113-79, section 12106.
    Alternatives: The option of no rulemaking is unavailable.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: FSIS anticipates benefits from 
uniform standards and the more extensive and intensive inspection 
service it will provide. The requirements for imported Siluriformes 
will be equivalent to those applied to domestically raised and 
processed fish of this type.
    Risks: In the final rule, the Agency will consider any risks to 
public health or other pertinent risks associated with the production, 
processing, and distribution of catfish and catfish products.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   02/24/11  76 FR 10434
NPRM Comment Period End.............   06/24/11  .......................
Final Action........................   12/00/14  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    International Impacts: This regulatory action will be likely to 
have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise be of 
international interest.
    Agency Contact: Dr. Daniel L. Engeljohn, Assistant Administrator, 
Office of Policy and Program Development, Department of Agriculture, 
Food Safety and Inspection Service, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, 349-E 
JWB, Washington, DC 20250, Phone: 202 205-0495, Fax: 202 720-2025, 
Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 0583-AD36

USDA--FSIS

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

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) (21 U.S.C. 601 
to 695); Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA) (21 U.S.C. 451 to 470); 
Egg Products Inspection Act (EPIA) (21 U.S.C. 1031 to 1056); 
Agricultural Marketing Act (AMA) (7 U.S.C. 1622(h)
    CFR Citation: 9 CFR 312.8; 9 CFR 322.1 and 322.2; 9 CFR 350.7; 9 
CFR 362.5; 9 CFR 381.104 to 381.106; 9 CFR 590.407; 9 CFR 592.20 and 
592.500.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: FSIS is developing final regulations to amend the meat, 
poultry, and egg product inspection regulations to provide for an 
electronic export application and certification system. The electronic 
export application and certification system will be a component of the 
Agency's Public Health Information System (PHIS). The export component 
of PHIS will be available as an alternative to the paper-based 
application and certification process. FSIS intends to charge users for 
the use of the system. FSIS is establishing a formula for calculating 
the fee. FSIS is also providing establishments that export meat, 
poultry, and egg products with flexibility in the official export 
inspection marks, devices, and certificates. In addition, FSIS is 
amending the egg product export regulations to parallel the meat and 
poultry export regulations.
    Statement of Need: These regulations will facilitate the electronic 
processing of export applications and certificates through the Public 
Health Information System (PHIS), a computerized, Web-based inspection 
information system. This rule will provide the electronic export system 
as a reimbursable certification service charged to the exporter.
    Summary of Legal Basis: 21 U.S.C. 601 to 695; 21 U.S.C. 451 to 470; 
21 U.S.C. 1031 to 1056; 7 U.S.C. 1622(h).
    Alternatives: The electronic export applications and certification 
system is being proposed as a voluntary service; therefore, exporters 
have the option of continuing to use the current paper-based system. 
Therefore, no alternatives were considered.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: FSIS is charging exporters an 
application fee for the electronic export system. Automating the export 
application and certification process will facilitate the exportation 
of U.S. meat, poultry, and

[[Page 76487]]

egg products by streamlining and automating the processes that are in 
use, while ensuring that foreign regulatory requirements are met. The 
cost to an exporter would depend on the number of electronic 
applications submitted. An exporter that submits only a few 
applications per year would not be likely to experience a significant 
economic impact. Under this rate, inspection personnel workload will be 
reduced through the elimination of the physical handling and processing 
of applications and certificates. When an electronic government-to-
government system interface or data exchange is used, fraudulent 
transactions, such as false alterations and reproductions, will be 
significantly reduced, if not eliminated. The electronic export system 
is designed to ensure authenticity, integrity, and confidentiality. 
Exporters will be provided with a more efficient and effective 
application and certification process. The egg product export 
regulations provide the same export requirements across all products 
regulated by FSIS and consistency in the export application and 
certification process. The total annual paperwork burden to the egg 
processing industry to fill out the paper-based export application is 
approximately $32,340 per year for a total of 924 hours a year. The 
average establishment burden would be 11 hours, and $385.00 per 
establishment.
    Risks: None.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   01/23/12  77 FR 3159
NPRM Comment Period End.............   03/23/12  .......................
Final Action........................   02/00/15  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    International Impacts: This regulatory action will be likely to 
have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise be of 
international interest.
    Agency Contact: Rita Kishore, Acting Director, Import/Export 
Coordinator and Policy Development Staff, Department of Agriculture, 
Food Safety and Inspection Service, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Office 
of Policy and Program Development, Room 2147, South Building, 
Washington, DC 20250, Phone: 202 720-6508, Fax: 202 720-7990, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 0583-AD41

USDA--FSIS

23. Descriptive Designation for Needle- or Blade-Tenderized 
(Mechanically Tenderized) Beef Products

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 21 U.S.C. 601 to 695
    CFR Citation: 9 CFR 317.2(e)(3).
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: FSIS has proposed regulations to require the use of the 
descriptive designation ``mechanically tenderized'' on the labels of 
raw or partially cooked needle- or blade-tenderized beef products, 
including beef products injected with marinade or solution, unless such 
products are destined to be fully cooked at an official establishment. 
Beef products that have been needle- or blade-tenderized are referred 
to as ``mechanically tenderized'' products. This rule would require 
that the product name for such beef products include the descriptive 
designation ``mechanically tenderized,'' and an accurate description of 
the beef component. The rule would also require that the print for all 
words in the descriptive designation as the product name appear in the 
same style, color, and size, and on a single-color contrasting 
background. In addition, this rule would require that labels of raw and 
partially-cooked needle- or blade-tenderized beef products destined for 
household consumers, hotels, restaurants, or similar institutions 
include validated cooking instructions stating that these products need 
to be cooked to a specified minimum internal temperature, and whether 
they need to be held at that minimum internal temperature for a 
specified time before consumption, i.e., dwell time or rest time, to 
ensure that they are thoroughly cooked.
    Statement of Need: FSIS has concluded that without proper labeling, 
raw or partially cooked mechanically tenderized beef products could be 
mistakenly perceived by consumers to be whole, intact muscle cuts. The 
fact that a cut of beef has been needle- or blade-tenderized is a 
characterizing feature of the product and, as such, a material fact 
that is likely to affect consumers' purchase decisions and that should 
affect their preparation of the product. FSIS has also concluded that 
the addition of validated cooking instruction is necessary to ensure 
that potential pathogens throughout the product are destroyed. Without 
thorough cooking, pathogens that may have been introduced to the 
interior of the product during the tenderization process may remain in 
the product.
    Summary of Legal Basis: 21 U.S.C. 601 to 695.
    Alternatives: The Agency considered two options: Option 1, extend 
labeling requirements to include vacuum-tumbled beef products and 
enzyme-formed beef products; and Option 2, extend the proposed labeling 
requirements to all needle- or blade-tenderized meat and poultry 
products.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The proposed rule estimated the one-
time cost to produce labels for mechanically tenderized beef at $1.05 
million. The annualized cost is $140,000 at 7 percent for 10 years 
($120,000 and when annualized at 3 percent for 10 years). The proposed 
rule estimated an additional one-time total cost to produce labels for 
mechanically tenderized beef at $1.57 million or $209,000 when 
annualized at 7 percent for 10 years ($179,000 when annualized at 3 
percent for 10 years), if this proposed rule becomes final before the 
added-solution rule is finalized. 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 
[deg]F (or 145 [deg]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.
    Risks: FSIS estimates that approximately 1,965 illnesses annually 
are attributed to mechanically tenderized beef, either with or without 
added solutions. If all the servings are cooked to a minimum of 160 
degrees F then the number of illnesses drops to 78. This number of 
illnesses is due to a data set for all STEC and not just O157 data. 
FSIS estimates that 1,887 out of 1,965 would be prevented annually if 
mechanically tenderized meat were cooked to 160 degrees F.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   06/10/13  78 FR 34589
NPRM Comment Period End.............   08/09/13  .......................

[[Page 76488]]

 
NPRM Comment Period Extended........   08/09/13  78 FR 48631
NPRM Comment Period Reopened........   12/03/13  78 FR 72597
Final Action........................   12/00/14  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Rosalyn Murphy-Jenkins, Director, Labeling and 
Program Delivery Staff (LPDS), Department of Agriculture, Food Safety 
and Inspection Service, Office of Policy and Program Development, 
Patriots Plaza 3, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room 8-148, Mailstop 
5273, Washington, DC 20250-5273, Phone: 301 504-0879, Fax: 202 245-
4792, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 0583-AD45

USDA--FSIS

24. Record To Be Kept by Official Establishments and Retail Stores That 
Grind Raw Beef Products

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 21 U.S.C. 601 et seq.
    CFR Citation: 9 CFR 320.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: FSIS proposed to amend its recordkeeping regulations to 
specify that all official establishments and retail stores that grind 
raw beef products for sale in commerce must keep records that disclose 
the identity of the supplier of all source materials that they use in 
the preparation of each lot of raw ground product, and identify the 
names of those source materials.
    Statement of Need: Under the authority of the Federal Meat 
Inspection Act (FMIA) (21 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) and its implementing 
regulations, FSIS investigates complaints and reports of consumer 
foodborne illness possibly associated with FSIS-regulated meat 
products. Many such investigations into consumer foodborne illnesses 
involve those caused by the consumption of raw beef ground, by official 
establishments or retail stores. 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 
traceback 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 traceback 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.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Under 21 U.S.C. 642, official 
establishments and retail stores that grind raw beef products for sale 
in commerce are persons, firms, or corporations that must keep such 
records and correctly disclose all transactions involved in their 
businesses subject to the Act. This is because they engage in the 
business of preparing products of an amenable species for use as human 
food, and they engage in the business of buying or selling (as meat 
brokers, wholesalers or otherwise) in commerce products of carcasses of 
an amenable species. These businesses must also provide access to, and 
inspection of, these records by FSIS personnel. 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.
    Alternatives: FSIS considered two alternatives to the proposed 
requirements: The status quo and a voluntary recordkeeping program.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Costs occur because about 76,093 
retail stores and official establishments will need to develop and 
maintain records, and make those records available for the Agency's 
review. Using the best available data, FSIS believes that industry 
recordkeeping costs would be approximately $1.46 million. Agency costs 
of approximately $0.01 million would result from record reviews at 
official establishments and retail stores, as well as travel time to 
and from retail stores. Annual benefits from this rule come from 
estimated averted Shiga toxin-producing E.coli illnesses and averted 
cases of Salmonellosis. Non-monetized benefits will accrue to industry 
due to an expected smaller volume of recalls, given everything else 
being equal, and due to the reduced industry vulnerability to 
reputation-damaging food safety events. Avoiding loss of business 
reputation is an indirect benefit. The Government will benefit in that 
the rule will enable it to operate in a more efficient manner in 
identifying and tracking recalls of adulterated raw ground beef 
products. Consumers will benefit from a reduction in foodborne 
illnesses due to quicker recalls, correction of process failures at 
establishments producing ground beef, and improved guidance and 
industry practices.
    Risks: None.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   07/22/14  79 FR 42464
NPRM Comment Period End.............   10/22/14  .......................
Final Action........................   07/00/15  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Victoria Levine, Program Analyst, Issuances Staff 
(IS), Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service, 
Office of Policy and Program Development, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., 
Room 6079, South Building, Washington, DC 20250-3700, Phone: 202 720-
5627, Fax: 202 690-0486, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 0583-AD46

USDA--FOREST SERVICE (FS)

Final Rule Stage

25. Forest Service Manual 2020--Ecological Restoration and Resilience 
Policy

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: FSM 2020
    CFR Citation: None.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This policy establishes a common definition for 
ecological restoration and resilience that is

[[Page 76489]]

consistent with the 2012 Land Planning rule. The directive provides 
additional guidance in implementing the definition throughout Forest 
Service program areas by incorporating it into the Forest Service 
Manual. 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 allows 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 final 
directive has been implemented in the field units, without any issues. 
This final directive brings the Forest Service policy into alignment 
with current ecological restoration science and with congressional and 
Forest Service authorizations and initiatives.
    Statement of Need: There is a critical need for ecological 
restoration on National Forest System lands and the concept of 
restoration is threaded throughout existing agency authorities and 
collaborative efforts such as the National Fire Plan. However, without 
a definition in Forest Services' Directive System there has not been 
consistent interpretation and application. This established policy was 
necessary for consistency and for the landscape to better weather 
disturbances, especially under future environmental conditions.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The Forest Service amended the Forest 
Service Manual (FSM) to add a new title: FSM 2020 Ecological 
Restoration and Resilience. This final directive reinforced adaptive 
management, use of science, and collaboration in planning and decision 
making. These foundational land management policies, including use of 
restoration to achieve desired conditions, underwent formal public 
review during revision of the Planning Rule (36 CFR 219) and amendment 
of associated directives (FSM 1900, 1920).
    Alternatives: No alternatives were considered as an established 
policy is necessary for agency consistency.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This final directive had no monetary 
effect to the agency or the public. The final directive helped agency 
employees and partners to more effectively communicate restoration 
needs and accomplishments at the local, regional, and national levels.
    Risks: There is no risk identified with this rulemaking.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Directive..................   09/12/13  78 FR 56202
Proposed Directive Comment Period      11/12/13  .......................
 End.
Final Directive.....................   02/00/15  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: LaRenda C. King, Assistant Director, Directives and 
Regulations, Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, ATTN: ORMS, D&R 
Branch, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-0003, Phone: 
202 205-6560, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 0596-AC82

USDA--FS

26. Land Management Planning Rule Policy

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 5 U.S.C. 302; 16 U.S.C. 1604; 16 U.S.C. 1613
    CFR Citation: 36 CFR 219.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Forest Service issued proposed planning directives on 
February 27, 2013 (RIN # 0596-AD06), which would provide guidance to 
agency staff on implementation of the recently revised land management 
planning regulation at 36 CFR 219 (RIN 0596-AC94) (the ``2012 Planning 
Rule''), which was effective May 9, 2012. A 60-day period, extended for 
an additional 15 days, for the public to comment on the proposed 
directives concluded on May 24, 2013. The proposed directives have been 
revised, based on public comment, and the agency seeks to publish a 
Notice of Availability of the final Directives.
    The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) requires that the Forest 
Service develop land management plans for each unit of the National 
Forest System, and the agency maintain regulations (Planning Rule) that 
guide the development and content of such plans. In addition to formal 
regulations, the agency uses its system of directives to provide more 
detailed guidance on how to meet the requirements of the Planning Rule.
    Statement of Need: The existing direction in the Forest Service 
Manual 1920 and the Forest Service Handbook 1909.12 regarding Land 
Management Planning needs to be updated to support implementation of 
the 2012 Planning Rule (36 CFR 219). This brings the planning 
directives in line with the new planning rule and clarifies substantive 
and procedural requirements to implement the rule. The updated 
directives implements a planning framework that fosters collaboration 
with the public during land management planning, and is science-based, 
responsive to change, and promotes social, economic, and ecological 
sustainability.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The Forest Service promulgated a new land 
management planning regulation at 36 CFR 219 (the ``2012 Planning 
Rule''). The final Planning rule and record of decision was published 
on April 9, 2012 (77 FR 21162).
    Alternatives: The Forest Service finalized the directives to bring 
the Forest Services' internal directives in-line with the CFR.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: No new costs to the agency or the 
public are associated with these directives. The amended directives 
results in more effective and efficient planning within the Agency's 
capability.
    Risks: There are no risks to the public or to the Forest Service 
associated with this rulemaking.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Directive..................   02/27/13  78 FR 13316
Comment Period End..................   04/29/13  .......................
Final Directive.....................   02/00/15  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: LaRenda C. King, Assistant Director, Directives and 
Regulations, Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, ATTN: ORMS, D&R 
Branch, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-0003, Phone: 
202 205-6560, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 0596-AD06

USDA--Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS)

Final Rule Stage

27. Rural Energy for America Program

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 
is undetermined.

[[Page 76490]]

    Legal Authority: 7 U.S.C. 8107
    CFR Citation: 7 CFR 4280-B.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Agency published a proposed rule for the Rural Energy 
for America Program (REAP) on April 12, 2013 (78 FR 22044). The agency 
is authorized under section 9007 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy 
Act of 2008 (as amended by the Agricultural Act of 2014) to provide 
grants for energy audits and renewable energy development assistance; 
grants for renewable energy system feasibility studies; and financial 
assistance for energy efficiency improvements and renewable energy 
systems. The 2014 Farm Bill directs that at least 20 percent of funds 
be used for grants of $20,000 or less, and up to 4 percent of mandatory 
funds for energy audits and Renewable Energy Development Assistance 
Grants. Eligible entities for energy audits and renewable energy 
development assistance include units of State, tribal, or local 
government; an instrumentality of a State, tribal, or local government; 
land grant or other institutions of higher education; rural electric 
cooperatives; RCID Councils or public power entities. Eligible entities 
for financial assistance for energy efficiency improvements and 
renewable energy systems include agricultural producers and rural small 
businesses. The agency identified REAP as one of the Department's 
periodic retrospective review of regulations under Executive Order 
13563, and has proposed a tiered application approach that reduces 
applicant burden for technical reports and streamlines the narrative 
portion of the application.
    Statement of Need: The agency needs to incorporate amendments from 
the Agricultural Act of 2014. Prior to the Agricultural Act of 2014, 
the agency modified the program to reduce the applicant burden and 
improve program delivery. In order to make these changes to 7 CFR 4280, 
subpart B, a final rule needs to be published.
    Summary of Legal Basis: REAP was authorized by the 2002 Farm Bill, 
and continued by the 2014 Farm Bill which made available $50,000,000 in 
mandatory funding for 2014, and each year thereafter through 2018, and 
authorized for appropriations $20,000,000 in discretionary funding for 
each fiscal year 2014 through 2018. The program provides for grants and 
guaranteed loans for renewable energy systems and energy efficiency 
improvements, and grants for energy audit and renewable energy 
development assistance. The purpose of the program is to reduce the 
energy consumption and increase renewable energy production.
    Alternatives: The alternatives are to: (1) Continue operating the 
program under the 7 CFR 4280, subpart B as it currently is written; (2) 
revise 7 CFR 4280, subpart B based on public comments received on the 
interim rule and issue a final rule.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Benefits of the rule may include a 
reduction in energy consumption, an increase in renewable energy 
production and reduced burden for certain loan and grant applications.
    Risks: There are no associated risks to the public health, safety 
or the environment.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule..................   04/14/11  76 FR 21109
Interim Final Rule Effective........   04/14/11  .......................
Interim Final Rule Comment Period      06/13/11  .......................
 End.
NPRM................................   04/12/13  78 FR 22044
Final Action........................   11/00/14  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Kelley Oehler, Branch Chief, Department of 
Agriculture, Rural Business-Cooperative Service, STOP 3225, 1400 
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-3225, Phone: 202 720-
6819, Fax: 202 720-2213, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 0570-AA76

USDA--RBS

28. Business and Industry (B&I) Guaranteed Loan Program

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act
    CFR Citation: 7 CFR 4287; 7 CFR 4279.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Agency published a proposed rule for the Business and 
Industry Guaranteed Loan Program on September 15, 2014 (78 FR 22044), 
which, when finalized, would revise the 1996 B&I regulations. While 
there have been some minor modifications to the B&I Guaranteed Loan 
Program regulations since 1996, this action is in response to the 
implement 2014 Farm Bill provisions and makes needed refinements to the 
regulation. These changes are design to enhance the program, improve 
efficiency, correct minor inconsistencies, clarify the regulations, and 
ultimately reduce delinquencies. The Agency held several lender 
meetings throughout the country to see how changes to the program could 
benefit lenders who utilize the program. The proposed changes being 
considered may result in a lower the subsidy rate. The rule, when 
finalized, 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.
    Statement of Need: With the passage of the 2014 Farm Bill, there is 
the need to conform certain portions of the B&I Guaranteed Loan Program 
regulations with requirements found in the 2014 Farm Bill, such as the 
addition of cooperative equity security guarantees, the locally and 
regionally grown agricultural food products initiative, and exceptions 
to the rural area definition. In addition, with the passage of time, 
the Agency proposed revisions intended to improve program delivery and 
administration, leverage program resources, better align the regulation 
with the program's goals and purposes, clarify the regulations, and 
reduce delinquencies and defaults. These proposed revisions may also 
improve program subsidy costs. A reduction in program subsidy costs may 
increase funding availability for additional projects, further 
improving the economic conditions of rural America. This may result in 
increased lending activity, the expansion of business opportunities, 
and the creation of more jobs in rural areas.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Consolidated Farm and Rural Development 
Act, as amended by the 2008 and 2014 Farm Bill.
    Alternatives: The only alternative would be the status quo, which 
is not an acceptable alternative.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The benefits of the proposed rule 
include a possible reduction in loan losses, a lower subsidy rate, and 
streamline program delivery. The program changes have a cumulative 
effect of lowering the program cost; however, the amount of the change 
in cost cannot be estimated with any reasonable precision.
    Risks: There are no associated risks to the public health, safety 
or the environment.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Rule.......................   09/15/14  79 FR 55316
Final Rule..........................   09/00/15  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 76491]]

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Brenda Griffin, Loan Specialist, B&I Processing 
Division, Department of Agriculture, Rural Business-Cooperative 
Service, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250, Phone: 202 
720-6802, Fax: 202 720-6003, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 0570-AA85

USDA--RBS

29.  Biorefinery, Renewable Chemical, and Biobased Product 
Manufacturing Assistance Program

    Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 
undetermined.
    Legal Authority: 7 U.S.C. 8103
    CFR Citation: 7 CFR 4279 subpart C; 7 CFR 4287 subpart D.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Biorefinery Assistance Program was authorized under 
the 2008 Farm Bill. The 2014 Farm Bill continues the authority 
established by the 2008 Farm Bill but made changes to the program that 
require revisions to existing regulations. The 2014 Farm Bill changed 
the program's name to the Biorefinery, Renewable Chemical, and Biobased 
Product Manufacturing Assistance Program and mandated that the program 
provide loan guarantees for the development, construction, and 
retrofitting of commercial-scale biorefineries as well as biobased 
product manufacturing facilities. Increasing production of homegrown 
renewable fuels, chemicals, and biobased products has grown; so has the 
need to develop and produce them. Rural Business--Cooperative Service 
(RBS) offers opportunities to producers to develop and manufacture such 
products through the Biorefinery, Renewable Chemical, and Biobased 
Product Manfacturing Assistance Program. RBS published the Biorefinery 
Assistance Program proposed rule in the Federal Register on April 18, 
2010, (75 FR 20044) and an interim rule on February 14, 2011, both with 
60-day comment periods. Comments were received from biofuel and bio-
products producers, banking and investment institutions, attorneys, and 
research and development companies. In addition to the program changes 
required by the 2014 Farm Bill, RBS needs to address the comments 
received to the February 14, 2011, interim rule. The Biorefinery, 
Renewable Chemical, and Biobased Product Manufacturing Assistance 
Program focuses on accelerating the commercialization of production of 
advanced biofuels and renewable chemicals, as well as biobased product 
manufacturing.
    Statement of Need: The 2014 Farm Bill made changes to the program 
that require revisions to the program rule, and RBS needs to address 
the comments received on the interim rule published on February 14, 
2011.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The Biorefinery Assistance Program was 
authorized under the 2008 Farm Bill. The 2014 Farm Bill continues the 
authority and provides $100 million for the program in fiscal year 2014 
and $50 million in both fiscal years 2015 and 2016, of which not more 
than 15 percent can be used for Biobased Product Manufacturing.
    Alternatives: The alternatives are: (1) Implement the Section 9003 
provisions of the Farm Bill immediately through publishing a subsequent 
interim rule. This alternative will require the Department to exercise 
the Hardin memo exemption to implement the Farm Bill amendments; 
however, it will also enable Rural Development to respond to the 
comments received to the interim rule published in 2011 and incorporate 
updates into the subsequent interim rule. Option 1 is the agency's 
preferred alternative. (2) Implement the Section 9003 Farm Bill 
provisions immediately by publishing a final rule. This alternative 
will also require the Department to exercise the Hardin memo exemption 
the Farm Bill amendments; however, this alternative precludes 
stakeholder and public comment to the new rule. (3) Implement the 
Section 9003 Farm Bill provisions by publishing a proposed rule. This 
alternative is the Department's traditional rulemaking process and 
enables public comment, but would delay implementation of the program 
and utilization of funding into fiscal year 2015 (or beyond) and may 
increase the risk of a rescission of fiscal year 2014 funds.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Benefits include increase in 
renewable energy/advance biofuel, renewable chemical, and biobased 
manufacturing.
    Risks: There are no associated risks to the public health, safety 
or the environment.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule..................   03/00/15  .......................
Interim Final Rule Effective........   04/00/15  .......................
Interim Final Rule Comment Period      05/00/15  .......................
 End.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, 
Organizations.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Todd Hubbell, Loan Specialist, Specialty Lenders 
Division, Department of Agriculture, Rural Business--Cooperative 
Service, STOP 3225, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-
3225, Phone: 202 690-2516, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 0570-AA93

USDA--NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE (NRCS)

Final Rule Stage

30.  Agricultural Conservation Easement Program

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: Pub. L. 113-79
    CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
    Legal Deadline: Other, Statutory, November 4, 2014, 270 days from 
enactment of Public Law 113-79.
    Abstract: The Agricultural Act of 2014 (the 2014 Act) consolidated 
the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP), the Farm and Ranch Lands Protection 
Program (FRPP), and the Grassland Reserve Program (GRP) into a single 
Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP). The consolidated 
easement program has two components--an agricultural land easement 
component and a wetland reserve easement component. The agricultural 
land easement component is patterned after the former FRPP with GRP's 
land eligibility components merged into it. The wetland reserve 
easement component is patterned after WRP. Land previously enrolled in 
the three contributing programs is considered enrolled in the new ACEP.
    Statement of Need: The Agricultural Act of 2014 (2014 Act) 
consolidated several of the Title XII (of the Food Security Act of 
1985) conservation easement programs and provided for the continued 
operations of former programs. NRCS is promulgating a consolidated 
conservation easement regulation to reflect the 2014 Act's 
consolidation of the WRP, FRPP, and GRP programs.
    Summary of Legal Basis: NRCS seeks to publish an interim rule to 
implement

[[Page 76492]]

the consolidated conservation easement program. This regulation action 
is pursuant to section 1246 of the Food Security Act of 1985, as 
amended by the 2014 Act, which requires regulations necessary to 
implement Title II of the 2014 Act through an interim rule with request 
for comments.
    Alternatives: NRCS determined that rulemaking was the appropriate 
mechanism through which to implement the 2014 Act consolidation of the 
three source conservation easement programs. Additionally, NRCS 
determined that the Agency needs standard criteria for implementing the 
program and program participants need predictability when initiating an 
application and conveying an easement. The regulation aims to establish 
a comprehensive framework for working with program participants to 
implement ACEP. Upon consideration of public comment, NRCS will 
promulgate final program regulations.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 2014 Act has consolidated three 
conservation easement programs into a single conservation easement 
program with two components. The program will be implemented under the 
general supervision and direction of the Chief of NRCS, who is a Vice 
President of the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC). Through ACEP, NRCS 
will continue to purchase wetland reserve easements directly and will 
contribute funds to eligible entities for their purchase of 
agricultural land easements that protect working farm and grazing 
lands. Participation in the program is voluntary.
    The primary benefits associated with this rulemaking are:
     Provides an opportunity for public comment in program 
regulations.
     Provides a regulatory framework for NRCS to implement a 
consolidated conservation easement program.
     Provides transparency to the public potential applicants 
on NRCS program requirements.
    The primary costs imposed by this regulation are:
     The costs incurred by private landowners are negative or 
zero since this is a voluntary program and they are compensated for the 
rights that they transfer.
     Other costs incurred by society through market changes are 
localized or negligible.
    Risks: N/A.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule..................   12/00/14  .......................
Final Rule..........................   07/00/15  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Leslie Deavers, Acting Farm Bill Coordinator, 
Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 1400 
Independence Avenue, Washington, DC 20250, Phone: 202 720-5484, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 0578-AA61

USDA--NRCS

31.  Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) Interim 
Rule

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 15 U.S.C. 714b and 714c; 16 U.S.C. 3839AA-3839-8
    CFR Citation: 7 CFR 1466.
    Legal Deadline: Other, Statutory, November 4, 2014, 270 days from 
enactment of Public Law 113-79.
    Abstract: NRCS promulgated the current EQIP regulation on January 
15, 2009 through an interim rule. The interim rule incorporated 
programmatic changes authorized by the Food, Conservation, and Energy 
Act of 2008 (the 2008 Act). NRCS published a correction to the interim 
rule on March 12, 2009, and an amendment to the interim rule on May 29, 
2009. NRCS has implemented EQIP in FY 2009 through FY 2013 under the 
current regulation. The Agricultural Act of 2014 (2014 Act) amended 
Chapter 4 of Subtitle D of Title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985 
by making the following changes to EQIP program requirements: (1) 
Eliminates requirement that contract must remain in place for a minimum 
of 1 year after last practice implemented, but keeps requirement that 
the contract term is not to exceed 10 years, (2) Consolidates elements 
of Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP), and repeals WHIP 
authority, (3) Replaces rolling 6-year payment limitation with payment 
limitation for FY 2014-FY 2018, 4) Requires Conservation Innovation 
Grants (CIG) reporting no later than December 31, 2014 and every 2 
years thereafter, (4) Establishes payment limitation established at 
$450,000 and eliminates waiver authority, (5) Modifies the special rule 
for foregone income payments for certain associated management 
practices and resource concern priorities, (6) Makes advance payments 
are available up to 50 percent for eligible historically underserved 
participants to purchase material or contract services instead of the 
previous 30 percent, (7) Provides flexibility for repayment of advance 
payment if not expended within 90 days, and (8) Requires that for each 
fiscal year from of the FY 2014 to FY 2018, at least five percent of 
available EQIP funds shall be targeted for wildlife related 
conservation practices. The 2014 Act further identifies EQIP as a 
contributing program authorized to accomplish the purposes of the 
Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP) (Subtitle I of Title 
XII of the Food Security Act of 1985, as amended). RCPP replaces the 
Agricultural Water Enhancement Program (AWEP), Chesapeake Bay Watershed 
Program (CBWP), Cooperative Conservation Partnership Initiative (CCPI), 
and the Great Lakes Basin Program for soil erosion and sediment 
control. Like the programs it replaces, RCPP will operate through 
regulations in place for contributing programs. The other contributing 
programs include the Conservation Stewardship Program, the Healthy 
Forests Reserve Program, and the new Agricultural Conservation Easement 
Program (ACEP). NRCS seeks to publish an interim rule to incorporate 
the 2014 Act changes to EQIP program administration. This regulation 
action is pursuant to Section 1246 of the Food Security Act of 1985, as 
amended by section 2608 of the 2014 Act, which requires regulations 
necessary to implement Title II of the 2014 Act be promulgated through 
the interim rule process.
    Statement of Need: The Agricultural Act of 2014 (the 2014 Act) 
consolidated several of the Title XII conservation programs and 
provided for the continued operations of former programs. NRCS is 
updating the EQIP regulation to incorporate the 2014 Act changes, 
including consolidation of the purposes formerly addressed through the 
Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP).
    Summary of Legal Basis: The 2014 Act has reauthorized and amended 
the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). EQIP was first 
added to the Food Security Act of 1985 (1985 Act) (16 U.S.C. 3801 et 
seq.) by the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 
(1996 Act) (16 U.S.C. 3839aa). The program is implemented under the 
general supervision and direction of the Chief of NRCS, who is a Vice 
President of the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC).
    Alternatives: NRCS considered only making the changes mandated by 
the 2014 Farm Bill. This alternative would have missed opportunities to 
improve the implementation of the program.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Through EQIP, NRCS provides 
assistance to farmers and ranchers to

[[Page 76493]]

conserve and enhance soil, water, air, and related natural resources on 
their land. Eligible lands include cropland, grassland, rangeland, 
pasture, wetlands, nonindustrial private forest land, and other 
agricultural land on which agricultural or forest-related products, or 
livestock are produced and natural resource concerns may be addressed. 
Participation in the program is voluntary.
    The primary benefits associated with this rulemaking are:
     Provides continued consistency for the NRCS to implement 
EQIP.
     Provides transparency to potential applicants on NRCS 
program requirements.
    The primary costs imposed by this regulation:
     All program participants must follow the same 
requirements, even though they are very different types of agricultural 
operations in different resource contexts.
     Most program participants are required to contribute at 
least 25 percent of the resources needed to implement program 
practices. However, such costs are standard for such financial 
assistance programs.
    Risks: N/A.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule..................   11/00/14  .......................
Final Rule..........................   07/00/15  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Leslie Deavers, Acting Farm Bill Coordinator, 
Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 1400 
Independence Avenue, Washington, DC 20250, Phone: 202 720-5484, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 0578-AA62

USDA--NRCS

32. Conservation Stewardship Program Interim Rule

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 16 U.S.C. 3838d to 3838g.
    CFR Citation: 7 CFR 1470.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: NRCS seeks to publish an interim rule to incorporate the 
2014 Act changes to Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) program 
administration. This regulation action is pursuant to Section 1246 of 
the Food Security Act of 1985, as amended by the 2014 Act, which 
requires regulations necessary to implement Title II of the 2014 Act 
through an interim rule with request for comments. Background: The 
Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 Act (2008 Act) amended the 
Food Security Act of 1985 (1985 Act) to establish CSP and authorize the 
program in fiscal years 2009 through 2013. The Agriculture Act of 2014 
(the 2014 Act) re-authorizes and revises CSP. The purpose of CSP is to 
encourage producers to address priority resource concerns and improve 
and conserve the quality and condition of the natural resources in a 
comprehensive manner by: (1) Undertaking additional conservation 
activities; and (2) improving, maintaining, and managing existing 
conservation activities. The Secretary of Agriculture delegated 
authority to the Chief, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 
to administer CSP. Through CSP, NRCS provides financial and technical 
assistance to eligible producers to conserve and enhance soil, water, 
air, and related natural resources on their land. Eligible lands 
include private or tribal cropland, grassland, pastureland, rangeland, 
non-industrial private forest lands and other land in agricultural 
areas (including cropped woodland, marshes, and agricultural land or 
capable of being used for the production of livestock) on which 
resource concerns related to agricultural production could be 
addressed. Participation in the program is voluntary. CSP encourages 
land stewards to improve their conservation performance by installing 
and adopting additional activities, and improving, maintaining, and 
managing existing activities on eligible land. NRCS makes funding for 
CSP available nationwide on a continuous application basis.
    Statement of Need: The Agricultural Act of 2014 (the 2014 Act) 
amended several of the Title XII conservation programs and provided for 
the continued operations of former programs. NRCS is updating the CSP 
regulation to incorporate the 2014 Act changes.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The 2014 Act has reauthorized and amended 
the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP). CSP was first added to the 
Food Security Act of 1985 (1985 Act) (16 U.S.C. 3801 et seq.) by the 
Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. The program is implemented 
under the general supervision and direction of the Chief of NRCS, who 
is a Vice President of the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC).
    Alternatives: NRCS considered only making the changes mandated by 
the 2014 Farm Bill. This alternative would have missed opportunities to 
improve the implementation of the program. NRCS would consider 
alternatives suggested during the public comment period.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: CSP is a voluntary program that 
encourages agricultural and forestry producers to address priority 
resource concerns by: (1) Undertaking additional conservation 
activities, and (2) improving and maintaining existing conservation 
systems. CSP provides financial and technical assistance to help land 
stewards conserve and enhance soil, water, air, and related natural 
resources on their land.
    CSP is available to all producers, regardless of operation size or 
crops produced, in all 50 States, the District of Columbia, and the 
Caribbean and Pacific Island areas. Eligible lands include cropland, 
grassland, prairie land, improved pastureland, rangeland, nonindustrial 
private forest land, and agricultural land under the jurisdiction of an 
Indian tribe. Applicants may include individuals, legal entities, joint 
operations, or Indian tribes.
    CSP pays participants for conservation performance the higher the 
performance, the higher the payment. It provides two possible types of 
payments. An annual payment is available for installing new 
conservation activities and maintaining existing practices. A 
supplemental payment is available to participants who also adopt a 
resource conserving crop rotation.
    Through five-year contracts, NRCS makes payments as soon as 
practical after October 1 of each fiscal year for contract activities 
installed and maintained in the previous year. A person or legal entity 
may have more than one CSP contract but, for all CSP contracts 
combined, may not receive more than $40,000 in any year or more than 
$200,000 during any five-year period.
    The primary benefits associated with this rulemaking are:
     Provides continued consistency for the NRCS to implement 
CSP.
     Provides transparency to potential applicants on NRCS 
program requirements.
    The primary costs imposed by this regulation are that all program 
participants must follow the same basic programmatic requirements, even 
though they are very different types of agricultural operations in 
different resource contexts.
    The 2014 Act further identifies CSP as a contributing program 
authorized to accomplish the purposes of the Regional Conservation 
Partnership Program

[[Page 76494]]

(RCPP) (subtitle I of title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985, as 
amended). RCPP replaces the Agricultural Water Enhancement Program 
(AWEP), Chesapeake Bay Watershed Program (CBWP), Cooperative 
Conservation Partnership Initiative (CCPI), and the Great Lakes Basin 
Program for soil erosion and sediment control. Like the programs it 
replaces, RCPP will operate through regulations in place for 
contributing programs. The other contributing programs include the 
Environmental Quality Incentives Program, the Healthy Forests Reserve 
Program, and the new Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP).
    Risks: N/A.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule..................   11/05/14  79 FR 65835
Interim Final Rule Effective........   11/05/14  .......................
Interim Final Rule Comment Period      01/05/15  .......................
 End.
Final Rule..........................   07/00/15  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Leslie Deavers, Acting Farm Bill Coordinator, 
Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 1400 
Independence Avenue, Washington, DC 20250, Phone: 202 720-5484, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 0578-AA63
BILLING CODE 3410-90-S

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE (DOC)

Statement of Regulatory and Deregulatory Priorities

    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:
     Innovate by creating new ideas through cutting-edge 
science and technology from advances in nanotechnology, to ocean 
exploration, to broadband deployment, and by protecting American 
innovations through the patent and trademark system;
     Support entrepreneurship and commercialization by enabling 
community development and strengthening minority businesses and small 
manufacturers;
     Maintain U.S. economic competitiveness in the global 
marketplace by promoting exports, ensuring a level playing field for 
U.S. businesses, and ensuring that technology transfer is consistent 
with our nation's economic and security interests;
     Provide effective management and stewardship of our 
nation's resources and assets to ensure sustainable economic 
opportunities; and
     Make informed policy decisions and enable better 
understanding of the economy by providing accurate economic and 
demographic data.
    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.

Responding to the Administration's Regulatory Philosophy and Principles

    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 2015. During the next year, 
NOAA plans to publish five rulemaking actions that are designated as 
Regulatory Plan actions. The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) may 
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.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

    NOAA establishes and administers Federal policy for the 
conservation and management of the Nation's oceanic, coastal, and 
atmospheric resources. It provides a variety of essential environmental 
and climate services vital to public safety and to the Nation's 
economy, such as weather forecasts, drought forecasts, and storm 
warnings. It is a source of objective information on the state of the 
environment. NOAA plays the lead role in achieving 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 Satellite, Data, and Information Service (NESDIS), 
exercise regulatory authority.
    NMFS oversees the management and conservation of the Nation's 
marine

[[Page 76495]]

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 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 2015, a number of the preregulatory and regulatory 
actions will be significant. The exact number of such rulemakings is 
unknown, since they are usually initiated by the actions of eight 
regional Fishery Management Councils (FMCs) that are responsible for 
preparing fishery management plans (FMPs) and FMP amendments, and for 
drafting implementing regulations for each managed fishery. NOAA issues 
regulations to implement FMPs and FMP amendments. Once a rulemaking is 
triggered by an FMC, the Magnuson-Stevens Act places stringent 
deadlines upon NOAA by which it must exercise its rulemaking 
responsibilities. FMPs and FMP amendments for Atlantic highly migratory 
species, such as bluefin tuna, swordfish, and sharks, are developed 
directly by NOAA, not by FMCs.
    FMPs address a variety of issues including maximizing fishing 
opportunities on healthy stocks, rebuilding overfished stocks, and 
addressing gear conflicts. One of the problems that FMPs may address is 
preventing overcapitalization (preventing excess fishing capacity) of 
fisheries. This may be resolved by market-based systems such as catch 
shares, which permit shareholders to harvest a quantity of fish and 
which can be traded on the open market. Harvest limits based on the 
best available scientific information, whether as a total fishing limit 
for a species in a fishery or as a share assigned to each vessel 
participant, enable stressed stocks to rebuild. Other measures include 
staggering fishing seasons or limiting gear types to avoid gear 
conflicts on the fishing grounds and establishing seasonal and area 
closures to protect fishery stocks.
    The FMCs provide a forum for public debate and, using the best 
scientific information available, make the judgments needed to 
determine optimum yield on a fishery-by-fishery basis. Optional 
management measures are examined and selected in accordance with the 
national standards set forth in the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This process, 
including the selection of the preferred management measures, 
constitutes the development, in simplified form, of an FMP. The FMP, 
together with draft implementing regulations and supporting 
documentation, is submitted to NMFS for review against the national 
standards set forth in the Magnuson-Stevens Act, in other provisions of 
the Act, and other applicable laws. The same process applies to 
amending an existing approved FMP.
Marine Mammal Protection Act
    The Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (MMPA) provides the 
authority for the conservation and management of marine mammals under 
U.S. jurisdiction. It expressly prohibits, with certain exceptions, the 
take of marine mammals. 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.
Endangered Species Act
    The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) provides for the 
conservation of species that are determined to be ``endangered'' or 
``threatened,'' and the conservation of the ecosystems on which these 
species depend. The ESA authorizes both NMFS and the Fish and Wildlife 
Service (FWS) to jointly administer the provisions of the MMPA. NMFS 
manages marine and ``anadromous'' species, and FWS manages land and 
freshwater species. Together, NMFS and FWS work to protect critically 
imperiled species from extinction. Of the approximately 1,300 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 whether those 
species must be added to the list of

[[Page 76496]]

protected species. NMFS is also responsible for designating, reviewing, 
and revising critical habitat for any listed species. In addition, 
under the ESA's procedural framework, Federal agencies consult with 
NMFS on any proposed action authorized, funded, or carried out by that 
agency that may affect one of the listed species or designated critical 
habitat, or is likely to jeopardize proposed species or adversely 
modify proposed critical habitat that is under NMFS' jurisdiction.
NOAA's Regulatory Plan Actions
    While most of the rulemakings undertaken by NOAA do not rise to the 
level necessary to be included in Commerce's regulatory plan, NMFS is 
undertaking five 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. A description of the five regulatory plan 
actions is provided below.
    1. Revisions to the General section and Standards 1, 3, and 7 of 
the National Standard Guidelines (0648-BB92): This action would propose 
revisions to the National Standard 1 (NS1) guidelines. National 
Standard 1 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management 
Act states that ``conservation and management measures shall prevent 
overfishing while achieving, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield 
from each fishery for the United States fishing industry.'' The 
National Marine Fisheries Service last revised the NS1 Guidelines in 
2009 to reflect the requirements enacted by the Magnuson-Stevens 
Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2006 for 
annual catch limits and accountability measures to end and prevent 
overfishing. Since 2007, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 
and the Regional Fishery Management Councils have been implementing the 
new annual catch limit and accountability measures requirements. Based 
on experience gained from implementing annual catch limits and 
accountability measures, NMFS has developed new perspectives and 
identified issues regarding the application of the NS1 guidelines that 
may warrant them to be revised to more fully meet the intended goal of 
preventing overfishing while achieving, on a continuing basis, the 
optimum yield from each fishery. The focus of this action is to improve 
the NS1 guidelines.
    2. Proposed Rule To Designate Critical Habitat for North Atlantic 
Right Whale (0648-AY54): The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 
proposes to revise critical habitat for the North Atlantic right whale. 
This proposal would modify the critical habitat previously designated 
in 1994.
    3. Fishery Management Plan for Regulating Offshore Marine 
Aquaculture in the Gulf of Mexico (0648-AS65): The purpose of this 
fishery management plan is to develop a regional permitting process for 
regulating and promoting environmentally sound and economically 
sustainable aquaculture in the Gulf of Mexico exclusive economic zone. 
This fishery management plan consists of ten actions, each with an 
associated range of management alternatives, which would facilitate the 
permitting of an estimated 5 to 20 offshore aquaculture operations in 
the Gulf of Mexico over the next 10 years, with an estimated annual 
production of up to 64 million pounds. By establishing a regional 
permitting process for aquaculture, the Gulf of Mexico Fishery 
Management Council will be positioned to achieve their primary goal of 
increasing maximum sustainable yield and optimum yield of federal 
fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico by supplementing harvest of wild caught 
species with cultured product. This rulemaking would outline a 
regulatory permitting process for aquaculture in the Gulf of Mexico, 
including: (1) Required permits; (2) duration of permits; (3) species 
allowed; (4) designation of sites for aquaculture; (5) reporting 
requirements; and (6) regulations to aid in enforcement.
    4. Requirements for Importation of Fish and Fish Products Under the 
U.S. Marine Mammal Protection Act (0648-AY15): With this action, the 
National Marine Fisheries Service is developing procedures to implement 
the provisions of section 101(a)(2) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act 
for imports of fish and fish products. Those provisions require the 
Secretary of Treasury to ban imports of fish and fish products from 
fisheries with bycatch of marine mammals in excess of U.S. standards. 
The provisions further require the Secretary of Commerce to insist on 
reasonable proof from exporting nations of the effects on marine 
mammals of bycatch incidental to fisheries that harvest the fish and 
fish products to be imported.
    5. Revised Proposed Rule To Designate Critical Habitat for the 
Hawaiian Monk Seal (0648-BA81): The National Marine Fisheries Service 
(NMFS) is developing a rule to designate critical habitat for the 
Hawaiian monk seal in the main and Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. In 
response to a 2008 petition from the Center for Biological Diversity, 
Kahea, and the Ocean Conservancy to revise Hawaiian monk seal critical 
habitat, NMFS published a proposed rule in June 2011 to revise Hawaiian 
monk seal critical habitat by adding critical habitat in the main 
Hawaiian Islands and extending critical habitat in the Northwestern 
Hawaiian Islands. Proposed critical habitat includes both marine and 
terrestrial habitats (e.g., foraging areas to 500 meter depth, pupping 
beaches, etc.). To address public comments on the proposed rule, NOAA 
Fisheries is augmenting its prior economic analysis to better describe 
the anticipated costs of the designation. NOAA Fisheries is analyzing 
new tracking data to assess monk seal habitat use in the main Hawaiian 
Islands.
    At this time, NOAA is unable to determine the aggregate cost of the 
identified Regulatory Plan actions as several of these actions are 
currently under development.

Bureau of Industry and Security

    The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) advances U.S. national 
security, foreign policy, and economic objectives by maintaining and 
strengthening adaptable, efficient, and effective export control and 
treaty compliance systems as well as by administering programs to 
prioritize certain contracts to promote the national defense and to 
protect and enhance the defense industrial base.
    In August 2009, the President directed a broad-based interagency 
review of the U.S. export control system with the goal of strengthening 
national security and the competitiveness of key U.S. manufacturing and 
technology sectors by focusing on the current threats and adapting to 
the changing economic and technological landscape. In August 2010, the 
President outlined an approach under which agencies that administer 
export controls will apply new criteria for determining what items need 
to be controlled and a common set of policies for determining when an 
export license is required. The control list criteria are to be based 
on transparent rules, which will reduce the uncertainty faced by our 
Allies, U.S. industry and its foreign customers, and will allow the 
Government to erect higher walls around the most sensitive export items 
in order to enhance national security.
    Under the President's approach, agencies will apply the criteria 
and revise the lists of munitions and dual-use items that are 
controlled for export so that they:
    Distinguish the types of items that should be subject to stricter 
or more

[[Page 76497]]

permissive levels of control for different destinations, end-uses, and 
end-users;
    Create a ``bright line'' between the two current control lists to 
clarify jurisdictional determinations and reduce Government and 
industry uncertainty about whether particular items are subject to the 
control of the State Department or the Commerce Department; and
    Are structurally aligned so that they potentially can be combined 
into a single list of controlled items.
    BIS' current regulatory plan action is designed to implement the 
initial phase of the President's directive, which will add to BIS' 
export control purview, military related items that the President 
determines no longer warrant control under rules administered by the 
State Department.
Major Programs and Activities
    BIS administers four sets of regulations. The Export Administration 
Regulations (EAR) regulate exports and reexports to protect national 
security, foreign policy, and short supply interests. The EAR also 
regulates participation of U.S. persons in certain boycotts 
administered by foreign Governments. The National Defense Industrial 
Base Regulations provide for prioritization of certain contracts and 
allocations of resources to promote the national defense, require 
reporting of foreign Government-imposed offsets in defense sales, and 
address the effect of imports on the defense industrial base. The 
Chemical Weapons Convention Regulations implement declaration, 
reporting, and on-site inspection requirements in the private sector 
necessary to meet United States treaty obligations under the Chemical 
Weapons Convention treaty. The Additional Protocol Regulations 
implement similar requirements with respect to an agreement between the 
United States and the International Atomic Energy Agency.
    BIS also has an enforcement component with nine offices with 
enforcement responsibilities covering the United States. BIS export 
control officers are also stationed at several U.S. embassies and 
consulates abroad. BIS works with other U.S. Government agencies to 
promote coordinated U.S. Government efforts in export controls and 
other programs. BIS participates in U.S. Government efforts to 
strengthen multilateral export control regimes and to promote effective 
export controls through cooperation with other Governments.
BIS' Regulatory Plan Actions
    As the agency responsible for leading the administration and 
enforcement of 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.
    In FY 2014, BIS continued its emphasis on the ECRI by publishing 
three final rules adding to the Commerce Control List, items the 
President determined no long warrant control on the United States 
Munitions List (including a rule returning jurisdiction over Commercial 
Satellites to the Department of Commerce), as follows:
    January 2--Control of Military Training Equipment, Energetic 
Materials, Personal Protective Equipment, Shelters, Articles Related to 
Launch Vehicles, Missiles, Rockets, Military Explosives and Related 
Items;
    May 13--Revisions to the Export Administration Regulations (EAR): 
Control of Spacecraft Systems and Related Items the President 
Determines No Longer Warrant Control Under the United States Munitions 
List (USML); and
    July 1--Revisions to the Export Administration Regulations (EAR): 
Control of Military Electronic Equipment and Other Items the President 
Determines No Longer Warrant Control Under the United States Munitions 
List
    BIS expects to publish additional ECRI final rules in FY 2015.

Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation

    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

[[Page 76498]]

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 items controlled for 
chemical and biological weapon nonproliferation purposes. In addition, 
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration works with other 
countries' regulatory bodies through regional fishery management 
organizations to develop fair and internationally-agreed-to fishery 
standards for the High Seas.
    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. 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.

Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations

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

DOC--National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

Proposed Rule Stage

33. Requirements for Importation of Fish and Fish Product Under the 
U.S. Marine Mammal Protection Act

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1371 et seq.
    CFR Citation: 50 CFR 216.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: With this action, NMFS is developing procedures to 
implement the provisions of section 101(a)(2) of the Marine Mammal 
Protection Act for imports of fish and fish products. Those provisions 
require the Secretary of Treasury to ban imports of fish and fish 
products from fisheries with bycatch of marine mammals in excess of 
U.S. standards. The provisions further require the Secretary of 
Commerce to insist on reasonable proof from exporting nations of the 
effects on marine mammals of bycatch incidental to fisheries that 
harvest the fish and fish products to be imported. Implementation of 
this rule may have trade implications. However, the impacts will be 
limited primarily to foreign entities, with no anticipated impacts to 
U.S. fishermen.
    Statement of Need: The Marine Mammal Protection Act requires that 
the United States prohibit imports of fish caught in a manner that 
results in bycatch of marine mammals in excess of U.S. standards.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Marine Mammal Protection Act.
    Alternatives: An alternative to this rulemaking that would 
facilitate marine mammal conservation overseas would be through 
cooperation and assistance programs. While the U.S. has developed 
effective bycatch mitigation techniques and applied these in many 
fisheries, there is no guarantee that these methods will be freely 
adopted in foreign fisheries. Technical and financial assistance for 
the development and implementation of marine mammal bycatch mitigation 
measures would not be precluded by this rulemaking, but market access 
incentives will increase the likelihood of action by harvesting nations 
exporting to the U.S.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Potential benefits of this 
rulemaking include: an incentive for exporting nations to adopt and 
implement marine mammal conservation standards comparable to the U.S. 
as a condition for access to the U.S. seafood market, establishing a 
review process for determining the effectiveness of mitigation measures 
adopted by foreign nations; decreasing the likelihood that marine 
mammal stocks will be further depleted; and increasing the availability 
of information on marine mammal distribution and abundance and the 
threats posed by fisheries interactions. Anticipated costs include: 
increased administrative costs of monitoring trade and making 
determinations about foreign fisheries bycatch of marine mammals; 
increased costs on seafood importers related to certifying import 
eligibility, and increased requests for international cooperation and 
assistance and attendant costs to implement mitigation measures.
    Risks: Prohibiting imports from seafood exporting nations that 
cause bycatch of marine mammals in excess of U.S. standards will 
diminish the risk of further declines in marine mammal stocks that are 
affected by foreign fisheries.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM...............................   04/30/10  75 FR 22731
Reopening ANPR comment period.......   07/01/10  75 FR 38070
NPRM................................   02/00/15  .......................
Final Action........................   08/00/15  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    International Impacts: This regulatory action will be likely to 
have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise be of 
international interest.
    Agency Contact: Rodney Mcinnis, Director, Office of International 
Affairs, Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric

[[Page 76499]]

Administration, 1315 East-West Hwy, Silver Spring, MD 20910, Phone: 562 
980-4005, Email: [email protected].
    Related RIN: Related to 0648-AX36
    RIN: 0648-AY15

DOC--NOAA

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

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 1531 to 1543.
    CFR Citation: 50 CFR 226; 50 CFR 229.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: National Marine Fisheries Service proposes to revise 
critical habitat for the North Atlantic right whale. This proposal 
would result in modifying the critical habitat that was designated in 
1994.
    Statement of Need: Under section 4 of the Endangered Species Act, 
NOAA Fisheries is required to designate critical habitat for newly 
listed species and revise as new information becomes available.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Endangered Species Act
    Alternatives: Critical habitat is defined as (i) the specific areas 
within the geographical area occupied by the species, at the time it is 
listed, on which are found those physical or biological features (I) 
essential to the conservation of the species and (II) which may require 
special management considerations or protection; and (ii) specific 
areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time 
it is listed, upon a determination by the Secretary that such areas are 
essential for the conservation of the species. In developing this rule, 
NOAA Fisheries is analyzing best available information regarding where 
these areas occur and performing economic impact analysis to inform 
designation.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Because this rule is presently in 
the beginning stages of development, no analysis has been completed at 
this time to assess costs and benefits.
    Risks: Loss of critical habitat for a species listed as protected 
under the ESA and Marine Mammals Protection Act, as well as potential 
loss of right whales due to habitat loss.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   01/00/15  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Donna Wieting, Fishery Biologist, Office of 
Protected Resources, Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 
East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910, Phone: 301 713-2322.
    RIN: 0648-AY54

DOC--NOAA

35. Revision of Hawaiian Monk Seal Critical Habitat

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1533
    CFR Citation: 50 CFR 226.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 
Fisheries is developing a revised proposed rule to designate critical 
habitat for the Hawaiian monk seal in the main and Northwestern 
Hawaiian Islands. In response to a 2008 petition from the Center for 
Biological Diversity, Kahea, and the Ocean Conservancy to revise 
Hawaiian monk seal critical habitat, NOAA Fisheries published a 
proposed rule in June 2011 to revise Hawaiian monk seal critical 
habitat by adding critical habitat in the main Hawaiian Islands and 
extending critical habitat in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. 
Proposed critical habitat includes both marine and terrestrial habitats 
(e.g., foraging areas to 500 meter depth, pupping beaches, etc.). To 
address public comments on the proposed rule, NOAA Fisheries is 
augmenting its prior economic analysis to better describe the 
anticipated costs of the designation. NOAA Fisheries is analyzing new 
tracking data to assess monk seal habitat use in the main Hawaiian 
Islands.
    Statement of Need: Hawaiian monk seal critical habitat was last 
designated in 1988. Since the 1988 designation, new information 
regarding Hawaiian monk seal habitat use has become available. A 
revision to this designation would allow NMFS to more accurately define 
those features and areas that are important to support Hawaiian monk 
seal conservation by modifying existing critical habitat in the 
Northwestern Hawaiian Islands and proposing critical habitat in the 
main Hawaiian Islands. NMFS published a proposed rule to designate 
critical habitat in 2011. The agency has made changes to the 2011 
proposed rule in response to public comment, and now plans to release a 
second, revised proposed rule to provide an opportunity for the public 
to comment on these changes.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Endangered Species Act.
    Alternatives: In the 2011 proposed rule, NMFS considered the 
alternative of not revising critical habitat for the Hawaiian monk 
seal, the alternative of designating all potential critical habitat 
areas, and the alternative of designating a subset of all potential 
critical habitat areas, excluding those areas where the benefits of 
exclusion outweigh the benefits of designation in accordance with 
4(b)(2) of the Endangered Species Act. Under the preferred alternative 
NMFS proposed for designation 10 specific areas in the Northwestern 
Hawaiian Islands and 6 specific areas in the main Hawaiian Islands 
which support terrestrial pupping and haul-out areas as well as marine 
foraging areas. Within four of the main Hawaiian Islands specific 
areas, NMFS proposed exclusions to reduce the impacts to national 
security.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The economic analysis is currently 
being revised to reflect changes in response to public comments 
received. The primary benefit of designation is the protection afforded 
under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, requiring all Federal 
agencies to insure their actions are not likely to destroy or adversely 
modify designated critical habitat. In addition to these protections, 
the designation may also result in other forms of benefits including, 
but not limited to: Educational awareness and outreach benefits, 
benefits to tourism and recreation, and improved or sustained habitat 
quality. The designation of critical habitat typically does not impose 
additional costs in occupied habitat, where Federal agencies are 
already required to consult with NMFS as a consequence of the listed 
species being present. However, in unoccupied habitat the rule may 
impose administrative costs on Federal agencies as well as costs on 
Federal agencies and third parties stemming from project modifications 
to mitigate impacts to critical habitat.
    Risks: The Endangered Species Act requires designation of critical 
habitat following the listing of a species. If critical habitat is not 
designated, the species will not be protected to the extent provided 
for in the Endangered Species Act, posing a risk to the species 
continued existence and recovery.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   06/02/11  76 FR 32026

[[Page 76500]]

 
Notice of Public Meetings...........   07/14/11  76 FR 41446
Other...............................   06/25/12  77 FR 37867
Second NPRM.........................   02/00/15  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, 
Organizations.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State.
    Agency Contact: Donna Wieting, Fishery Biologist, Office of 
Protected Resources, Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 
East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910, Phone: 301 713-2322.
    Related RIN: Related to 0648-AX23
    RIN: 0648-BA81

DOC--NOAA

36. Revision of the National Standard 1 Guidelines

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.; Pub. L. 94-265.
    CFR Citation: 50 CFR 600.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This action would propose revisions to the National 
Standard 1 (NS1) guidelines. National Standard 1 of the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act states that 
conservation and management measures shall prevent overfishing while 
achieving, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield from each fishery 
for the United States fishing industry. National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration Fisheries last revised the NS1 Guidelines in 
2009 to reflect the requirements enacted by the Magnuson-Stevens 
Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2006 for 
annual catch limits and accountability measures to end and prevent 
overfishing. Since 2007, the National Marine Fisheries Service and the 
Regional Fishery Management Councils have been implementing the new 
annual catch limit and accountability measures requirements. Based on 
experience gained from implementing annual catch limits and 
accountability measures, NMFS has developed new perspectives and 
identified issues regarding the application of the NS1 guidelines that 
may warrant them to be revised to more fully meet the intended goal of 
preventing overfishing while achieving, on a continuing basis, the 
optimum yield from each fishery. The focus of this action is to improve 
the NS1 guidelines.
    Statement of Need: Since 2007, fisheries management within the U.S. 
has experienced many changes, in particular the implementation of 
annual catch limits and accountability measures under all fishery 
management plans. Based on this experience, the NMFS believes the 
National Standard guidelines can be improved to enhance the utility of 
the guidelines for managers and the public. The objective of the 
proposed revisions is to improve and streamline the guidelines, address 
concerns raised during the implementation of annual catch limits and 
accountability measures, and provide flexibility within current 
statutory limits to address fishery management issues.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 
Management Act.
    Alternatives: The rule attempts to improve fisheries management by 
proposing alternatives that clarify guidance in the following topic 
areas: (1) Identifying fishery management objectives; (2) identifying 
whether stocks require conservation and management; (3) managing data 
limited stocks; (4) stock complexes; (5) aggregate maximum sustainable 
yield estimates; (6) depleted stocks; (7) multi-year overfishing 
determinations; (8) optimum yield; (9) acceptable biological catch 
control rules; (10) accountability measures; (11) establishing annual 
catch limits and accountability measures mechanisms in Fishery 
Management Plans; and (12) flexibility in rebuilding stocks.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The changes to the guidelines would 
not establish any new requirements and thus are technical in nature. As 
such, the changes would allow, but do not require the Fishery 
Management Councils or the Secretary of Commerce, to make changes to 
their Fishery Management Plans. Because changes to the guidelines would 
not directly alter the behavior of any entities that operate in 
federally managed fisheries, no direct economic effects are expected to 
result from this action. The potential benefits of revising the 
National Standard guidelines include: improving and streamlining the 
guidance, providing additional clarity, and providing flexibility to 
address fishery management issues.
    Risks: NMFS anticipates that a revision to the National Standard 
guidelines would enhance the utility of the guidelines. NMFS does not 
foresee any risks associated with revising the National Standard 
guidelines.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM...............................   05/03/12  77 FR 26238
ANPRM Comment Period Extended.......   07/03/12  77 FR 39459
NPRM................................   12/00/14  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal.
    Agency Contact: Alan Risenhoover, Director, Office of Sustainable 
Fisheries, Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration, Room 13362, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 
20910, Phone: 301 713-2334, Fax: 301 713-0596, Email: 
[email protected].
    Related RIN: Related to 0648-AV60
    RIN: 0648-BB92

DOC--NOAA

Final Rule Stage

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

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
    CFR Citation: 50 CFR 622.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The purpose of this fishery management plan is to develop 
a regional permitting process for regulating and promoting 
environmentally sound and economically sustainable aquaculture in the 
Gulf of Mexico exclusive economic zone. This fishery management plan 
consists of ten actions, each with an associated range of management 
alternatives, which would facilitate the permitting of an estimated 5 
to 20 offshore aquaculture operations in the Gulf of Mexico over the 
next 10 years, with an estimated annual production of up to 64 million 
pounds. By establishing a regional permitting process for aquaculture, 
the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council will be positioned to 
achieve their primary goal of increasing maximum sustainable yield and 
optimum yield of federal fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico by 
supplementing harvest of wild caught species with cultured product. 
This rulemaking would outline a regulatory permitting process for 
aquaculture in the Gulf of Mexico, including: (1) Required permits; (2) 
duration of permits; (3) species allowed;

[[Page 76501]]

(4) designation of sites for aquaculture; (5) reporting requirements; 
and (6) regulations to aid in enforcement.
    Statement of Need: Demand for protein is increasing in the United 
States and commercial wild-capture fisheries will not likely be 
adequate to meet this growing demand. Aquaculture is one method to meet 
current and future demands for seafood. Supplementing the harvest of 
domestic fisheries with cultured product will help the U.S. meet 
consumers' growing demand for seafood and may reduce the Nation's 
dependence on seafood imports. Currently, the U.S. imports over 80 
percent of the seafood consumed in the country, and the annual U.S 
seafood trade deficit is at an all time high of over $9 billion.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 
Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
    Alternatives: The Council's Aquaculture FMP includes 10 actions, 
each with an associated range of alternatives. These actions and 
alternatives are collectively intended to establish a regional 
permitting process for offshore aquaculture. Management actions in the 
FMP include: (1) Aquaculture permit requirements, eligibility, and 
transferability; (2) duration aquaculture permits are effective; (3) 
aquaculture application requirements, operational requirements, and 
restrictions; (4) species allowed for aquaculture; (5) allowable 
aquaculture systems; (6) marine aquaculture siting requirements and 
conditions; (7) restricted access zones for aquaculture facilities; (8) 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements; (9) biological reference 
points and status determination criteria; and (10) framework procedures 
for modifying biological reference points and regulatory measures.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Environmental and social/economic 
costs and benefits are described in detail in the Council's Aquaculture 
FMP. Potential benefits include: establishing a rigorous review process 
for reviewing and approving/denying aquaculture permits; increasing 
optimum yield by supplementing the harvest of wild domestic fisheries 
with cultured products; and reducing the Nation's dependence on 
imported seafood. Anticipated costs include increased administration 
and oversight of an aquaculture permitting process, and potential 
negative environmental impacts to wild marine resources. Approval of an 
aquaculture permitting system may also benefit fishing communities by 
creating new jobs.
    Risks: Currently, 90% of seafood consumed in the United States is 
imported. Offshore aquaculture operations will aid in meeting the 
increasing demand for seafood and improve U.S. food security.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice of Availability..............   06/04/09  74 FR 26829
NPRM................................   08/28/14  79 FR 26829
Final Action........................   05/00/15  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Roy E. Crabtree, Southeast Regional Administrator, 
Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701, Phone: 
727 824-5305, Fax: 727 824-5308, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 0648-AS65
BILLING CODE 3510-12-P

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Statement of Regulatory Priorities

Background

    The Department of Defense (DoD) is the largest Federal department, 
consisting of three Military departments (Army, Navy, and Air Force), 
nine Unified Combatant Commands, 17 Defense Agencies, and ten DoD Field 
Activities. It has 1,357,218 military personnel and 853,102 civilians 
assigned as of June 30, 2014, 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 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 
Commerce, Energy, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban 
Development, Labor, State, 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.

Overall Priorities

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

International Regulatory Cooperation

    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 
Executive Order 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 
the 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.

Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations

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

[[Page 76502]]

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 plan 
and all updates to the plan can be found at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=DOD-2011-OS-0036.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Rule title  (* expected to significantly
            RIN                  reduce burdens on small businesses)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0701-AA76.................  Air Force Freedom of Information Act
                             Program.
0701-AA77.................  Air Force Privacy Act Program.
0703-AA87.................  United States Navy Regulations and Official
                             Records.
0703-AA90.................  Guidelines for Archaeological Investigation
                             Permits and Other Research on Sunken
                             Military Craft and Terrestrial Military
                             Craft Under the Jurisdiction of the
                             Department of the Navy.
0703-AA91.................  Unofficial Use of the Seal, Emblem, Names,
                             or Initials of the Marine Corps.
0703-AA92.................  Professional Conduct of Attorneys Practicing
                             Under the Cognizance and Supervision of the
                             Judge Advocate General.
0710-AA66.................  Civil Monetary Penalty Inflation Adjustment
                             Rule.
0710-AA60.................  Nationwide Permit Program Regulations.*
0750-AG47.................  Safeguarding Unclassified Controlled
                             Technical Information (DFARS Case 2011-
                             D039).
0750-AG62.................  Patents, Data, and Copyrights (DFARS Case
                             2010-D001).
0750-AH11.................  Only One Offer (DFARS Case 2011-D013).
0750-AH19.................  Accelerated Payments to Small Business
                             (DFARS Case 2011-D008).
0750-AH54.................  Performance-Based Payments (DFARS Case 2011-
                             D045).
0750-AH70.................  Defense Trade Cooperation Treaty With
                             Australia and the United Kingdom (DFARS
                             Case 2012-D034).
0750-AH86.................  Forward Pricing Rate Proposal Adequacy
                             Checklist (DFARS Case 2012-D035).
0750-AH87.................  System for Award Management Name Changes,
                             Phase 1 Implementation (DFARS Case 2012-
                             D053).
0750-AH90.................  Clauses With Alternates.
0750-AH94.................
0750-AH95.................
0750-AI02.................
0750-AI10.................
0750-AI19.................
0750-AI27.................
0750-AI03.................  Approval of Rental Waiver Requests (DFARS
                             Case 2013-D006).
0750-AI07.................  Storage, Treatment, and Disposal of Toxic or
                             Hazardous Materials_Statutory Update (DFARS
                             Case 2013-D013).
0750-AI18.................  Photovoltaic Devices (DFARS Case 2014-D006).
0750-AI34.................  State Sponsors of Terrorism (DFARS Case 2014-
                             D014).
0790-AI24.................  DoD Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
                             Program Regulation.
0790-AI30.................  Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA)
                             Privacy Program.
0790-AI42.................  Personnel Security Program.
0790-AI51.................  DoD Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
                             Program; Amendment.
0790-AI54.................  Defense Support of Civilian Law Enforcement
                             Agencies.
0790-AI63.................  Alternative Dispute Resolution.
0790-AI71.................  National Industrial Security Program (NISP):
                             Procedures for Government Activities
                             Relating to Foreign Ownership, Control or
                             Influence (FOCI).
0790-AI73.................  Withholding of Unclassified Technical Data
                             From Public Disclosure.
0790-AI75.................  Presentation of DoD-Related Scientific and
                             Technical Papers at Meetings.
0790-AI77.................  Provision of Early Intervention and Special
                             Education Services to Eligible DoD
                             Dependents.
0790-AI84.................  National Defense Science and Engineering
                             Graduate (NDSEG) Fellowships.
0790-AI86.................  Defense Logistics Agency Privacy Program.
0790-AI87.................  Defense Logistics Agency Freedom of
                             Information Act Program.
0790-AI88.................  Shelter for the Homeless.
0790-AI90.................  DoD Assistance to Non-Government,
                             Entertainment-Oriented Media Productions.
0790-AI92.................  Inspector General; Privacy Act;
                             Implementation.
0790-AJ00.................  Civilian Employment and Reemployment Rights
                             of Applicants for, and Service Members and
                             Former Service Members, of the Uniformed
                             Services.
0790-AJ03.................  DoD Privacy Program.
0790-AJ04.................  Unlawful Discrimination (On the Basis of
                             Race, Color, National Origin, or Age in
                             Programs or Activities Receiving Federal
                             Financial Assistance From the DoD).
0790-AJ05.................  End Use Certificates (EUCs).
0790-AJ06.................  Voluntary Education Programs.
0790-AJ07.................  Historical Research in the Files of the
                             Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD).
0790-AJ10.................  Enhancement of Protections on Consumer
                             Credit for Members of the Armed Forces and
                             Their Dependents.
0790-AJ20.................  DoD Privacy Program
                            Pursuant to Executive Order 13563, DoD also
                             removed 32 CFR part 513, ``Indebtedness of
                             Military Personnel,'' because the part is
                             obsolete and the governing policy is now
                             codified at 32 CFR part 112.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Administration Priorities
1. Rulemakings That Are Expected To Have High Net Benefits Well in 
Excess of Costs
    The Department plans to--
     Finalize the DFARS rule to 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 offerors' 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

[[Page 76503]]

the potential risk for purchased supplies and services to maliciously 
introduce unwanted functions and degrade the integrity and operation of 
sensitive information technology systems.
     Finalize the DFARS rule to provide guidance to contractors 
for the submittal of forward pricing rate proposals to ensure the 
adequacy of forward pricing rate proposals submitted to the Government. 
The rule provides guidance to contractors to ensure that forward 
pricing rate proposals are thorough, accurate, and complete.
     Finalize the DFARS rule to implement section 1602 of the 
NDAA for FY 2014. Section 1602 prohibits award of a contract for 
commercial satellite services from certain foreign entities if the 
Secretary of Defense reasonably believes that the foreign entity is one 
in which the government of a foreign country has an ownership interest 
that enables the government to affect satellite operations. There is a 
potential risk to national security if DoD uses commercial satellite 
services for DoD communications and the government of a covered foreign 
country has an ownership interest that enables the government to affect 
satellite operations. Likewise, if launch or other satellite services 
under the contract are occurring in a covered country, the government 
of that country could impact the ability of the foreign entity to 
adequately provide those services.
2. Rulemakings of Particular Interest to Small Businesses
    The Department plans to--
     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. 10 
U.S.C. 2323 had provided the underlying statutory authority for DoD's 
Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) Program and served as the basis for 
DoD's use of certain solicitation techniques to further its SDB 
participation rate. Notwithstanding removal of this statutory authority 
from the DFARS, DoD's fundamental procurement policies continue to 
provide strong support for SDB participation as evidenced by DoD 
meeting or exceeding the annual Governmentwide statutory SDB prime 
contracting goals since 2001.
     Through ``Policy for Domestic, Municipal, and Industrial 
Water Supply Uses of Reservoir Projects Operated by the Department of 
the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,'' (RIN 0710-AA72), update and 
clarify the policies governing the use of storage in U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers reservoir projects for domestic, municipal, and industrial 
water supply.
    3. Rulemakings That Streamline Regulations, Reduce Unjustified 
Burdens, and Minimize Burdens on Small Businesses
    The Department plans to--
     Finalize the DFARS rule to implement section 802 of the 
NDAA for FY 2012 to allow a covered litigation support contractor 
access to technical, proprietary, or confidential data for the sole 
purpose of providing litigation support. DFARS Case 2012-D029, 
Disclosure to Litigation Support to Contractors, pertains.
     Finalize the DFARS rule to require scientific and 
technical reports be submitted in electronic format. This rule, DFARS 
Case 2014-D0001, will streamline the submission process by no longer 
requiring the electronically initiated report to be printed for 
submission.
4. Rules To Be Modified, Streamlined, Expanded, or Repealed To Make the 
Agency's Regulatory Program More Effective or Less Burdensome in 
Achieving the Regulatory Objectives
     DFARS Cases 2013-D005, Clauses with Alternates--Foreign 
Acquisition, 2013-D025, Clauses with Alternates--Taxes, and 2014-D004, 
Clauses with Alternates--Special Contracting Methods, Major System 
Acquisition, and Service Contract--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.
     Finalize the rule for DFARS, DFARS Case 2014-D014, State 
Sponsors of Terrorism, to clarify and relocate coverage relating to 
state sponsors of terrorism, add an explicit representation, and 
conform the terminology to replace the term ``terrorist country'' with 
the more accurate term ``country that is a state sponsor of 
terrorism.'' DFARS subpart 209.1 text is being relocated to subpart 
225.7. Subpart 225.7 is a better location because the prohibition is 
based on ownership or control of an offeror by the government of 
specified countries, rather than the responsibility of the individual 
offeror. Correspondingly, the provision at 252.209-7001 is being 
removed and replaced by a newly proposed provision 252.225-70XX.
5. Rulemakings That Have a Significant International Impact
     Finalize the rule to 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.
Specific DoD Priorities
    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, health affairs, education, and cyber security.
1. Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy
    The Department of Defense continuously reviews the DFARS and 
continues to lead Government efforts to--
     Revise the DFARS to improve presentation and clarity of 
the regulations by (1) initiating a new convention to construct clauses 
with alternates in a manner whereby the alternate clauses are included 
in full text making the terms of the alternates clearer by clarifying 
paragraph substitutions and (2) streamline the DFARS by screening the 
text to identify any DoD procedural guidance that does not have a 
significant effect beyond the internal operating procedures of DoD or 
have a significant cost or administrative impact on contractors or 
offerors, which should be more correctly relocated from the DFARS to 
the DFARS Procedures, Guidance, and Information (PGI).
     Employ methods to facilitate and improve efficiency of the 
contracting process such as (1) employing a checklist to assist 
contractors in providing initial submission of FPRA proposals that are 
thorough, accurate, and complete and (2) requiring

[[Page 76504]]

scientific and technical reports to be submitted electronically.
2. Health Affairs, Department of Defense
    The Department of Defense is able to meet its dual mission of 
wartime readiness and peacetime health care by operating an extensive 
network of medical treatment facilities. This network includes DoD's 
own military treatment facilities supplemented by civilian health care 
providers, facilities, and services under contract to DoD through the 
TRICARE program. TRICARE is a major health care program designed to 
improve the management and integration of DoD's health care delivery 
system. The program's goal is to increase access to health care 
services, improve health care quality, and control health care costs.
    The Defense Health Agency plans to publish the following rule:
     Final Rule: CHAMPUS/TRICARE: Pilot Program for Refills of 
Maintenance Medications for TRICARE Life Beneficiaries through the 
TRICARE Mail Order Program. This 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 one 
year of participation. This rule includes procedures to assist 
beneficiaries in transferring covered prescriptions to the mail order 
pharmacy program. The interim final rule was published December 11, 
2013 (78 FR 75245) with an effective date of February 14, 2014. DoD 
anticipates publishing a final rule in the first quarter of FY 2015.
3. Personnel and Readiness, Department of Defense
    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. 
Administrative costs are negligible, and benefits are clear, concise 
rules that enable the Secretary of Defense to ensure that the Service 
Academies are efficiently operated and meet the needs of the armed 
forces. The proposed rule was published October 18, 2007 (72 FR 59053), 
and included policy that has since changed. The final rule, 
particularly the explanation of separation policy, will reflect recent 
changes in the ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' policy. It will also 
incorporate changes resulting from interagency coordination. DoD 
anticipates publishing the final rule in the first or second quarter of 
FY 2015.
4. Military Community and Family Policy, Department of Defense
    The Department of Defense has proposed a revision to the regulation 
implementing the Military Lending Act, which prescribes limitations on 
the terms of consumer credit extended to Service members and 
dependents:
     Proposed Rule: Limitations on Terms of Consumer Credit 
Extended to Service Members and Dependents. In this proposed rule, the 
Department of Defense (Department) proposes to amend its regulation 
that implements the Military Lending Act, herein referred to as the 
``MLA''. Among other protections for Service members, the MLA limits 
the amount of interest that a creditor may charge on ``consumer 
credit'' to a maximum annual percentage rate of 36 percent. The 
Department proposed to amend its existing regulation primarily for the 
purpose of extending the protections of the MLA to a broader range of 
closed-end and open-end credit products, rather than the limited credit 
products currently defined as consumer credit. In addition, the 
Department proposed to amend its existing regulation to amend the 
provisions governing a tool a creditor may use in assessing whether a 
consumer is a ``covered borrower,'' modify the disclosures that a 
creditor must provide to a covered borrower implement the enforcement 
provisions of the MLA, as amended, among other purposes. The revisions 
to this rule are part of DoD's retrospective plan under Executive Order 
13563 completed in August 2011.
5. Chief Information Officer, Department of Defense
    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 to DoD when a network or information system 
has a cyber-intrusion. The revised rule also expands eligibility to 
participate in the DIB CS/IA voluntary cyber threat information sharing 
program to all CDCs. DoD anticipates publishing a proposed rule in the 
first or second quarter of FY 2015.

DOD--OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (OS)

Proposed Rule Stage

38. Limitations on Terms of Consumer Credit Extended to Service Members 
and Dependents

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Legal Authority: 10 U.S.C. 987
    CFR Citation: 32 CFR 232.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Department of Defense (``Department'') proposes to 
amend its regulation that implements the Military Lending Act, herein 
referred to as the ``MLA.'' Among other protections for servicemembers, 
the MLA limits the amount of interest that a creditor may charge on 
``consumer credit'' to a maximum annual percentage rate of 36 percent. 
The Department is proposing to amend its existing regulation primarily 
for the purpose of extending the protections of the MLA to a broader 
range of closed-end and open-end credit products, rather than the 
limited credit products currently defined as consumer credit. In 
addition, the Department is proposing to amend its existing regulation 
to amend the provisions governing a tool a creditor may use in 
assessing whether a consumer is a ``covered borrower,'' modify the 
disclosures that a creditor must provide to a covered borrower, 
implement the enforcement provisions of the MLA, as amended, and for 
other purposes. The revisions to this rule are part of DoD's 
retrospective plan under Executive Order 13563 completed in August 
2011. DoD's full plan can be accessed at: http://exchange.regulations.gov/exchange/topic/eo-13563.
    Statement of Need: This regulation identifies the negative impact 
of high-cost consumer credit lending on servicemembers and their 
dependents quality of life and on general troop readiness. 
Servicemembers are younger than the population as a whole with 43 
percent 25 years old or less. Thirty-five percent of enlisted 
servicemembers in

[[Page 76505]]

the grades E1-E4 are married and 20 percent of them have children. This 
is compared with approximately 12 percent of their contemporaries in 
the U.S. population 18 through 24 who are married (2012 U.S. Census 
Bureau). The majority of recruits come to the military from high school 
with little financial literacy education.
    The initial indoctrination provided to servicemembers is critical 
providing basic requirements for their professional and personal 
responsibilities and their successful adjustment to military life. Part 
of this training is in personal finance which is an integral part of 
their personal and often professional success. The Department of 
Defense (the Department) continues to provide them messages to save, 
invest, and manage their money wisely throughout their career.
    A major concern of the Department has been the debt accumulation of 
some servicemembers and the continued financial turmoil caused by their 
use of credit particularly high-cost credit. The regulation has 
provided limitation on the use of credit posing the most significant 
concerns (short-term high-cost credit secured by pay, vehicle title, or 
tax return). Other forms of high-cost credit outside of the definitions 
in the regulation have been developed since the regulation was 
initially released in 2007 and the proposed changes to the regulation 
have been developed in part to extend protections to servicemembers and 
their families to cover these new developments.
    The Department views the support provided to military families as 
essential to sustaining force readiness and military capability. From 
this perspective it is not sufficient for the Department to train 
servicemembers on how best to use their financial resources. Financial 
protections are an important part of fulfilling the Departments compact 
with servicemembers and their families and most importantly of 
sustaining force readiness and military capability.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Public Law 109-364 the John Warner National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 670 Limitations on Terms 
of Consumer Credit Extended to Servicemembers and Dependents (October 
17 2006). Section 670 of Public Law 109-364 which was codified as 10 
U.S.C. 987 requires the Secretary of Defense to prescribe regulations 
to carry out the new section.
    Alternatives: No other regulatory alternatives are available. 
Education represents a non-regulatory alternative that is an important 
aspect of the overall protection provided servicemembers and their 
families. However education has not been proven to change behavior and 
has not been sufficient to prepare many of servicemembers to avoid 
financial products and services that can cause them financial harm. 
This regulation works in tandem with on-going efforts to educate 
Service members and prepare them to manage their finances.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Increased costs to the creditors as 
a result of the Regulation have been articulated in the Paperwork 
Reduction Act Submission as part of the EO 12866 review. The Department 
anticipates that its regulation, if adopted as proposed, might impose 
costs of approximately $96 million during the first year, as creditors 
adapt their systems to comply with the requirements of the MLA and the 
Department's regulation. However, after the first year and on an 
ongoing basis, the annual effect on the economy is expected to be 
between approximately $7 million net (quantitative) costs and $117 
million net (quantitative) benefits. The potentially anticipated net 
benefits of the proposed regulation are attributable to the cost 
savings to the Department that would result from the reduction in 
involuntary separations of Service members due to financial distress; 
at some points in the range of estimates the Department has used to 
assess the proposal, these savings are estimated to exceed the 
compliance costs that would be borne by creditors.
    Risks: The Regulation currently covers payday loans, vehicle-title 
loans, and tax refund anticipation loans (RALs). Some other credit 
products with favorable terms as well as terms that can increase the 
interest rate well beyond the limits prescribed by 10 U.S.C. 987 were 
not initially covered by the regulation. However access to payday and 
vehicle title loans has changed to include variations that are no 
longer covered by the regulation and there are other high-cost credit 
products that have become more of an issue for servicemembers and their 
families who have over extended their credit.
    The regulation continues to complement other actions taken by the 
Department to include initial and follow-on financial education 
financial awareness campaigns savings campaigns free financial 
counseling at military installations and available 24 hours 7 days per 
week through Military OneSource. To complement these efforts Military 
Aid Societies provide grants and no-interest loans and a growing number 
of financial institutions located on military installations are 
providing low-cost small-dollar loans.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM...............................   06/17/13  78 FR 36134
ANPRM Comment Period End............   08/01/13  .......................
NPRM................................   09/29/14  79 FR 58601
NPRM Comment Period End.............   11/28/14  .......................
Final Action........................   05/00/15  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Marcus Beauregard, Department of Defense, Office of 
the Secretary, 4000 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-4000, Phone: 
571 372-5357.
    RIN: 0790-AJ10

DOD--OS

39. Defense Industrial Base (DIB) Cyber Security/Information Assurance 
(CS/IA) Activities: Amendment

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: EO 12829
    CFR Citation: 32 CFR 236.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This rule amends the DoD-DIB CS/IA Voluntary Activities 
regulation 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.
    Statement of Need: The Department of Defense (DoD) will amend the 
DoD-DIB CS/IA Voluntary Activities (32 CFR part 236) regulation to 
incorporate changes as required by section 941 NDAA for FY 2013 to 
include mandated cyber intrusion incident reporting by all cleared 
defense contractors (CDCs).
    Summary of Legal Basis: This regulation is proposed under the 
authorities of section 941 NDAA for FY 2013.
    Alternatives: DoD analyzed the requirements in section 941 NDAA for 
FY 2013 and determined that implementation must be accomplished through 
the rulemaking process. This will allow the public to comment on the 
implementation strategy.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Implementing the amended rule to 
meet the requirements of section 941 NDAA for FY 2013 affects 
approximately 8,700 CDCs. Each company will require DoD approved, 
medium assured certificates

[[Page 76506]]

to submit the mandatory cyber incident reporting to the DoD-access 
controlled Web site. The cost per certificate is $175. In addition, it 
is estimated that the average burden per reported incident is 7 hours, 
which includes identifying the cyber incident details, gathering and 
maintaining the data needed, reviewing the collection of information to 
be reported, and completing the report. Note, these costs are the same 
as those associated with 32 CFR part 236 (DoD-DIB CS/IA Voluntary 
Activities), but are now applicable across a larger population of 
defense contractors. The benefit of this amended rule is satisfying the 
legal mandate from section 941 NDAA for FY 2013 as well as informing 
the Department of incidents that impact DoD programs and information. 
DoD needs to have the ability to assess the strategic and operational 
impacts of cyber incidents and determine appropriate mitigation 
activities.
    Risks: There will likely be significant public interest in DoD's 
implementation of section 941 NDAA for FY 2013. DoD will need to assure 
the public that DoD will provide for the reasonable protection of trade 
secrets, commercial or financial information, and information that can 
be used to identify a specific person that may be evident through the 
cyber incident reporting and media analysis.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   03/00/15  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Vicki Michetti, Department of Defense, Office of 
the Secretary, 6000 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-6000, Phone: 
703 604-3177, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 0790-AJ14

DOD--OS

Final Rule Stage

40. Service Academies

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 10 U.S.C. 403; 10 U.S.C. 603; 10 U.S.C. 903
    CFR Citation: 32 CFR 217
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Department is revising and updating policy guidance 
and oversight of the military service academies. This rule implements 
10 U.S.C. 403, 603, and 903 for the establishment and operation of the 
United States Military Academy, the United States Naval Academy, and 
the United States Air Force Academy. The proposed rule was published 
October 18, 2007 (72 FR 59053), and included policy that has since 
changed. The final rule, particularly the explanation of separation 
policy, will reflect recent changes in the Don't Ask, Don't Tell 
policy.
    Statement of Need: The Department of Defense revises and updates 
the current rule providing the policy guidance and oversight of the 
military service academies. This rule implements 10 U.S.C. 403, 603, 
and 903 for the establishment and operation of the United States 
Military Academy, the United States Naval Academy, and the United 
States Air Force Academy.
    Summary of Legal Basis: 10 U.S.C. chapters 403, 603, 903.
    Alternatives: None. The Federal statute directs the Department of 
Defense to develop policy, assign responsibilities, and prescribe 
procedures for operations and oversight of the service academies.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Administrative costs are negligible 
and benefits would be clear, concise rules that enable the Secretary of 
Defense to ensure that the service academies are efficiently operated 
and meet the needs of the Armed Forces.
    Risks: None.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   10/18/07  72 FR 59053
NPRM Comment Period End.............   12/17/07  .......................
Final Action........................   02/00/15  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Additional Information: DoD Instruction 1322.22.
    Agency Contact: Paul Nosek, Department of Defense, Office of the 
Secretary, 4000 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-4000, Phone: 703 
695-5529.
    RIN: 0790-AI19

DOD--Defense Acquisition Regulations Council (DARC)

Final Rule Stage

41. Foreign Commercial Satellite Services (DFARS Case 2014-D010)

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 41 U.S.C. 1303; Pub. L. 113-66, sec 1602
    CFR Citation: 48 CFR 204; 48 CFR 212; 48 CFR 225; 48 CFR 252.
    Legal Deadline: Other, Statutory, December 26, 2013, 10 U.S.C. 
2279, as added by sec 1602 of the NDAA for FY 2014 (Pub. L. 113-66), 
which was effective on enactment 12/26/13.
    Abstract: DoD issued an interim rule amending the Defense Federal 
Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to implement section 1602 of 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014, which 
prohibits award of a contract for commercial satellite services to a 
foreign entity if the Secretary of Defense believes that the foreign 
entity (1) is an entity in which the government of a covered foreign 
country has an ownership interest that enables the government to affect 
satellite operations; or (2) plans to, or is expected to, provide or 
use launch or other satellite services under the contract from a 
covered foreign country. This rule is not expected to have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    Statement of Need: This action is necessary because 10 U.S.C. 2279 
as added by section 1602 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
FY 2014 (Pub. L. 113-66) became effective upon enactment on December 26 
2013. 10 U.S.C. 2279 restricts the acquisition of commercial satellite 
services from certain foreign entities. The statute prohibits the award 
of contracts for commercial satellite services to a foreign entity that 
(1) is an entity in which the government of a covered foreign country 
(i.e., the Peoples Republic of China, North Korea, Cuba, Iran, Sudan, 
or Syria) has an ownership interest that enables the government to 
affect satellite operations; or (2) plans to or is expected to provide 
or use launch or other satellite services under the contract from a 
covered foreign country.
    Summary of Legal Basis: This rule is proposed under the authority 
of title 10 U.S.C. 2279 as added by section 1602 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for FY 2014 (Pub. L. 113-66).
    Alternatives: DoD was not able to identify any alternatives that 
meet the statutory requirements of 10 U.S.C. 2279 and the objectives of 
this rule.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Benefits associated with this rule 
outweigh the cost of compliance. The rule reduces the potential risk to 
national security by prohibiting the acquisition of commercial 
satellite services from certain foreign entities as in those case where 
the foreign entity is either (1) an entity in which the government of a 
covered foreign country has an ownership interest that enables the 
government to affect satellite

[[Page 76507]]

operations; or (2) plans to or is expected to provide or use launch or 
other satellite services under the contract from a covered foreign 
country. The rule requires an annual representation as to whether the 
offeror is or is not a foreign entity subject to the prohibitions of 
the statute or is or is not offering commercial satellite services 
provided by such a foreign entity. DoD estimates that the total 
estimated annual public burden for the collection of this information 
is negligible (approximately $4275.00) based on Federal Procurement 
Data System data for FY 2013. There were 380 unique contractors that 
received contract or orders for PSC D304 (ADP Telecommunications and 
Transmission Services) of which commercial satellite services are a 
subset so 380 is an estimate at the highest end of the possible range 
of respondents. We estimate that these respondent will spend an average 
of 0.25 hours to complete and submit one response per year. 
Additionally DoD estimates that the rule will not have a significant 
impact on small entities unless they are offering commercial satellite 
services provided by a foreign entity that is subject to the 
restrictions of this rule. According to the FPDS data for fiscal year 
2013, 111 small entities were awarded contracts or orders for services 
in PSC D304 (ADP Telecommunications and Transmission Services) of which 
commercial satellite services are a subset.
    Risks: Until this statute is implemented in the DFARS there is risk 
that contracting officers may acquire commercial satellite services in 
violation of the law increasing the risk to the U.S. military 
operations and lost opportunities for the U.S. industrial base.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule..................   08/05/14  79 FR 45662
Interim Final Rule Effective........   08/05/14  .......................
Interim Final Rule Comment Period      10/06/14  .......................
 End.
Final Action........................   03/00/15  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal.
    International Impacts: This regulatory action will be likely to 
have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise be of 
international interest.
    Agency Contact: Manuel Quinones, Department of Defense, Defense 
Acquisition Regulations Council, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Suite 15D07-2, 
Alexandria, VA 22350, Phone: 571 372-6088, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 0750-AI32

DOD--Office of Assistant Secretary for Health Affairs (DODOASHA)

Final Rule Stage

42. Champus/TRICARE: Pilot Program for Refills of Maintenance

Medications for TRICARE for Life Beneficiaries Through the TRICARE Mail 
Order Program

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Legal Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 10 U.S.C. ch 55
    CFR Citation: 32 CFR 199.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: 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.
    Statement of Need: The Department of Defense (DoD) proposed rule 
establishes processes for the new program of refills of maintenance 
medications for TRICARE for Life beneficiaries through military 
treatment facility pharmacies and the mail order pharmacy program.
    Summary of Legal Basis: This regulation is proposed under 5 U.S.C. 
301; 10 U.S.C. chapter 55; 32 CFR 199.21.
    Alternatives: The rule fulfills a statutory requirement, therefore 
there are no alternatives.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The effect of the statutory 
requirement, implemented by this rule, is to shift a volume of 
prescriptions from retail pharmacies to the most cost-effective point-
of-service venues of military treatment facility pharmacies and the 
mail order pharmacy program. This will produce savings to the 
Department of approximately $104 million per year, and savings to 
beneficiaries of approximately $34 million per year in reduced 
copayments.
    Risks: Loss of savings to both the Department and beneficiaries. No 
risk to the public.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule..................   12/11/13  78 FR 75245
Interim Final Rule Comment Period      02/10/14
 End.
Interim Final Rule Effective........   02/14/14
Final Action........................   01/00/15
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: George Jones, Department of Defense, Office of 
Assistant Secretary for Health Affairs, Defense Pentagon, Washington, 
DC 20301, Phone: 703 681-2890.
    RIN: 0720-AB60
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Statement of Regulatory Priorities

I. Introduction

    The U.S. Department of Education (Department) supports States, 
local communities, institutions of higher education, and others in 
improving education nationwide and in helping to ensure that all 
Americans receive a high-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 and 
other agencies, local school districts, providers of early learning 
programs, elementary and secondary schools, institutions of higher 
education, career and technical schools, nonprofit organizations, 
postsecondary students, members of the public, families, and many 
others. These efforts are helping to ensure that all children and 
students from pre-kindergarten through grade 12 will be ready for, and 
succeed in, postsecondary education and that students attending 
postsecondary institutions are prepared for a profession or career.
    We also vigorously monitor and enforce the implementation of 
Federal civil rights laws in educational

[[Page 76508]]

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 that the Department 
administers will affect nearly every American during his or her life. 
Indeed, in the 2014-2015 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 students 
may benefit from some degree of financial assistance or support from 
the Department.
    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 
Government-wide access point (www.regulations.gov) that enables the 
public to submit comments on different types of Federal regulatory 
documents and read and respond to comments submitted by other members 
of the public during the public comment period. This system provides 
the public with the opportunity to submit comments electronically on 
any notice of proposed rulemaking or interim final regulations open for 
comment, as well as read and print any supporting regulatory documents.
    We are continuing to streamline information collections, reduce the 
burden on information providers involved in our programs, and make 
information easily accessible to the public.

II. Regulatory Priorities

A. The Higher Education Act of 1965, as Amended

    Gainful Employment. On March 25, 2014, the Secretary issued a 
notice of proposed rulemaking for the Federal Student Aid programs 
authorized under title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as 
amended (HEA). Specifically, the proposed regulations would amend the 
regulations on institutional eligibility under the HEA and the Student 
Assistance General Provisions to establish measures for determining 
whether certain postsecondary educational programs prepare students for 
gainful employment in a recognized occupation, the conditions under 
which these educational programs remain eligible for the title IV 
Federal Student Aid programs, and requirements for reporting and 
disclosure of relevant information. The public comment period for the 
proposed regulations closed on May 27, 2014, and the Department 
published final regulations on October 31, 2014.
    Pay As You Earn. On June 9, 2014, the President issued a memorandum 
directing the Secretary to propose regulations by June 9, 2015, that 
will allow additional students who borrowed Federal Direct Loans to cap 
their Federal student loan payments at 10 percent of their income. The 
memorandum further directed the Secretary to issue final regulations 
after considering all public comments with the goal of making the 
repayment option available to borrowers by December 31, 2015. On 
September 3, 2014, we published a notice announcing our intention to 
establish a negotiated rulemaking committee to prepare proposed 
regulations governing the Federal William D. Ford Direct Loan Program. 
We also invited public comments regarding additional issues that should 
be considered for action by the negotiating committee.
    Teacher Preparation. On April 25, 2014, the President directed the 
Department to propose a plan to strengthen America's teacher 
preparation programs for public comment and to publish a final rule 
within the next year. The Administration seeks to encourage and support 
States in developing systems that recognize excellence and provide all 
programs with information to help them improve, while holding them 
accountable for how well they prepare teachers to succeed in today's 
classrooms and throughout their careers. Specifically, the Department 
is preparing to issue proposed regulations under title II of the HEA 
that require States to provide more meaningful data in their State 
report cards on the performance of each teacher preparation program 
located in the State and to amend the regulations governing the Teacher 
Education Assistance for College and Higher Education (TEACH) Grant 
Program to update, clarify, and improve the current regulations and 
align them with data reported by States under title II.

B. Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as Amended

    In 2010, the Administration released the ``Blueprint for Reform: 
The Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act'', 
the President's plan for revising the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) and replacing the No Child Left Behind Act 
of 2001 (NCLB). The blueprint can be found at the following Web site: 
http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint/index.html.
    Additionally, as we continue to work with Congress on reauthorizing 
the ESEA, we continue 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 high-quality education for all students while providing 
States with increased flexibility to implement State and local reforms 
to improve student achievement.

C. Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006

    In 2012, we released ``Investing in America's Future: A Blueprint 
for Transforming Career and Technical Education'', our plan for 
reauthorizing the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 
2006 (2006 Perkins Act). The Blueprint can be found at the following 
Web site: http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ovae/pi/cte/transforming-career-technical-education.pdf.
    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 
helped to improve the learning experiences of CTE students but did not 
go far enough to systemically create better outcomes for students and 
employers who are competing in a 21st-century global

[[Page 76509]]

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; (2) Collaboration; (3) Accountability; and 
(4) Innovation. 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.

D. Individuals With Disabilities Education Act

    On September 18, 2013, the Secretary issued a notice of proposed 
rulemaking 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, 
and auditing local educational agency (LEA) compliance with MOE 
requirements understand the rules. The Secretary intends to issue final 
regulations to amend the existing regulations that will clarify 
existing policy and make other related changes regarding: (1) The 
compliance standard; (2) the eligibility standard; (3) the level of 
fiscal effort required of an LEA in the year after it fails to maintain 
that effort; and (4) the consequence for a failure to maintain local 
effort.

E. Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act

    President Obama signed the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act 
(WIOA) into law on July 22, 2014. WIOA replaced the Workforce 
Investment Act of 1998 (WIA), including the Adult Education and Family 
Literacy Act (AEFLA), and amended the Wagner-Peyser Act and the 
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act). WIOA promotes the 
integration of the workforce development system's four ``core 
programs'', including AEFLA and the vocational rehabilitation program 
under Title I of the Rehabilitation Act), into the revamped workforce 
development system under Title I of WIOA. In collaboration with the 
Department of Labor (DOL), the Department must issue an NPRM by January 
18, 2015, and final regulations by January 22, 2016. The Department is 
working with DOL to meet this statutory deadline. The Department will 
also regulate on the programs it administers under the Rehabilitation 
Act and AEFLA that were changed by WIOA.

III. Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations

    Pursuant to section 6 of Executive Order 13563, ``Improving 
Regulation and Regulatory Review'' (signed by the President on 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 
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. These rulemakings can 
also be found on Regulations.gov. The final agency plan can be found 
at: www.ed.gov.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Do we expect this rulemaking
          RIN                 Title of         to significantly reduce
                             Rulemaking      burden on small businesses?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1810-AB16..............  Title I_Improving  No.
                          the Academic
                          Achievement of
                          the
                          Disadvantaged.
1820-AB65..............  Assistance to      No.
                          States for the
                          Education of
                          Children with
                          Disabilities_Mai
                          ntenance of
                          Effort.
1820-AB66..............  American Indian    No.
                          Vocational
                          Rehabilitation
                          Services Program.
1820-AB68..............  Workforce          Undetermined.
                          Innovation and
                          Opportunity Act
                          (OSERS).
1830-AA21..............  Workforce          Undetermined.
                          Innovation and
                          Opportunity Act
                          (OCTAE).
1840-AD08..............  Titles III and V   No.
                          of the Higher
                          Education Act,
                          as Amended.
1840-AD14..............  Negotiated         No.
                          Rulemaking Under
                          Title IV of the
                          HEA.
1840-AD15..............  Gainful            No.
                          Employment.
1840-AD16..............  Violence Against   No.
                          Women Act.
1840-AD17..............  William D. Ford    No.
                          Federal Direct
                          Loan Program.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Principles for Regulating

    Over the next year, we may need to issue other regulations because 
of new legislation or programmatic changes. In doing so, we will follow 
the Principles for Regulating, which determine when and how we will 
regulate. Through consistent application of those 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.

ED--OFFICE OF POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION (OPE)

Proposed Rule Stage

43.  Pay as you Earn

    Priority: Other Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.

[[Page 76510]]

    Legal Authority: Not Yet Determined
    CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: On June 9 2014, the President issued a memorandum (79 FR 
33843) directing the Secretary to propose regulations by June 9, 2015, 
that will allow additional students who borrowed Federal Direct Loans 
to cap their Federal student loan payments at 10 percent of their 
income. The memorandum further directed the Secretary to issue final 
regulations after considering all public comments with the goal of 
making the repayment option available to borrowers by December 31, 
2015.
    Statement of Need: The President has issued a memorandum directing 
the Secretary to propose regulations by June 9, 2015, that will allow 
additional student borrowers Federal Direct Loans to cap their Federal 
student loan payments at 10 percent of their income. The memorandum 
further directed the Secretary to issue final regulations after 
considering all public comments with the goal of making the repayment 
option available to borrowers by December 31, 2015.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The President directed the Secretary to 
propose regulations that will allow additional student borrowers 
Federal Direct Loans to cap their Federal student loan payments at 10 
percent of their income.
    Alternatives: These will be discussed in the notice of proposed 
rulemaking.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: These will be discussed in the 
notice of proposed rulemaking.
    Risks: These will be discussed in the notice of proposed 
rulemaking.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice of Intent to Establish          09/03/14  79 FR 52273
 Negotiated Rulemaking Committee.
NPRM................................   06/00/15  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
    Federalism: Undetermined.
    URL For Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Wendy Macias, Department of Education, Office of 
Postsecondary Education, Room 8017, 1990 K Street NW., Washington, DC 
20006, Phone: 202 502-7526, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 1840-AD18

ED--OFFICE OF CAREER, TECHNICAL, AND ADULT EDUCATION (OCTAE)

Proposed Rule Stage

44.  Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 
is undetermined.
    Legal Authority: Pub. L. 113-128
    CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
    Legal Deadline: NPRM, Statutory, January 18, 2015, No later than 
180 days after enactment. Final, Statutory, January 22, 2016, 18 months 
after enactment.
    Abstract: WIOA was signed into law on July 22, 2014. It replaced 
the Workforce Investment Act of 1998, including the Adult Education and 
Family Literacy Act (AEFLA), and amended the Wagner-Peyser Act and the 
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. WIOA promotes the integration of the 
workforce development system's four core programs. In collaboration 
with the Department of Labor (DOL), the Department must issue an NPRM 
by January 18, 2015 and final regulations by January 22, 2016. To meet 
this statutory timeline, the Department will work with DOL on various 
issues. The Department will also regulate on the programs it 
administers under the Rehabilitation Act and the AEFLA that were 
changed by WIOA.
    Statement of Need: WIOA replaces the Workforce Investment Act of 
1998, including the AEFLA, and amends the Wagner-Peyser Act and the 
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. In collaboration with the Department of 
Labor (DOL), the Department must issue proposed regulations on the 
integration of the workforce development system's four core programs, 
and will also regulate on the programs it administers under the 
Rehabilitation Act and the AEFLA that were changed by WIOA.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The Department will issue proposed 
regulations on the integration of the workforce development system's 
four core programs, and on the programs it administers under that were 
changed by WIOA.
    Alternatives: These will be discussed in the NPRM Regulations.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: These will be discussed in the NPRM 
Regulations.
    Risks: These will be discussed in the NPRM Regulations.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   01/00/15
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
    Federalism: Undetermined.
    URL For Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Mary Louise Dirrigl, Department of Education, 
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Room 5156, 
PCP, 550 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20202, Phone: 202 245-7324.
    Cheryl Keenan, Department of Education, Office of Career, 
Technical, and Adult Education, 550 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 
20202, Phone: 202 245-7810.
    RIN: 1830-AA21.
BILLING CODE 4001-01-P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Statement of Regulatory and Deregulatory Priorities

    The Department of Energy (Department or DOE) makes vital 
contributions to the Nation's welfare through its activities focused on 
improving national security, energy supply, energy efficiency, 
environmental remediation, and energy research. The Department's 
mission is to:
     Promote dependable, affordable and environmentally sound 
production and distribution of energy;
     Advance energy efficiency and conservation;
     Provide responsible stewardship of the Nation's nuclear 
weapons;
     Provide a responsible resolution to the environmental 
legacy of nuclear weapons production; 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.

[[Page 76511]]

Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations

    Pursuant to section 6 of Executive Order 13563 ``Improving 
Regulation and Regulatory Review'' (Jan. 18, 2011), several regulations 
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 http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/other/2011-regulatory-action-plans/departmentofenergyregulatoryreformplanaugust2011.pdf.

Energy Efficiency Program for Consumer Products and Commercial 
Equipment

    The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) requires DOE to set 
appliance efficiency standards at levels that achieve the maximum 
improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and 
economically justified. The 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 2014 
report to Congress and now includes the requirements of the Energy 
Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007) and the American 
Energy Manufacturing Technical Corrections Act (AEMTCA). The reports to 
Congress are posted at: http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/schedule_setting.html.

Estimate of Combined Aggregate Costs and Benefits

    In FY 2014, the Department published final rules that adopted new 
or amended energy conservation standards for seven different products, 
including metal halide lamp fixtures, external power supplies, 
commercial refrigeration equipment, walk-in coolers and freezers, 
through the wall air conditioners and heat pumps, electric motors, and 
furnace fans. These standards when combined with the other final rules 
adopting standards since January 2009, are expected to save consumers 
hundreds of billions of dollars on their utility bills through 2030.
    DOE believes that the three rulemakings that make up the Regulatory 
Plan will also substantially benefit the Nation. However, because of 
their current stage in the rulemaking process, DOE has not yet proposed 
candidate standard levels for these products and cannot provide an 
estimate of combined aggregate costs and benefits for these actions. 
DOE will, however, in compliance with all applicable law, issue 
standards that provide the maximum energy savings that are 
technologically feasible and economically justified. Estimates of 
energy savings will be provided when DOE issues the notice of proposed 
rulemakings for manufactured housing, general service lamps, and non-
weatherized gas furnaces.

DOE--ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY (EE)

Prerule Stage

45. Energy Conservation Standards for General Service Lamps

    Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 
undetermined.
    Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A) and (B)
    CFR Citation: 10 CFR 430.
    Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, January 1, 2017.
    Abstract: Amendments to Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) 
in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) direct DOE 
to conduct two rulemaking cycles to evaluate energy conservation 
standards for GSLs, the first of which must be initiated no later than 
January 1, 2014. EISA specifically states that the scope of the 
rulemaking is not limited to incandescent lamp technologies. EISA also 
states that DOE must consider in the first rulemaking cycle the minimum 
backstop requirement of 45 lumens per watt for GSLs effective January 
1, 2020, established by EISA. This rulemaking constitutes DOE's first 
rulemaking cycle.
    Statement of Need: EPCA requires minimum energy efficiency 
standards for certain appliances and commercial equipment.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Title III of the Energy Policy and 
Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA or the Act) Public Law 94163 (42 U.S.C. 
62916309 as codified) established the Energy Conservation Program for 
Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles. Pursuant to EPCA any new or 
amended energy conservation standard that the U.S. Department of Energy 
(DOE) prescribes for certain products such as general service lamps 
shall be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy 
efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified 
(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) and result in a significant conservation of 
energy (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)).
    Alternatives: The statute requires DOE to conduct rulemakings to 
review standards and to revise standards to achieve the maximum 
improvement in energy efficiency that the Secretary determines is 
technologically feasible and economically justified. In making this 
determination DOE conducts a thorough analysis of the alternative 
standard levels including the existing standard based on the criteria 
specified by the statute.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Because DOE has not yet proposed 
energy efficiency standards, DOE cannot provide an estimate of combined 
aggregate costs and benefits for these actions. DOE will, however, in 
compliance with all applicable law, issue standards that provide for 
increased energy efficiency that are economically justified. Estimates 
of energy savings will be provided when DOE issues the notice of 
proposed rulemaking action.
    Risks:
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Framework Document Availibility;       12/09/13  78 FR 73737
 Public Meeting.
Framework Document Comment Period      01/23/14  79 FR 3742
 Extended.
Framework Document Comment Period      02/07/14
 End.
Preliminary Analysis................   12/00/14
NPRM................................   02/00/16
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
    Federalism: Undetermined.
    URL For More Information: www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/rulemaking.aspx?ruleid=83.
    URL For Public Comments: www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-
2013-BT-STD-0051.
    Agency Contact: Lucy DeButts, Office of Buildings Technologies 
Program, EE-

[[Page 76512]]

5B, Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 1000 
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585, Phone: 202 287-1604, 
Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 1904-AD09

DOE--EE

Proposed Rule Stage

46. Energy Efficiency Standards for Manufactured Housing

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Unfunded Mandates: This action may affect the private sector under 
Pub. L. 104-4.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 17071
    CFR Citation: 10 CFR 460.
    Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, December 19, 2011.
    Abstract: Section 413 of EISA requires that DOE establish standards 
for energy efficiency in manufactured housing. See 42 U.S.C. 
17071(a)(1). DOE is directed to base the energy efficiency standards on 
the most recent version of the International Energy Conservation Code 
(IECC), except where DOE finds that the IECC is not cost effective, or 
a more stringent standard would be more cost effective, based on the 
impact of the IECC on the purchase price of manufactured housing and on 
total life-cycle construction and operating costs. On June 13, 2014, 
DOE published a notice of intent to establish a negotiated rulemaking 
working group for the manufactured housing rulemaking under the 
Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee (ASRAC) 
in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and the 
Negotiated Rulemaking Act (NRA) to negotiate proposed Federal standards 
for the energy efficiency of manufactured homes (79 FR 33873). The 
purpose of the working group is to discuss and, if possible, reach 
consensus on a proposed rule for the energy efficiency of manufactured 
homes.
    Statement of Need: EISA requires DOE to establish minimum energy 
efficiency standards for manufactured housing.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Section 413 of EISA 2007, 42 U.S.C. 17071, 
directs DOE to develop and publish energy standards for manufactured 
housing.
    Alternatives: The statute requires DOE to conduct a rulemaking to 
establish standards based on the most recent version of the 
International Energy Conservation Code (IECC), except in cases in which 
the Secretary finds that the IECC is not cost effective or a more 
stringent standard would be more cost effective based on the impact of 
the IECC on the purchase price of manufactured housing and on total 
lifecycle construction and operating costs.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Because DOE has not yet proposed 
energy efficiency standards, DOE cannot provide an estimate of combined 
aggregate costs and benefits for these actions. DOE will, however, in 
compliance with all applicable law, issue standards that provide for 
increased energy efficiency that are economically justified. Estimates 
of energy savings will be provided when DOE issues the notice of 
proposed rulemaking.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM...............................   02/22/10  75 FR 7556
ANPRM Comment Period End............   03/24/10  .......................
Request for Information.............   06/25/13  78 FR 37995
NPRM................................   11/00/14  .......................
Extension of Term; Notice of Public    10/01/14  79 FR 59154
 Meeting.
NPRM................................   02/00/15
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    URL For More Information: www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/rulemaking.aspx?ruleid=97.
    URL For Public Comments: www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-
2009-BT-BC-0021.
    Agency Contact: Joseph Hagerman, Office of Building Technologies, 
EE-2J, Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 
1000 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20585, Phone: 202 586-4549, 
Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 1904-AC11

DOE--EE

47. Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Non-weatherized Gas 
Furnaces

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6295(f)(4)(e); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1); 42 
U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)
    CFR Citation: 10 CFR 430.
    Legal Deadline: NPRM, Judicial, April 24, 2015, One year after 
issuance of the proposed rule. Final, Judicial, April 24, 2016.
    Abstract: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), as 
amended, prescribes energy conservation standards for various consumer 
products and certain commercial and industrial equipment, including 
residential furnaces. EPCA also requires the DOE to periodically 
determine whether more-stringent amended standards would be 
technologically feasible and economically justified and would save a 
significant amount of energy. DOE is amending its energy conservation 
standards for residential non-weatherized gas furnaces and mobile home 
gas furnaces in partial fulfillment of a court-ordered remand of DOE's 
2011 rulemaking for these products.
    Statement of Need: EPCA requires minimum energy efficiency 
standards for certain appliances and commercial equipment, including 
residential furnaces.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Title III of the Energy Policy and 
Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA or the Act), Public Law 94-163 (42 
U.S.C. 6291-6309, as codified), established the Energy Conservation 
Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles. Pursuant to EPCA, 
any new or amended energy conservation standard that the U.S. 
Department of Energy (DOE) prescribes for certain products, such as 
residential furnaces, shall be designed to achieve the maximum 
improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and 
economically justified (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) and result in a 
significant conservation of energy (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)).
    Alternatives: The statute requires DOE to conduct rulemakings to 
review standards and to revise standards to achieve the maximum 
improvement in energy efficiency that the Secretary determines is 
technologically feasible and economically justified. In making this 
determination, DOE conducts a thorough analysis of the alternative 
standard levels, including the existing standard, based on the criteria 
specified by the statute.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Because DOE has not yet proposed 
energy efficiency standards, DOE cannot provide an estimate of combined 
aggregate costs and benefits for these actions. DOE will, however, in 
compliance with all applicable laws, issue standards that provide for 
increased energy efficiency that are economically justified. Estimates 
of energy savings will be provided when

[[Page 76513]]

DOE issues the notice of proposed rulemaking.
    Risks:
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice of Public Meeting............   10/30/14  79 FR 64517
NPRM................................   12/00/14  .......................
Final Action........................   12/00/15  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: Local, State.
    Federalism: Undetermined.
    URL For More Information: www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/product.aspx/productid/72.
    URL For Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: John Cymbalsky, Office of Building Technologies 
Program, EE-5B, Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable 
Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585, Phone: 202 
287-1692, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 1904-AD20
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Statement of Regulatory Priorities for Fiscal Year 2015

    As the Federal agency with lead responsibility for protecting the 
health of all Americans and for 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; and strengthen the 
Nation's health and human services infrastructure.
    The Department's regulatory priorities for Fiscal Year 2015 reflect 
this complex mission through planned rulemakings structured to: Further 
increase access to health care for all Americans, especially by 
strengthening the Medicare, Medicaid and Children's Health Insurance 
programs; build from previous experiences to safeguard the Nation's 
food supply; provide 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. The following overview highlights 
forthcoming rulemakings exemplifying these priorities.

Encouraging Delivery System Reforms To Ensure Consumer Access to High 
Quality, Affordable Care

    The Affordable Care Act expands access to health insurance through 
improvements in Medicaid, the establishment of Affordable Insurance 
Exchanges, and coordination between Medicaid, the Children's Health 
Insurance Program, and the Exchanges. A forthcoming final rule will 
bring to completion regulatory provisions that support our efforts to 
assist States in implementing Medicaid eligibility determinations, 
appeals, enrollment changes, and other State health subsidy programs 
stemming from the Affordable Care Act. The intent of the rule is to 
afford each State substantial discretion in the design and operation of 
that State's exchange, with standardization provided only where 
directed by the Act or where there are compelling practical, efficiency 
or consumer-protection reasons.
    A forthcoming proposed rule would establish policies related to 
``Stage 3'' of the Medicare/Medicaid Electronic Health Record (EHR) 
Incentive Programs. The rule is necessary to further implement 
provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act that provide 
incentive payments to eligible providers, hospitals, and critical 
access hospitals participating in Medicare and Medicaid programs that 
adopt certified EHR technology. The proposal will offer for comment 
specific criteria that these providers and facilities would need to 
meet in order to successfully demonstrate ``meaningful use,'' focusing 
on advanced use of EHR technology to promote improved outcomes for 
patients.
    The Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA) 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. A new proposed rule 
would build on the 2013 final rule implementing MHPAEA by proposing 
standards for Medicaid alternative benefit plans, Medicaid managed care 
organizations, and the Children's Health Insurance Program.
    Another proposed rule would revise the requirements that long-term 
care facilities must meet to participate in the Medicare and Medicaid 
programs. The proposed changes are necessary to reflect advances in the 
theory and practice of service delivery and safety for patients in 
long-term care settings. The proposals are also an integral part of our 
efforts to achieve broad-based improvements both in the quality of 
health care furnished through Federal programs, and in patient safety, 
while at the same time reducing procedural burdens on providers.
    In addition, nine Medicare payment rules will be updated to better 
reflect the current state of medical practice and to respond to 
feedback from providers seeking financial predictability and 
flexibility to better serve patients.

Streamlining Regulations Through Retrospective Review

    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 entities by updating current rules to 
align them with emerging health and safety standards, and by 
eliminating outdated procedural provisions.
    For example, CMS will continue its retrospective review efforts by 
finalizing an April 2014, proposal to amend the fire safety standards 
for hospitals, long-term care facilities, ambulatory surgery centers, 
and a variety of other inpatient care settings. Further, this rule will 
adopt the most recent edition of the Life Safety Code (LSC) and 
eliminate references in our regulations to all earlier editions, which 
will give clear guidance to providers and institutions for these 
important safety standards.
    Similarly, a forthcoming final rule from the Administration for 
Children and Families (ACF) will provide the first comprehensive update 
of Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) regulations since 1998. The 
CCDF is a Federal program that provides formula grants to States, 
territories, and tribes. The program provides financial assistance to 
low-income families to access child care so that they can work or 
attend a job-training or educational program. It also provides funding 
to improve the quality of child care and increase the supply and 
availability of child care for all families, including those who 
receive no direct assistance through CCDF.
    Another ACF effort would modify existing Head Start performance 
standards to take into account increased knowledge in the early 
childhood field since the standards were last updated more than 15 
years ago. Changes would strengthen requirements on curriculum and 
assessment, supervision, health and safety, and governance. The notice 
of proposed rulemaking would also streamline existing regulations to

[[Page 76514]]

eliminate unnecessary or duplicative requirements.
    Additionally, the Department, in collaboration with the President's 
Office of Science and Technology Policy will propose revisions to 
existing rules governing research on human subjects, often referred to 
as the Common Rule. This rule would apply to institutions and 
researchers supported by HHS as well as researchers throughout much of 
the Federal Government who are conducting research involving human 
subjects. The proposed revisions will aim to better protect human 
subjects while facilitating research, and also reducing burden, delay, 
and ambiguity for investigators.

Helping Consumers Identify Healthy Choices in the Marketplace

    Since 1980, the prevalence of obesity among children and 
adolescents has almost tripled. Obesity has both immediate and long-
term effects on the health and quality of life of those affected, 
increasing their risk for chronic diseases, including heart disease, 
type 2 diabetes, certain cancers, stroke, and arthritis--as well as 
increasing medical costs for the individual and the health system. 
Building on the momentum of the First Lady's ``Let's Move'' initiative, 
HHS has mobilized skills and expertise from across the Department to 
address this epidemic with research, public education, and public 
health strategies.
    Adding to this effort, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) plans 
to issue four final 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. These 
rules, each benefiting from input received in extended public comment 
periods, 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 drive-through menu boards. 
Other nutrient information--total calories, fat, saturated fat, 
cholesterol, sodium, total carbohydrates, sugars, fiber, and total 
protein--would have to be made available in writing upon request;
     Require vending machine operators who own or operate 20 or 
more vending machines to disclose calorie content for some items. The 
Department anticipates that such information will ensure that patrons 
of chain restaurants and vending machines have access to essential 
nutrition information;
     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 
on the label to help consumers maintain healthy dietary practices; and
     Update the serving-size information provided within the 
food label, providing current nutrition information based on the amount 
of food that is typically eaten as a serving, to assist consumers in 
maintaining healthy dietary practices.

Implementing the Food Safety Modernization Act

    FDA will maintain the agency's ongoing effort to promulgate rules 
required under the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), working with 
public and private partners to build a new system of food safety 
oversight. Responding to extensive feedback from stakeholders, the 
agency recently issued for further public comment supplemental 
proposals structured to:
     Establish preventive controls in the manufacture and 
distribution of human foods and of animal feeds. These regulations 
constitute the heart of the FSMA food safety program by instituting 
uniform practices for the manufacture and distribution of food 
products, to ensure that those products are safe for consumption and 
will not cause or spread disease.
     Ensure that produce sold in the United States meets 
rigorous safety standards. The regulation would set enforceable, 
science-based standards for the safe production and harvesting of fresh 
produce at the farm and the packing house, to minimize the risk of 
adverse health consequences.
     Require food importers to establish a verification program 
to improve the safety of food imported into the United States. 
Specifically, FDA will outline proposed standards that foreign food 
suppliers must meet to ensure that imported food is produced in a 
manner that is as safe as food produced in the United States.

Reducing Tobacco Use

    In 2009, Congress enacted the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco 
Control Act, authorizing FDA to regulate the manufacture, marketing, 
and distribution of tobacco products, to protect the public health and 
to reduce tobacco use by minors. In the coming fiscal year, benefiting 
from public scrutiny of an April 2014, regulatory proposal, FDA plans 
to issue a final rule that will clarify which products containing 
tobacco, in addition to cigarettes, are subject to the Agency's 
oversight. This rule would also allow FDA to establish regulatory 
standards on the sale and distribution of tobacco products, such as 
age-related access restrictions on advertising and promotion, as 
appropriate, to protect public health.

Modernizing Medical-Product Safety and Availability

    In 2012, Congress provided new authorities under the Food and Drug 
Administration Safety and Innovation Act to support its mission of 
safeguarding the quality of medical products available to the public 
while ensuring the availability of innovative products. FDA is 
implementing this new authority with a focus on 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, the Agency plans to issue a final rule this year to 
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. This rule will help FDA address and potentially prevent drug 
shortages, and it will help inform providers and public health 
officials earlier about potential drug shortages.
    Another forthcoming final rule will update FDA's regulations to 
reflect the increased use of generic drugs in the current marketplace, 
and will describe approaches for brand name and generic drug 
manufacturers to update product labeling. This rule will revise and 
clarify procedures for updates to product labeling to reflect certain 
types of newly acquired safety information through submission of a 
``changes being effected'' supplement.

Reducing Gun Violence

    As part of the President's continuing efforts to reduce gun 
violence, HHS will issue a final rule to remove unnecessary legal 
barriers under the HIPAA Privacy Rule that may prevent States from 
reporting certain information to the National Instant Criminal 
Background Check System (NICS). The NICS helps to ensure that guns are 
not sold to those prohibited by law from having them, including felons, 
those convicted of domestic violence, and individuals involuntarily 
committed to a mental institution. However, the background check system 
is only as effective as the

[[Page 76515]]

information that is available to it. The rule will give States and 
certain covered entities added flexibility to ensure accurate but 
limited information is reported to the NICS, which would not include 
clinical, diagnostic, or other mental health information. Instead, 
certain covered entities would be permitted to disclose the minimum 
necessary identifying information about individuals who have been 
involuntarily committed to a mental institution or otherwise have been 
determined by a lawful authority to be a danger to themselves or 
others.

HHS--FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION (FDA)

Proposed Rule Stage

48. Current Good Manufacturing Practice and Hazard Analysis and Risk-
Based Preventive Controls for Food for Animals

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Unfunded Mandates: This action may affect the private sector under 
Pub. L. 104-4.
    Legal Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321; 21 U.S.C. 331; 21 U.S.C. 342; 21 
U.S.C. 350c; 21 U.S.C. 350d note; 21 U.S.C. 350g; 21 U.S.C. 350g note; 
21 U.S.C. 371; 21 U.S.C. 374; 42 U.S.C. 264; 42 U.S.C. 243; 42 U.S.C. 
271;
    CFR Citation: 21 CFR 507.
    Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, July 2012. Final, Judicial, 
August 30, 2015.
    The FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) mandates that FDA 
promulgate final regulations to establish preventive controls not later 
than 18 months after the date of enactment of FSMA. Certain 
requirements regarding standards for pet food and other animal feeds 
mandated by the FDA Amendment Act of 2007 will be subsumed in the FSMA 
rulemaking. Per consent decree, FDA will submit the final rule to the 
Federal Register for publication by 08/30/2015.
    Abstract: This rule establishes requirements for good manufacturing 
practice, and requires that certain facilities establish and implement 
hazard analysis and risk-based preventive controls for animal food, 
including ingredients and mixed animal feed. This action is intended to 
provide greater assurance that food for all animals, including pets, is 
safe.
    Statement of Need: Regulatory oversight of the animal food industry 
has traditionally been limited and focused on a few known safety issues 
so there could be problems that remain unaddressed potentially 
affecting animal health. The massive pet food recall due to 
adulteration with melamine and cyanuric acid in 2007 is an example. 
Actions taken by two protein suppliers in China affected a large number 
of pet food manufacturers in the United States and created a nationwide 
problem. By the time the cause of the problem was identified melamine- 
and cyanuric-acid contaminated ingredients had resulted in the 
adulteration of millions of individual servings of pet food sickening 
and killing pets. Salmonella contaminated pet food has been the cause 
of illness in humans: In 2007 people became ill handling pet food 
contaminated with a rare Salmonella serotype; over 200 people in the 
United Kingdom and United States became ill from handling Salmonella 
contaminated frozen mice (used for pet food) that came from a U.S. 
facility; and people were infected with Salmonella in 2012 that 
originated from contaminated dog and cat food. Other animal food 
recalls have resulted from contamination with aflatoxins, dioxins 
excessive vitamin D, and insufficient thiamine. Congress passed FSMA 
which the President signed into law on January 4, 2011 (Pub. L. 111-
353). Section 103 of FSMA amended the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic 
Act (FD&C Act) by adding section 418 (21 U.S.C. 350g) Hazard Analysis 
and Risk-Based Preventive Controls. In enacting FSMA Congress sought to 
improve the safety of food in the United States by taking a risk-based 
approach to food safety emphasizing prevention. Section 418 of the FD&C 
Act requires owners, operators, or agents in charge of food facilities 
to develop and implement a written hazard analysis and preventive 
controls to significantly minimize or prevent the occurrence of hazards 
and help prevent adulteration of food.
    Summary of Legal Basis: FDA's authority for issuing this rule is 
provided in FSMA (Pub. L. 111-353), which amended the FD&C Act by 
establishing section 418, which directed FDA to publish implementing 
regulations. FSMA also amended section 301 of the FD&C Act to add 
301(uu) that states the operation of a facility that manufactures, 
processes, packs, or holds food for sale in the United States, if the 
owner, operator, or agent in charge of such facility is not in 
compliance with section 418 of the FD&C Act, is a prohibited act. 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.
    Alternatives: The Food Safety Modernization Act requires FDA to 
promulgate regulations to establish hazard analyses and risk-based 
preventive controls.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The benefits of the proposed rule 
would be fewer cases of contaminated animal food. Discovering 
contaminated food ingredients before they are used in a finished 
product would reduce the number of recalls of contaminated animal food 
products. Benefits would include reduced medical treatment costs for 
animals, reduced loss of market value of livestock, reduced loss of 
animal companionship, and reduced loss in value of animal food. More 
stringent requirements for animal food manufacturing would maintain 
public confidence in the safety of animal food, and protect animal and 
human health. FDA lacks sufficient data to quantify the benefits of the 
proposed rule. The compliance costs of the proposed rule would result 
from the additional labor and capital required to perform the hazard 
analyses, write and implement the preventive controls, monitor and 
verify the preventive controls, take corrective actions if preventive 
controls fail to prevent food from becoming contaminated, and implement 
the current good manufacturing practice regulations.
    Risks: FDA is proposing this rule to provide greater assurance that 
food intended for animals is safe, and will not cause illness or injury 
to animals. This rule would implement a risk-based, preventive controls 
food safety system intended to prevent animal food containing hazards, 
which may cause illness or injury to animals or humans, from entering 
the food supply. The rule would apply to domestic and imported animal 
food (including raw materials and ingredients). Fewer cases of animal 
food contamination would reduce the risk of serious illness and death 
to animals.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   10/29/13  78 FR 64736

[[Page 76516]]

 
NPRM Comment Period Extension.......   02/03/14  79 FR 6111
NPRM Comment Period End.............   02/26/14  .......................
NPRM Comment Period Extension End...   03/31/14  .......................
Supplemental NPRM...................   09/29/14  79 FR 58475
Supplemental NPRM Comment Period End   12/15/14  .......................
Final Rule..........................   08/00/15  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: State.
    Federalism: This action may have federalism implications as defined 
in EO 13132.
    Agency Contact: Kim Young, Deputy Director, Division of Compliance, 
Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, 
Center for Veterinary Medicine, Room 106 (MPN-4, HFV-230), 7519 
Standish Place, Rockville, MD 20855, Phone: 240 276-9207, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 0910-AG10

HHS--FDA

49. Standards for the Growing, Harvesting, Packing, and Holding of 
Produce for Human Consumption

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Unfunded Mandates: This action may affect the private sector under 
Pub. L. 104-4.
    Legal Authority: 21 U.S.C. 342; 21 U.S.C. 350h; 21 U.S.C. 371; 42 
U.S.C. 264; Pub. L. 111-353 (signed on January 4, 2011)
    CFR Citation: 21 CFR 112.
    Legal Deadline: Final, Judicial, October 2015.
    Abstract: This rule will establish science-based minimum standards 
for the safe production and harvesting of those types of fruits and 
vegetables that are raw agricultural commodities for which the 
Secretary has determined that such standards minimize the risk of 
serious adverse health consequences or death. The purpose of the rule 
is to reduce the risk of illness associated with fresh produce.
    Statement of Need: FDA is taking this action to meet the 
requirements of the FSMA and to address the food safety challenges 
associated with fresh produce and, thereby, protect the public health. 
Data indicate that between 1973 and 1997, outbreaks of foodborne 
illness in the U.S. associated with fresh produce increased in absolute 
numbers and as a proportion of all reported foodborne illness 
outbreaks. The Agency issued general good agricultural practice 
guidelines for fresh fruits and vegetables over a decade ago. 
Incorporating prevention-oriented public health principles, and 
incorporating what we have learned in the past decade into a regulation 
is a critical step in establishing standards for the production and 
harvesting of produce, and reducing the foodborne illness attributed to 
fresh produce.
    Summary of Legal Basis: FDA is relying on the amendments to the 
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act), provided by 
section 105 of the Food Safety Modernization Act (codified primarily in 
section 419 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 350h)). FDA's legal basis also 
derives in part from sections 402(a)(3), 402(a)(4), and 701(a) of the 
FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 342(a)(3), 342(a)(4), and 371(a)). FDA also intends 
to rely on section 361 of the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act) (42 
U.S.C. 264), which gives FDA authority to promulgate regulations to 
control the spread of communicable disease.
    Alternatives: Section 105 of the Food Safety Modernization Act 
requires FDA to conduct this rulemaking.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: FDA estimates that the costs to more 
than 300,000 domestic and foreign producers and packers of fresh 
produce from the proposal would include one-time costs (e.g., new tools 
and equipment) and recurring costs (e.g., monitoring, training, 
recordkeeping). FDA anticipates that the benefits would be a reduction 
in foodborne illness and deaths associated with fresh produce. The 
monetized annual benefits of this rule are estimated to be $1 billion, 
and the monetized annual costs are estimated to be $460 million, 
domestically.
    Risks: This regulation would directly and materially advance the 
Federal Government's substantial interest in reducing the risks for 
illness and death associated with foodborne infections associated with 
the consumption of fresh produce. Less restrictive and less 
comprehensive approaches have not been sufficiently effective in 
reducing the problems addressed by this regulation. FDA anticipates 
that the regulation would lead to a significant decrease in foodborne 
illness associated with fresh produce consumed in the United States.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   01/16/13  78 FR 3503
NPRM Comment Period End.............   05/16/13  .......................
NPRM Comment Period Extended........   04/26/13  78 FR 24692
NPRM Comment Period Extended End....   09/16/13  .......................
NPRM Comment Period Extended........   08/09/13  78 FR 48637
NPRM Comment Period Extended End....   11/15/13  .......................
Notice of Intent To Prepare an         08/19/13  78 FR 50358
 Environmental Impact Statement for
 the Proposed Rule.
Notice of Intent To Prepare            11/15/13  .......................
 Environmental Impact Statement for
 the Proposed Rule Comment Period
 End.
NPRM Comment Period Extended........   11/20/13  78 FR 69605
NPRM Comment Period Extended End....   11/22/13  .......................
Environmental Impact Statement for     03/11/14  79 FR 13593
 the Proposed Rule; Comment Period
 Extended.
Environmental Impact Statement for     04/18/14  .......................
 the Proposed Rule; Comment Period
 Extended End.
Supplemental NPRM...................   09/29/14  79 FR 58433
Supplemental NPRM Comment Period End   12/15/14  .......................
Final Rule..........................   10/00/15  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: None
    Agency Contact: Samir Assar, Supervisory Consumer Safety Officer, 
Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, 
Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Office of Food Safety, 
5100 Paint Branch Parkway, College Park, MD 20740, Phone: 240 402-1636, 
Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 0910-AG35


[[Page 76517]]



HHS--FDA

50. Current Good Manufacturing and Hazard Analysis, and Risk-Based 
Preventive Controls for Human Food

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Unfunded Mandates: This action may affect the private sector under 
Pub. L. 104-4.
    Legal Authority: 21 U.S.C. 342; 21 U.S.C. 371; 42 U.S.C. 264; Pub. 
L. 111-353 (signed on Jan. 4, 2011)
    CFR Citation: 21 CFR 117.
    Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, July 4, 2012, Final rule must be 
published no later than 18 months after the date of enactment of the 
FDA Food Safety Modernization Act.
    Abstract: This rule would require a food facility to have and 
implement preventive controls to significantly minimize or prevent the 
occurrence of hazards that could affect food manufactured, processed, 
packed, or held by the facility. This action is intended to prevent or, 
at a minimum, quickly identify foodborne pathogens before they get into 
the food supply.
    Statement of Need: FDA is taking this action to meet the 
requirements of FSMA and to better address changes that have occurred 
in the food industry and thereby protect public health. High-profile 
outbreaks of foodborne illness over the last decade and data showing 
that such illnesses strike one in six Americans each year have caused a 
widespread recognition that we need a new modern food safety system 
that prevents food safety problems in the first place not a system that 
just reacts once they happen. Section 103 of FSMA amended the Federal 
Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) by adding section 418 (21 U.S.C. 
350g) Hazard Analysis and Risk Based Preventive Controls. In enacting 
FSMA Congress sought to improve the safety of food in the United States 
by taking a risk-based approach to food safety emphasizing prevention. 
Section 418 of the FD&C Act requires owners operators or agents in 
charge of food facilities to develop and implement a written plan that 
describes and documents how their facility will implement the hazard 
analysis and preventive controls required by this section. In addition 
to containing new provisions requiring hazard analysis and risk-based 
preventive controls this rule would also revise the existing Current 
Good Manufacturing Practice (CGMP) requirements found in 21 CFR part 
110 that were last updated in 1986.
    Summary of Legal Basis: FDA is relying on section 103 of the FSMA. 
FDA is also relying on sections 402(a)(3), (a)(4) and 701(a) of the 
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 
342(a)(3), (a)(4), and 371(a)). Under section 402(a)(3) of the FD&C 
Act, a food is adulterated if it consists in whole, or in part, of any 
filthy, putrid, or decomposed substance, or if it is otherwise unfit 
for food. Under section 402(a)(4), a food is adulterated if it has been 
prepared, packed, or held under unsanitary conditions whereby it may 
have become contaminated with filth, or may have been rendered 
injurious to health. Under section 701(a) of the FD&C Act, FDA is 
authorized to issue regulations for the efficient enforcement of the 
FD&C Act. FDA's legal basis also derives from section 361 of the Public 
Health Service Act (PHS Act) (42 U.S.C. 264), which gives FDA authority 
to promulgate regulations to control the spread of communicable 
disease.
    Alternatives: An alternative to this rulemaking is not to update 
the CGMP regulations, and instead issue separate regulations to 
implement the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: FDA estimates that the costs from 
the proposal to domestic and foreign producers and packers of processed 
foods would include new one-time costs (e.g., adoption of written food 
safety plans, setting up training programs, implementing allergen 
controls, and purchasing new tools and equipment) and recurring costs 
(e.g., auditing and monitoring suppliers of sensitive raw materials and 
ingredients, training employees, and completing and maintaining records 
used throughout the facility). FDA anticipates that the benefits would 
be a reduced risk of foodborne illness and death from processed foods, 
and a reduction in the number of safety-related recalls.
    Risks: This regulation will directly and materially advance the 
Federal Government's substantial interest in reducing the risks for 
illness and death associated with foodborne infections. Less 
restrictive and less comprehensive approaches have not been effective 
in reducing the problems addressed by this regulation. The regulation 
will lead to a significant decrease in foodborne illness in the U.S.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   01/16/13  78 FR 3646
NPRM Comment Period End.............   05/16/13  .......................
NPRM Comment Period Extended........   04/26/13  78 FR 24691
NPRM Comment Period Extended End....   09/16/13  .......................
NPRM Comment Period Extended........   08/09/13  78 FR 48636
NPRM Comment Period Extended End....   11/15/13  .......................
NPRM Comment Period Extended........   11/20/13  78 FR 69604
NPRM Comment Period Extended End....   11/22/13  .......................
Supplemental NPRM...................   09/29/14  79 FR 58523
Supplemental NPRM Comment Period End   12/15/14  .......................
Final Rule..........................   08/00/15  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Additional Information: Includes Retrospective Review under E.O. 
13563.
    Agency Contact: Jenny Scott, Senior Advisor, Department of Health 
and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Office of Food 
Safety, 5100 Paint Branch Parkway, College Park, MD 20740, Phone: 240 
402-1488, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 0910-AG36

HHS--FDA

51. Reports of Distribution and Sales Information for Antimicrobial 
Active Ingredients Used in Food-Producing Animals

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 21 U.S.C. 360b(l)(3)
    CFR Citation: 21 CFR 514.80.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This proposed rule would require that the sponsor of each 
approved or conditionally approved antimicrobial new animal drug 
product submit an annual report to the Food and Drug Administration 
(FDA or Agency) on the amount of each antimicrobial active ingredient 
in the drug product that is sold or distributed for use in food-
producing animals, including any distributor-labeled product. In 
addition to codifying these requirements, FDA is exploring other 
requirements for the collection of additional drug distribution data.
    Statement of Need: Section 105 of the Animal Drug User Fee 
Amendments of 2008 (ADUFA) amended section 512 of the Federal Food, 
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) to require that the sponsor of each 
approved or conditionally appoved new animal drug

[[Page 76518]]

product that contains an antimicrobial active ingredient submit an 
annual report to FDA on the amount of each antimicrobial active 
ingredient in the drug product that is sold or distributed for use in 
food-producing animals, including information on any distributor-
labeled product. This legislation was enacted to assist FDA in its 
continuing analysis of the interactions (including drug resistance), 
efficacy, and safety of antibiotics approved for use in both humans and 
food-producing animals (H. Rpt. 110-804). This proposed rulemaking is 
to codify these requirements. In addition, FDA is exploring the 
establishment of other reporting requirements to provide for the 
collection of additional drug distribution data, including reporting 
sales and distribution data by species.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Section 105 of ADUFA (Pub. L. 110-316; 122 
Stat. 3509) amended section 512 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360b) to 
require that sponsors of approved or conditionally approved 
applications for new animal drugs containing an antimicrobial active 
ingredient submit an annual report to the Food and Drug Administration 
on the amount of each such ingredient in the drug that is sold or 
distributed for use in food-producing animals, including information on 
any distributor-labeled product. FDA is also issuing this rule under 
its authority under section 512(l) of the FD&C Act to collect 
information relating to approved new animal drugs.
    Alternatives: This rulemaking codifies the congressional mandate of 
ADUFA section 105. The annual reporting required under ADUFA section 
105 is necessary to address potential problems concerning the safety 
and effectiveness of antimicrobial new animal drugs. Less frequent data 
collection would hinder this purpose.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Sponsors of antimicrobial drugs sold 
for use in food-producing animals currently report sales and 
distribution data to the Agency under section 105 of ADUFA; this 
rulemaking will codify in FDA's regulations a current statutory 
requirement. There may be a minimal additional labor cost if any other 
reporting requirement is proposed. Additional data beyond the reporting 
requirements specified in ADUFA section 105 will help the Agency better 
understand how the use of medically important antimicrobial drugs in 
food-producing animals may relate to antimicrobial resistance.
    Risks: Section 105 of ADUFA was enacted to address the problem of 
antimicrobial resistance, and to help ensure that FDA has the necessary 
information to examine safety concerns related to the use of 
antibiotics in food-producing animals. 154 Congressional Record H7534.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM...............................   07/27/12  77 FR 44177
ANPRM Comment Period End............   09/25/12  .......................
ANPRM Comment Period Extended.......   09/26/12  77 FR 59156
ANPRM Comment Period End............   11/26/12  .......................
NPRM................................   05/00/15  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Sujaya Dessai, Supervisory Veterinary Medical 
Officer, Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug 
Administration, Center for Veterinary Medicine, MPN-4, Room 2620, HFV-
212, 7529 Standish Place, Rockville, MD 20855, Phone: 240 276-9075, 
Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 0910-AG45

HHS--FDA

52. Foreign Supplier Verification Program

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Unfunded Mandates: This action may affect the private sector under 
Pub. L. 104-4.
    Legal Authority: 21 U.S.C. 384a; title III, sec 301 of FDA Food 
Safety Modernization Act, Pub. L. 111-353, establishing sec 805 of the 
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act)
    CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
    Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, January 4, 2012.
    Abstract: This rule describes what a food importer must do to 
verify that its foreign suppliers produce food that is as safe as food 
produced in the United States. FDA is taking this action to improve the 
safety of food that is imported into the United States.
    Statement of Need: The proposed rule is needed to help improve the 
safety of food that is imported into the United States. Imported food 
products have increased dramatically over the last several decades. 
Data indicate that about 15 percent of the U.S. food supply is 
imported. FSMA provides the Agency with additional tools and 
authorities to help ensure that imported foods are safe for U.S. 
consumers. Included among these tools and authorities is a requirement 
that importers perform risk-based foreign supplier verification 
activities to verify that the food they import is produced in 
compliance with U.S. requirements, as applicable, and is not 
adulterated or misbranded. This proposed rule on the content of foreign 
supplier verification programs (FSVPs) sets forth the proposed steps 
that food importers would be required to take to fulfill their 
responsibility to help ensure the safety of the food they bring into 
this country.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Section 805(c) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 
384a(c)) directs FDA, not later than 1 year after the date of enactment 
of FSMA, to issue regulations on the content of FSVPs. Section 
805(c)(4) states that verification activities under such programs may 
include monitoring records for shipments, lot-by-lot certification of 
compliance, annual onsite inspections, checking the hazard analysis and 
risk-based preventive control plans of foreign suppliers, and 
periodically testing and sampling shipments of imported products. 
Section 301(b) of FSMA amends section 301 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 
331) by adding section 301(zz), which designates as a prohibited act 
the importation or offering for importation of a food if the importer 
(as defined in section 805) does not have in place an FSVP in 
compliance with section 805. In addition, section 301(c) of FSMA amends 
section 801(a) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 381(a)) by stating that an 
article of food being imported or offered for import into the United 
States shall be refused admission if it appears, from an examination of 
a sample of such an article or otherwise, that the importer is in 
violation of section 805.
    Alternatives: We are considering a range of alternative approaches 
to the requirements for foreign supplier verification activities. These 
might include: (1) establishing a general requirement that importers 
determine and conduct whatever verification activity would adequately 
address the risks associated with the foods they import; (2) allowing 
importers to choose from a list of possible verification mechanisms, 
such as the activities listed in section 805(c)(4) of the FD&C Act; (3) 
requiring importers to conduct particular verification activities for 
certain types of foods or risks (e.g., for high-risk foods), but 
allowing flexibility in verification activities for other types of 
foods or risks; and (4) specifying use of a particular verification 
activity for each particular kind of food or risk. To the extent 
possible while still ensuring that verification activities are adequate 
to ensure that foreign suppliers are

[[Page 76519]]

producing food in accordance with U.S. requirements, we will seek to 
give importers the flexibility to choose verification procedures that 
are appropriate to adequately address the risks associated with the 
importation of a particular food, and accounted for in the proposed 
rules that contain these requirements.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: We are still estimating the cost and 
benefits for this proposed rule. However, the available information 
suggests that, if finalized, the costs will be significant. Our 
preliminary analysis of FY10 OASIS data suggests that this rule will 
cover about 60,000 importers, 240,000 unique combinations of importers 
and foreign suppliers, and 540,000 unique combinations of importers, 
products, and foreign suppliers. These numbers imply that provisions 
that require activity for each importer, each unique combination of 
importer and foreign supplier, or each unique combination of importer, 
product, and foreign supplier will generate significant costs. An 
example of a provision linked to combinations of importers and foreign 
suppliers would be a requirement to conduct a verification activity, 
such as an onsite audit, under certain conditions. The cost of onsite 
audits will depend, in part, on whether foreign suppliers can provide 
the same onsite audit results to different importers, or whether every 
importer will need to take some action with respect to each of their 
foreign suppliers. The benefits of this proposed rule will consist of 
the reduction of adverse health events linked to imported food that 
could result from increased compliance with applicable requirements, 
and are accounted for in the proposed rules that contain those 
requirements and are accounted for in the proposed rules that contain 
those requirements.
    Risks: As stated above, about 15 percent of the U.S. food supply is 
imported, and many of these imported foods are high-risk commodities. 
According to recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention, each year, about 48 million Americans get sick, 128,000 are 
hospitalized, and 3,000 die from foodborne diseases. We expect that the 
adoption of FSVPs by food importers will benefit the public health by 
helping to ensure that imported food is produced in compliance with 
other applicable food safety regulations.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   07/29/13  78 FR 45729
NPRM Comment Period End.............   11/26/13  .......................
NPRM Comment Period Extended........   11/20/13  78 FR 69602
NPRM Comment Period Extended End....   01/27/14  .......................
Supplemental NPRM...................   09/29/14  79 FR 58573
Supplemental NPRM Comment Period End   12/15/14  .......................
Final Rule..........................   10/00/15  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    International Impacts: This regulatory action will be likely to 
have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise be of 
international interest.
    Agency Contact: Brian L. Pendleton, Senior Policy Advisor, 
Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, 
Office of Policy, WO 32, Room 4245, 10903 New Hampshire Avenue, Silver 
Spring, MD 20993-0002, Phone: 301 796-4614, Fax: 301 847-8616, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 0910-AG64

HHS--FDA

Final Rule Stage

53. ``Tobacco Products'' Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and 
Cosmetic Act, as Amended by the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco 
Control Act

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Unfunded Mandates: This action may affect the private sector under 
Pub. L. 104-4.
    Legal Authority: 21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.; The Federal Food, Drug, and 
Cosmetic Act; Pub. L. 111-31; The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco 
Control Act
    CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act 
(Tobacco Control Act) provides the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 
authority to regulate cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, roll-your-own 
tobacco, and smokeless tobacco. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 
Act (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. This rule would deem additional products meeting the 
statutory definition of ``tobacco product'' to be subject to the FD&C 
Act, and would specify additional restrictions.
    Statement of Need: Currently, the Tobacco Control Act provides FDA 
with immediate authority to regulate cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, 
roll-your-own tobacco, and smokeless tobacco. The Tobacco Control Act 
also permits FDA to issue regulations deeming other tobacco products 
that meet the statutory definition of ``tobacco product'' to also be 
subject to the FD&C Act. This regulation is necessary to afford FDA the 
authority to regulate additional products which include hookah, 
electronic cigarettes, cigars, pipe tobacco, other novel tobacco 
products, and future tobacco products.
    Summary of Legal Basis: 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.
    Alternatives: In addition to the benefits and costs of both options 
for the proposed rule, FDA assessed the benefits and costs of several 
alternatives to the proposed rule: e.g., 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.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The proposed rule consists of two 
coproposals, option 1 and option 2. The proposed option 1 deems all 
products meeting the statutory definition of ``tobacco product'' except 
accessories of a proposed deemed tobacco product to be subject to 
chapter IX of the FD&C Act. Option 1 also proposes additional 
provisions that would apply to proposed deemed products as well as to 
certain other tobacco products. Option 2 is the same as option 1 except 
that it exempts premium cigars. We expect that asserting our authority 
over these tobacco products will enable us to take further regulatory 
action in the future as appropriate; those actions will have their own 
costs and benefits. The proposed rule would generate some direct 
benefits by providing information to consumers about the risks and

[[Page 76520]]

characteristics of tobacco products which may result in consumers 
reducing their use of cigars and other tobacco products. Other 
potential benefits follow from premarket requirements which could 
prevent more harmful products from appearing on the market and 
worsening the health effects of tobacco product use. The proposed rule 
would impose costs in the form of registration submission labeling and 
other requirements; other likely costs are not quantifiable based on 
current data.
    Risks: 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 additonal 
restrictions that FDA seeks to promulgate for the proposed deemed 
products will protect youth by restricting minors' access to these 
products and will increase consumer understanding of the impact of 
these products on public health. 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.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   04/25/14  79 FR 23142
NPRM Comment Period End.............   07/09/14  .......................
NPRM Comment Period Extended........   06/24/14  79 FR 35711
NPRM Comment Period End.............   08/08/14  .......................
Final Action........................   06/00/15  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
    Federalism: Undetermined.
    International Impacts: This regulatory action will be likely to 
have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise be of 
international interest.
    Agency Contact: Gerie Voss, Senior Regulatory Counsel, Department 
of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for 
Tobacco Products, Document Control Center, Building 71, Room G335, 
10903 New Hampshire Avenue, Silver Spring, MD 20993, Phone: 877 287-
1373, Fax: 301 595-1426, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 0910-AG38

HHS--FDA

54. Food Labeling: Calorie Labeling of Articles of Food Sold in Vending 
Machines

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

[[Page 76521]]



------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   04/06/11  76 FR 19238
NPRM Comment Period End.............   07/05/11  .......................
Final Action........................   11/00/14  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

HHS--FDA

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

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Unfunded Mandates: This action may affect the private sector under 
Pub. L. 104-4.
    Legal Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321; 21 U.S.C. 343; 21 U.S.C. 371
    CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: FDA published a proposed rule in the Federal Register to 
establish requirements for nutrition labeling of standard menu items in 
chain restaurants and similar retail food establishments. FDA also 
proposed the terms and conditions for restaurants and similar retail 
food establishments registering to voluntarily be subject to the 
Federal requirements. FDA is issuing a final rule, and taking this 
action to carry out section 4205 of the Patient Protection and 
Affordable Care Act.
    Statement of Need: This rulemaking was mandated by section 4205 of 
the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Affordable Care Act).
    Summary of Legal Basis: On March 23, 2010, the Affordable Care Act 
(Pub. L. 111-148) was signed into law. Section 4205 of the Affordable 
Care Act amended 403(q)(5) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 
(FD&C Act) by, among other things, creating new clause (H) to require 
that certain chain restaurants and similar retail food establishments 
with 20 or more locations disclose certain nutrient information for 
standard menu items. FDA has the authority to issue this rule under 
sections 403(a)(1), 403(q)(5)(H), and 701(a) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 
343(a)(1), 343(q)(5)(H), and 371(a)). Section 701(a) of the FD&C Act 
vests the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and, by delegation, 
the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) with the authority to issue 
regulations for the efficient enforcement of the FD&C Act.
    Alternatives: Section 4205 of the Affordable Care Act requires the 
Secretary, and by delegation the FDA, to establish by regulation 
requirements for nutrition labeling of standard menu items for covered 
restaurants and similar retail food establishments. Therefore, there 
are no alternatives to rulemaking. FDA has analyzed alternatives that 
may reduce the burden of this rulemaking, including analyzing the 
benefits and costs of expanding and contracting the set of 
establishments covered by this rule, and shortening or lengthening the 
compliance time relative to the rulemaking.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Chain restaurants and similar retail 
food establishments covered by the Federal law operating in local 
jurisdictions that impose different nutrition labeling requirements 
will benefit from having a uniform national standard. Any restaurant or 
similar retail food establishment with fewer than 20 locations may 
voluntarily choose to be covered by the national standard. It is 
anticipated that chain restaurants with 20 or more locations will bear 
costs for adding nutrition information to menus and menu boards. FDA 
initially estimated that the total cost of section 4205 and this 
rulemaking would be approximately $80 million, annualized over 10 
years, with a low annualized estimate of approximately $33 million and 
a high annualized estimate of approximately $125 million over 10 years. 
These costs (which are subject to change in the final rule) included an 
initial cost of approximately $320 million with an annually recurring 
cost of $45 million.
    Because comprehensive national data for the effects of menu 
labeling do not exist, FDA did not quantify 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 estimated 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 would 
be at least as large as the costs.
    Risks: Americans now consume an estimated one-third of their total 
calories on foods prepared outside the home, and spend almost half of 
their food dollars on such foods. Unlike packaged foods that are 
labeled with nutrition information, foods in restaurants, for the most 
part, do not have nutrition information that is readily available when 
ordered. Dietary intake data have shown that obese Americans consume 
over 100 calories per meal more when eating food away from home, rather 
than food at home. This rule will provide consumers information about 
the nutritional content of food to enable them to make healthier food 
choices, and may help mitigate the trend of increasing obesity in 
America.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   04/06/11  76 FR 19192
NPRM Comment Period End.............   07/05/11  .......................
Final Action........................   11/00/14  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State.
    Federalism: This action may have federalism implications as defined 
in EO 13132.
    Agency Contact: Daniel Reese, Food Technologist, Department of 
Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for 
Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-820), 5100 Paint Branch Parkway, 
College Park, MD 20740, Phone: 240 402-2126, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 0910-AG57

HHS--FDA

56. Accreditation of Third-Party Auditors/Certification Bodies To 
Conduct Food Safety Audits and To Issue Certifications

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 21 U.S.C. 384d; Pub. L. 111-353; sec 307 FDA Food 
Safety Modernization Act; other sections of FDA Food Safety 
Modernization Act, as appropriate; 21 U.S.C. 371; 21 U.S.C. 381; 21 
U.S.C. 384b; . . .

[[Page 76522]]

    CFR Citation: 21 CFR 1.
    Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, July 2012, Promulgate 
implementing regulations.
    Final, Judicial, October 31, 2015.
    Per Public Law 111-353, section 307, promulgate, within 18 months 
of enactment, certain implementing regulations for accreditation of 
third-party auditors to conduct food safety audits. Per consent decree, 
FDA will submit the final rule to the Federal Register for publication 
by 10/31/15.
    Abstract: This rule establishes regulations for accreditation of 
third-party auditors to conduct food safety audits. FDA is taking this 
action to improve the safety of food that is imported into the United 
States.
    Statement of Need: The use of accredited third-party auditors to 
certify food imports will assist in ensuring the safety of food from 
foreign origin entering U.S. commerce. Accredited third-party auditors 
auditing foreign facilities can increase FDA's information about 
foreign facilities that FDA may not have adequate resources to inspect 
in a particular year. FDA will establish identified standards creating 
overall uniformity to complete the task. Audits that result in issuance 
of facility certificates will provide FDA information about the 
compliance status of the facility. Additionally, auditors will be 
required to submit audit reports that may be reviewed by FDA for 
purposes of compliance assessment and work planning.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Section 808 of the FD&C Act directs FDA to 
establish, not later than 2 years after the date of enactment, a system 
for the recognition of accreditation bodies that accredit third-party 
auditors, who, in turn, certify that their eligible entities meet the 
requirements. If within 2 years after the date of the establishment of 
the system, FDA has not identified and recognized an accreditation 
body, FDA may directly accredit third party auditors.
    Alternatives: FSMA described in detail the framework for, and 
requirements of, the accredited third-party auditor program. 
Alternatives include certain oversight activities required of 
recognized accreditation bodies that accredit third-party auditors, as 
distinguished from third-party auditors directly accredited by FDA. 
Another alternative relates to the nature of the required standards and 
the degree to which those standards are prescriptive or flexible.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The benefits of the proposed rule 
would be less unsafe or misbranded food entering U.S. commerce. 
Additional benefits include the increased flow of credible information 
to FDA regarding the compliance status of foreign firms and their foods 
that are ultimately offered for import into the United States, which 
information, in turn, would inform FDA's work planning for inspection 
of foreign food facilities and might result in a signal of possible 
problems with a particular firm or its products, and with sufficient 
signals, might raise questions about the rigor of the food safety 
regulatory system of the country of origin. The compliance costs of the 
proposed rule would result from the additional labor and capital 
required of accreditation bodies seeking FDA recognition and of third-
party auditors seeking accreditation to the extent that will involve 
the assembling of information for an application unique to the FDA 
third-party program. The compliance costs associated with certification 
will be accounted for separately under the costs associated with 
participation in the voluntary qualified importer program, and the 
costs associated with mandatory certification for high-risk food 
imports. The third-party program is funded through revenue neutral-user 
fees, which will be developed by FDA through rulemaking. User fee costs 
will be accounted for in that rulemaking.
    Risks: FDA is proposing this rule to provide greater assurance the 
food offered for import into the United States is safe and will not 
cause injury or illness to animals or humans. The rule would implement 
a program for accrediting third-party auditors to conduct food safety 
audits of foreign food entities, including registered foreign food 
facilities, and based on the findings of the regulatory audit, to issue 
certifications to foreign food entities found to be in compliance with 
FDA requirements. The certifications could be used by importers seeking 
to participate in the Voluntary Qualified Importer Program for 
expedited review and entry of product, and would be a means to provide 
assurance of compliance as required by FDA based on risk-related 
considerations. The rule would apply to any foreign or domestic 
accreditation body seeking FDA recognition, any foreign or domestic 
third-party auditor seeking accreditation, any registered foreign food 
facility or other foreign food entity subject to a food safety audit 
(including a regulatory audit conducted for purposes of certification), 
and any importer seeking to participate in the Voluntary Qualified 
Importer Program. Fewer instances of unsafe or misbranded food entering 
U.S. commerce would reduce the risk of serious illness and death to 
humans and animals.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   07/29/13  78 FR 45781
NPRM Comment Period End.............   11/26/13  .......................
NPRM Comment Period Extended........   11/20/13  78 FR 69603
NPRM Comment Period Extended End....   01/27/14  .......................
Final Action........................   10/00/15  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
    International Impacts: This regulatory action will be likely to 
have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise be of 
international interest.
    Agency Contact: Charlotte A. Christin, Acting Director, Division of 
Dietary Supplement Programs, Department of Health and Human Services, 
Food and Drug Administration, Division of Dietary Supplement Programs, 
Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, 4D042, College Park, MD 
20740, Phone: 240 402-3708, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 0910-AG66

HHS--FDA

57. Revision of Postmarketing Reporting Requirements Discontinuance or 
Interruption in Supply of Certain Products (Drug Shortages)

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Legal Authority: secs 506c, 506c-1, 506d, and 506f of the FDA&C 
Act, as amended by title X (Drug Shortages) of FDASIA, Pub. L. 112-144, 
July 9, 2012
    CFR Citation: 21 CFR 314.81; 21 CFR 314.91.
    Legal Deadline: NPRM, Statutory, January 9, 2014, Not later than 18 
months after the date of enactment of FDASIA, FDA must adopt the final 
regulation implementing section 506C as amended.
    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 506(c) as amended.
    Abstract: This rule would require manufacturers of certain drug 
products to report discontinuances or

[[Page 76523]]

interruptions in the manufacturing of these products 6 months prior to 
the discontinuance or interruption, or if that is not possible, as soon 
as practicable. Manufacturers must notify FDA of a discontinuance or 
interruption in the manufacture of drugs that are life-supporting, 
life-sustaining, or intended for use in the prevention or treatment of 
a debilitating disease or condition.
    Statement of Need: The Food and Drug Administration Safety and 
Innovation Act (FDASIA), Public Law 112-144 (July 9, 2012), amends the 
FD&C Act to require manufacturers of certain drug products to report to 
FDA discontinuances or interruptions in the production of these 
products that are likely to meaningfully disrupt supply 6 months prior 
to the discontinuance or interruption, or if that is not possible, as 
soon as practicable. FDASIA also amends the FD&C Act to include other 
provisions related to drug shortages. Drug shortages have a significant 
impact on patient access to critical medications, and the number of 
drug shortages has risen steadily since 2005 to a high of 251 shortages 
in 2011. Notification to FDA of a shortage or an issue that may lead to 
a shortage is critical--FDA was able to prevent more than 100 shortages 
in the first 3 quarters of 2012 due to early notification. This rule 
will implement the FDASIA drug shortages provisions, allowing FDA to 
more quickly and efficiently respond to shortages, thereby improving 
patient access to critical medications, and promoting public health.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Sections 506(c), 506(c)-1, 506(d), 506(e), 
and 506(f) of the FD&C Act, as amended by title X (Drug Shortages) of 
FDASIA.
    Alternatives: The principal alternatives assessed were to provide 
guidance on voluntary notification to FDA, or to continue to rely on 
the requirements under the current interim final rule on notification. 
These alternatives would not meet the statutory requirement to issue 
the final regulation required by title X, section 1001 of FDASIA.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The rule would increase the modest 
reporting costs associated with notifying FDA of discontinuances or 
interruptions in the production of certain drug products. The rule 
would generate benefits in the form of the value of public health gains 
through more rapid and effective FDA responses to potential, or actual 
drug shortages that otherwise would limit patient access to critical 
medications.
    Risks: Drug shortages can significantly impede patient access to 
critical, sometimes life-saving, medications. Drug shortages, 
therefore, can pose a serious risk to public health and patient safety. 
This rule will require early notification of potential shortages, 
enabling FDA to more quickly and effectively respond to potential or 
actual drug shortages that otherwise would limit patient access to 
critical medications.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   11/04/13  78 FR 65904
NPRM Comment Period End.............   01/03/14  .......................
Final Action........................   01/00/15  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Valerie Jensen, Associate Director, CDER Drug 
Shortage Staff, Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug 
Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, WO Building 
22, Room 6202, 10903 New Hampshire Avenue, Silver Spring, MD 20903, 
Phone: 301 796-0737.
    RIN: 0910-AG88

HHS--FDA

58. Supplemental Applications Proposing Labeling Changes for Approved 
Drugs and Biological Products

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321; 21 U.S.C. 331; 21 U.S.C. 352; 21 
U.S.C. 353; 21 U.S.C. 355; 21 U.S.C. 371; 42 U.S.C. 262; . . .
    CFR Citation: 21 CFR 314.70; 21 CFR 314.97; 21 CFR 314.150; 21 CFR 
601.12.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This rule would amend the regulations regarding new drug 
applications (NDAs), abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs), and 
biologics license applications (BLAs) to revise and clarify procedures 
for changes to the labeling of an approved drug to reflect certain 
types of newly acquired information in advance of FDA's review of such 
change.
    Statement of Need: In the current marketplace, approximately 80 
percent of drugs dispensed are generic drugs approved in ANDAs. ANDA 
holders, like NDA holders and BLA holders, are required to promptly 
review all adverse drug experience information obtained or otherwise 
received, and comply with applicable reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements. However, under current FDA regulations, ANDA holders are 
not permitted to use the CBE supplement process in the same manner as 
NDA holders and BLA holders to independently update product labeling 
with certain newly acquired safety information. This regulatory 
difference recently has been determined to mean that an individual can 
bring a product liability action for ``failure to warn'' against an NDA 
holder, but generally not an ANDA holder. This may alter the incentives 
for generic drug manufacturers to comply with current requirements to 
conduct robust postmarketing surveillance, evaluation, and reporting, 
and to ensure that their product labeling is accurate and up-to-date. 
Accordingly, there is a need for ANDA holders to be able to 
independently update product labeling to reflect certain newly acquired 
safety information as part of the ANDA holder's independent 
responsibility to ensure that its product labeling is accurate and up-
to-date.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.) and 
the PHS Act (42 U.S.C. 201 et seq.) provide FDA with authority over the 
labeling for drugs and biological products, and authorize the Agency to 
enact regulations to facilitate FDA's review and approval of 
applications regarding the labeling for those products. FDA's authority 
to extend the CBE supplement process for certain safety-related 
labeling changes to ANDA holders arises from the same authority under 
which FDA's regulations relating to NDA holders and BLA holders were 
issued.
    Alternatives: FDA is considering several alternatives described in 
comments submitted to the public docket established for the proposed 
rule.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: FDA is reviewing comments submitted 
to the public docket and evaluating the anticipated costs and benefits 
that would be associated with a final rule.
    Risks: This rule is intended to remove obstacles to the prompt 
communication of safety-related labeling changes that meet the 
regulatory criteria for a CBE supplement. The rule may encourage 
generic drug companies to participate more actively with FDA in 
ensuring the timeliness, accuracy, and completeness of drug safety 
labeling in accordance with current regulatory requirements. FDA's 
posting of information on its Web site regarding the safety-related 
labeling changes proposed in pending CBE supplements would enhance 
transparency, and facilitate access by health care providers and the 
public so that such information may be used to inform treatment 
decisions.
    Timetable:

[[Page 76524]]



------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   11/13/13  78 FR 67985
NPRM Comment Period End.............   01/13/14  .......................
NPRM Comment Period Extended........   12/27/13  78 FR 78796
NPRM Comment Period End.............   03/13/14  .......................
Final Rule..........................   09/00/15  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
    Agency Contact: Janice L. Weiner, Senior Regulatory Counsel, 
Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, 
Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, WO 51, Room 6268, 10903 New 
Hampshire Avenue, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, Phone: 301 796-3601, 
Fax: 301 847-8440, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 0910-AG94

HHS--FDA

59. Veterinary Feed Directive

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 21 U.S.C. 354; 21 U.S.C. 360b; 21 U.S.C. 360ccc; 
21 U.S.C. 360ccc-1; 21 U.S.C. 371
    CFR Citation: 21 CFR 514; 21 CFR 558.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Animal Drug Availability Act created a new category 
of products called veterinary feed directive (VFD) drugs. This 
rulemaking is intended to provide for the increased efficiency of the 
VFD program.
    Statement of Need: Before 1996, two options existed for regulating 
the distribution of animal drugs, including drugs in animal feed: (1) 
Over-the-counter (OTC); and (2) prescription (Rx). In 1996, the Animal 
Drug Availability Act (ADAA) created a new category of products called 
veterinary feed directive (VFD) drugs. VFD drugs are new animal drugs 
intended for use in or on animal feed, which are limited to use under 
the professional supervision of a licensed veterinarian in the course 
of the veterinarian's professional practice. In order for animal feed 
containing a VFD drug to be used in animals, a licensed veterinarian 
must first issue an order, called a veterinary feed directive (or VFD), 
providing for such use. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, the 
Agency) finalized its regulation to implement the VFD-related 
provisions of the ADAA in December 2000. 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 regulations at 
section 558.6 (21 CFR 558.6): (1) Reorganize the VFD regulations to 
make them more user-friendly. This proposal will replace the six 
subsections of the existing regulations with three subsections that 
better identify what is expected from each party involved in the VFD 
process; (2) provide increased flexibility for licensed veterinarians 
and animal producers to align with the most recent practice standards, 
technological and medical advances, and practical considerations, to 
assure the safe and effective use of VFD drugs; (3) provide for the 
continued availability through the current feed mill distribution 
system of those Category I drugs that move to VFD dispensing status. 
This will prevent potential shortages of antimicrobial drugs needed by 
food animal producers for judicious therapeutic uses on their farms and 
ranches; and (4) lower the recordkeeping burden for all involved 
parties to align with other feed manufacturing recordkeeping 
requirements, thus eliminating the need for two separate filing 
systems.
    Summary of Legal Basis: FDA's authority for issuing this rule is 
provided in the ADAA (Pub. L. 104-250), which amended the Federal Food, 
Drug, & Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) by establishing section 504.
    Alternatives: An alternative to the proposed rule that would ease 
the burden on VFD drug manufacturers would be to allow additional time 
to comply with the proposed labeling requirements for currently 
approved VFD drugs, for example, 1 or more years after the final rule 
becomes effective. This would not affect any new VFD drug approvals 
after the effective date of the final rule, and it could provide a 
transition period for current VFD manufacturers to coordinate the 
labeling changes to the specimen labeling, representative labeling, the 
VFD form itself, and advertising within the usual frequency of label 
changes.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The estimated one-time costs to 
industry from this proposed rule, if finalized, are the costs to review 
the rule and prepare a compliance plan. In addition, FDA estimates that 
the government will incur costs associated with reviewing the VFD drug 
labeling supplements that are expected to be submitted by the existing 
VFD drug manufacturers. The expected benefit of this proposal is a 
general improvement in the efficiency of the VFD process. Additionally, 
the reduction in veterinarian labor costs due to this rule is expected 
to result in an annual cost savings.
    Risks: As FDA continues to implement the judicious use principles 
for medically important antimicrobial drugs based on the framework set 
forth in Guidance for Industry #209, which published April 13, 2012, it 
is critical that the Agency makes the VFD program as efficient as 
possible for stakeholders while maintaining adequate protection for 
human and animal health. The provisions included in this proposed rule 
are based on stakeholder input received in response to multiple 
opportunities for public comment, and represent FDA's best effort to 
strike the appropriate balance between protection of human and animal 
health and programmatic efficiency.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM...............................   03/29/10  75 FR 15387
ANPRM Comment Period End............   06/28/10  .......................
NPRM................................   12/12/13  78 FR 75515
NPRM Comment Period End.............   03/12/14  .......................
Final Rule..........................   04/00/15  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Sujaya Dessai, Supervisory Veterinary Medical 
Officer, Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug 
Administration, Center for Veterinary Medicine, MPN-4, Room 2620, HFV-
212, 7529 Standish Place, Rockville, MD 20855, Phone: 240 276-9075, 
Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 0910-AG95


[[Page 76525]]



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

Proposed Rule Stage

60. Reform of Requirements for Long-Term Care Facilities (CMS-3260-P) 
(Rulemaking Resulting From a Section 610 Review)

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Unfunded Mandates: This action may affect the private sector under 
Pub. L. 104-4.
    Legal Authority: Pub. L. 111-148, sec 6102; 42 U.S.C. 263a; 42 
U.S.C. 1302, 1395hh, 1395rr
    CFR Citation: 42 CFR 405; 42 CFR 431; 42 CFR 447; 42 CFR 482; 42 
CFR 483; 42 CFR 485; 42 CFR 488.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This proposed rule would revise the requirements that 
Long-Term Care facilities must meet to participate in the Medicare and 
Medicaid programs. These proposed changes are necessary to reflect the 
substantial advances that have been made over the past several years in 
the theory and practice of service delivery and safety. These proposals 
are also an integral part of our efforts to achieve broad-based 
improvements both in the quality of health care furnished through 
Federal programs, and in patient safety, while at the same time 
reducing procedural burdens on providers.
    Statement of Need: CMS has not comprehensively reviewed the entire 
set of requirements for participation it imposes on facilities in many 
years. Over the years, the Agency and its stakeholders have identified 
problematic requirements. Accordingly, we conducted a review of the 
requirements in an effort to improve the quality of life, care, and 
services in facilities; optimize resident safety; reflect current 
professional standards; and improve the logical flow of the 
regulations. Based on our analysis, we decided to pursue those 
regulatory revisions that would reflect the advances that have been 
made in health care delivery and that would improve resident safety.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The Medicare requirements for participation 
for long-term care facilities were published in the Federal Register on 
February 2, 1989. These regulations have been revised and added to 
since that time, principally as a result of legislation or a need to 
address a specific issue; however, they have not been comprehensively 
reviewed and updated since September 26, 1991, despite substantial 
changes in service delivery in this setting. Additionally, we are 
proposing to add the statutory authority citations for sections 
1128I(b) and (c) of the Act to include the compliance and ethics 
program and Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) 
requirements under section 6102 of the Affordable Care Act.
    Alternatives: The requirements for long-term care facilities have 
not been comprehensively updated in many years, but the effective and 
efficient delivery of health care services has changed substantially in 
that time. We could choose not to make any regulatory changes; however, 
we believe the changes we are proposing are necessary to ensure the 
requirements are consistent with current standards of practice and 
continue to meet statutory obligations. They will ensure that residents 
receive care that maintains or enhances quality of life and attains or 
maintains the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and 
psychosocial well-being.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This proposed rule would implement 
comprehensive changes intended to update the current requirements for 
long-term care facilities and create new efficiencies and flexibilities 
for facilities. In addition, these changes will support improved 
resident quality of life and quality of care. Many of the quality of 
life improvements we are proposing are grounded in the concepts of 
person-centered care and culture change. These changes not only result 
in improved quality of life for the resident, but can result in 
improvements in the caregiver's quality of work life and in savings to 
the facility. Savings can be accrued through reduced turnover, 
decreased use of agency labor and decreased worker compensation costs. 
Facilities may also benefit from improved bed occupancy rates. As we 
move toward publication, estimates of the cost and benefits of these 
important initiatives will be included in the rule.
    Risks: None. The proposed requirements in this rule would update 
the existing requirements for long-term care facilities to reflect 
current standards of practice. In addition, proposed changes would 
provide added flexibility to providers, improve efficiency and 
effectiveness, enhance resident quality of care and quality of life, 
and potentially improve clinical outcomes.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   03/00/15  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions.
    Government Levels Affected: State.
    Additional Information: Includes Retrospective Review under E.O. 
13563.
    Agency Contact: Ronisha Davis, Health Insurance Specialist, 
Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare & 
Medicaid Services, Center for Clinical Standards and Quality, Mail Stop 
S3-02-01, 7500 Security Blvd., Baltimore, MD 21244, Phone: 410 786-
6882, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 0938-AR61.

HHS--CMS

61. Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008; The 
Application to Medicaid Managed Care, Chip, And Alternative Benefit 
Plans (CMS-2333-P)

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1302; Pub. L. 110-343; Pub. L. 111-148, 
Sec 2001
    CFR Citation: 42 CFR 438; 42 CFR 440; 42 CFR 456; 42 CFR 457.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This proposed rule would address the requirements under 
the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction 
Equity Act of 2008 (MHPAEA) to Medicaid Alternative Benefit Plans 
(ABPs), Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and Medicaid 
managed care organizations (MCOs).
    Statement of Need: A final rule implementing MHPAEA was published 
in the Federal Register on November 13, 2013. These final MHPAEA 
provisions do not apply to Medicaid MCOs, ABPs, or CHIP State plans. 
This rule proposes to address how MHPAEA requirements, including those 
implemented in the November 13, 2013, final rule, apply to MCOs, ABPs, 
and CHIP.
    Summary of Legal Basis: There are several statutes that are 
directly related to MHPAEA application to Medicaid. These include the 
MHPAEA, sections 511 and 512 of the Tax Extenders and Alternative 
Minimum Tax Relief Act of 2008, the Employee Retirement Income Security 
Act of 1974 (ERISA), the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act), and the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (Code). Section 2103(c) of the Social 
Security Act (the Act) added paragraph (6), which incorporates, by 
reference, provisions added to section 2705 of the Public Health 
Service Act (PHSA) to apply MHPAEA to CHIP. Finally, the

[[Page 76526]]

Affordable Care Act expanded the application of MHPAEA to benefits in 
Medicaid ABPs.
    Alternatives: None. A rule is needed to address the provisions of 
MHPAEA as they apply to Medicaid benchmark and benchmark-equivalent, 
CHIP, and MCOs.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: As we move toward publication, 
estimates of the cost and benefits of these provisions will be included 
in the rule.
    Risks: None. This rule approaches the application of MHPAEA to 
Medicaid MCOs, ABPs, and CHIP by building upon the policies set forth 
in the final MHPAEA regulation. Our goal is to align as much as 
possible with the approach taken in the final MHPAEA regulation in 
order to avoid confusion or conflict, while remaining true to the 
intent of the MHPAEA statute and the Medicaid program and CHIP.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   03/00/15  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, 
Organizations.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State, Tribal.
    Federalism: Undetermined.
    Agency Contact: John O'Brien, Health Insurance Specialist, 
Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare & 
Medicaid Services, Center for Medicaid and CHIP Services, MS: S2-14-26, 
7500 Security Blvd., Baltimore, MD 21244, Phone: 410 786-5529, Email: 
john.o'[email protected].
    RIN: 0938-AS24

HHS--CMS

62. Electronic Health Record (EHR) Incentive Programs--Stage 3 (CMS-
3310-P)

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
    Legal Authority: Pub. L. 111-5, title IV of Division B
    CFR Citation: 45 CFR 170; 42 CFR 412; 42 CFR 413; 42 CFR 495.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This proposed rule would establish policies related to 
Stage 3 of meaningful use for the Medicare and Medicaid EHR Incentive 
Programs. Stage 3 will focus on improving health care outcomes and 
further advance interoperability.
    Statement of Need: This rule is necessary to implement the 
provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) that 
provide incentive payments to eligible professionals (EPs), eligible 
hospitals, and critical access hospitals (CAHs) participating in 
Medicare and Medicaid programs that adopt and meaningfully use 
certified EHR technology. The rule specifies applicable criteria for 
demonstrating Stage 3 of meaningful use.
    Summary of Legal Basis: ARRA amended titles XVIII and XIX of the 
Social Security Act (the Act) to authorize incentive payments to EPs, 
eligible hospitals, CAHs, and Medicare Advantage (MA) Organizations to 
promote the adoption and meaningful use of certified EHR technology.
    Alternatives: None. In this proposed rule, CMS will implement Stage 
3, another stage of the Medicare and Medicaid EHR Incentive Program as 
required by ARRA. We are proposing the Stage 3 criteria that EP's, 
eligible hospitals, and CAHs must meet in order to successfully 
demonstrate meaningful use under the Medicare and Medicaid EHR 
Incentive Programs, focusing on advanced use of EHR technology to 
promote improved outcomes for patients. Stage 3 will also propose 
changes to the reporting period, timelines, and structure of the 
program, including providing a single definition of meaningful use. 
These changes will provide a flexible, yet, clearer framework to ensure 
future sustainability of the EHR program and reduce confusion stemming 
from multiple stage requirements.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
    We expect that benefits to the program will accrue in the form of 
savings to Medicare through the Medicare payment adjustments. Expected 
qualitative benefits, such as improved quality of care and better 
health outcomes are unable to be quantified at this time, but we 
believe that savings will likely result from reductions in the cost of 
providing care.
    Risks: CMS anticipates many positive effects of adopting EHR on 
health care providers, apart from the incentive payments to be provided 
under this proposed rule. We believe there are benefits that can be 
obtained by eligible hospitals and EPs, including: Reductions in 
medical recordkeeping costs, reductions in repeat tests, decreases in 
length of stay, and reduced errors. When used effectively, EHRs can 
enable providers to deliver health care more efficiently. For example, 
EHRs can reduce the duplication of diagnostic tests, prompt providers 
to prescribe cost effective generic medications, remind patients about 
preventive care, reduce unnecessary office visits, and assist in 
managing complex care.
    We are working with the Office of the National Coordinator for 
Health Information Technology to ensure that the Stage 3 meaningful use 
definition coordinates with the standards and certification 
requirements being proposed and that there is sufficient time to 
upgrade and implement these changes. Stage 2 has been extended so that 
Stage 3 will not begin until 2017.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   02/00/15
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions.
    Government Levels Affected: State.
    Federalism: Undetermined.
    Agency Contact: Elizabeth S. Holland, Director, HIT Initiatives 
Group, Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare & 
Medicaid Services, Mail Stop S2-26-17, 7500 Security Boulevard, 
Baltimore, MD 21244, Phone: 410-786-1309, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 0938-AS26

HHS--CMS

63.  CY 2016 Revisions to Payment Policies Under the Physician 
Fee Schedule and Other Revisions to Medicare Part B (CMS-1631-P)

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
    Legal Authority: Social Security Act, secs 1102, 1871, 1848
    CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
    Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, November 1, 2015.
    Abstract: This annual proposed rule would revise payment polices 
under the Medicare physician fee schedule, and make other policy 
changes to payment under Medicare Part B. These changes would apply to 
services furnished beginning January 1, 2016.
    Statement of Need: The statute requires that we establish each 
year, by regulation, payment amounts for all physicians' services 
furnished in all fee schedule areas. This rule would implement changes 
affecting Medicare Part B payment to physicians and other Part B 
suppliers. The final rule has a statutory publication date of November 
1, 2015, and an implementation date of January 1, 2016.

[[Page 76527]]

    Summary of Legal Basis: Section 1848 of the Social Security Act 
(the Act) establishes the payment for physician services provided under 
Medicare. Section 1848 of the Act imposes an annual deadline of no 
later than November 1 for publication of the final rule or final 
physician fee schedule.
    Alternatives: None. This implements a statutory requirement.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Total expenditures will be adjusted 
for CY 2016.
    Risks: If this regulation is not published timely, physician 
services will not be paid appropriately, beginning January 1, 2016.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   06/00/15  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
    Federalism: Undetermined.
    Agency Contact: Kathy Bryant, Director, Division of Practitioner 
Services, Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare 
& Medicaid Services, Mail Stop C4-01-27, 7500 Security Boulevard, 
Baltimore, MD 21244, Phone: 410 786-3448, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 0938-AS40

HHS--CMS

64.  Hospital Inpatient Prospective Payment System for Acute 
Care Hospitals and the Long-Term Care Hospital Prospective Payment 
System and FY 2016 Rates (CMS-1632-P)

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
    Legal Authority: sec 1886(d) of the Social Security Act
    CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
    Legal Deadline: NPRM, Statutory, April 1, 2015.
    Final, Statutory, August 1, 2015.
    Abstract: This annual proposed rule would revise the Medicare 
hospital inpatient and long-term care hospital prospective payment 
systems for operating and capital-related costs. This proposed rule 
would implement changes arising from our continuing experience with 
these systems.
    Statement of Need: CMS annually revises the Medicare hospital 
inpatient prospective payment systems (IPPS) for operating and capital-
related costs to implement changes arising from our continuing 
experience with these systems. In addition, we describe the proposed 
changes to the amounts and factors used to determine the rates for 
Medicare hospital inpatient services for operating costs and capital-
related costs. Also, CMS annually updates the payment rates for the 
Medicare prospective payment system (PPS) for inpatient hospital 
services provided by long-term care hospitals (LTCHs). The rule 
solicits comments on the proposed IPPS and LTCH payment rates and new 
policies. CMS will issue a final rule containing the payment rates for 
the FY 2016 IPPS and LTCHs at least 60 days before October 1, 2015.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The Social Security Act (the Act) sets 
forth a system of payment for the operating costs of acute care 
hospital inpatient stays under Medicare Part A (Hospital Insurance) 
based on prospectively set rates. The Act requires the Secretary to pay 
for the capital-related costs of hospital inpatient and long-term care 
stays under a PPS. Under these systems, Medicare payment for hospital 
inpatient and long-term care operating and capital-related costs is 
made at predetermined, specific rates for each hospital discharge. 
These changes would be applicable to services furnished on or after 
October 1, 2015.
    Alternatives: None. This implements a statutory requirement.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Total expenditures will be adjusted 
for FY 2016.
    Risks: If this regulation is not published timely, inpatient 
hospital and LTCH services will not be paid appropriately beginning 
October 1, 2015.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   04/00/15  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal.
    Agency Contact: Donald Thompson, Deputy Director, Division of Acute 
Care, Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare & 
Medicaid Services, Center for Medicare, MS: C4-01-26, 7500 Security 
Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244, Phone: 410 786-6504, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 0938-AS41

HHS--CMS

65.  CY 2016 Hospital Outpatient PPS Policy Changes and Payment 
Rates and Ambulatory Surgical Center Payment System Policy Changes and 
Payment Rates (CMS-1633-P)

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
    Legal Authority: sec 1833 of the Social Security Act
    CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
    Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, November 1, 2015.
    Abstract: This annual proposed rule would revise the Medicare 
hospital outpatient prospective payment system to implement statutory 
requirements and changes arising from our continuing experience with 
this system. The proposed rule describes changes to the amounts and 
factors used to determine payment rates for services. In addition, the 
rule proposes changes to the ambulatory surgical center payment system 
list of services and rates.
    Statement of Need: Medicare pays over 4,000 hospitals for 
outpatient department services under the hospital outpatient 
prospective payment system (OPPS). The OPPS is based on groups of 
clinically similar services called ambulatory payment classification 
groups (APCs). CMS annually revises the APC payment amounts based on 
the most recent claims data, proposes new payment policies, and updates 
the payments for inflation using the hospital operating market basket. 
Medicare pays roughly 5,000 Ambulatory Surgical Centers (ASCs) under 
the ASC payment system. CMS annually revises the payment under the ASC 
payment system, proposes new policies, and updates payments for 
inflation. CMS will issue a final rule containing the payment rates for 
the 2016 OPPS and ASC payment system at least 60 days before January 1, 
2016.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Section 1833 of the Social Security Act 
establishes Medicare payment for hospital outpatient services and ASC 
services. The rule revises the Medicare hospital OPPS and ASC payment 
system to implement applicable statutory requirements. In addition, the 
rule describes changes to the outpatient APC system, relative payment 
weights, outlier adjustments, and other amounts and factors used to 
determine the payment rates for Medicare hospital outpatient services 
paid under the prospective payment system as well as changes to the 
rates and services paid under the ASC payment system. These changes 
would be applicable to services furnished on or after January 1, 2016.

[[Page 76528]]

    Alternatives: None. This is a statutory requirement.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Total expenditures will be adjusted 
for CY 2016.
    Risks: If this regulation is not published timely, outpatient 
hospital and ASC services will not be paid appropriately beginning 
January 1, 2016.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   07/00/15  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal.
    Federalism: Undetermined.
    Agency Contact: Marjorie Baldo, Health Insurance Specialist, 
Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare & 
Medicaid Services, Center for Medicare, MS: C4-03-06, 7500 Security 
Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244, Phone: 410 786-4617, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 0938-AS42


HHS--CMS

Final Rule Stage

66. Eligibility Notices, Fair Hearing and Appeal Processes for Medicaid 
and Exchange Eligibility Appeals, and Other Eligibility and Enrollment 
Provisions (CMS-2334-F2)

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Legal Authority: Pub. L. 111-148, secs 1411, 1413, 1557, 1943, 
2102, 2201, 2004, 2303, et al
    CFR Citation: 42 CFR 430; 42 CFR 431; 42 CFR 433; 42 CFR 435; 42 
CFR 457.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Affordable Care Act expands access to health 
insurance through improvements in Medicaid; the establishment of 
Affordable Insurance Exchanges; and coordination between Medicaid, the 
Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and Exchanges. This rule 
finalizes the remaining provisions proposed in the January 19, 2013, 
proposed rule, but not finalized in the July 15, 2013, final rule to 
continue our efforts to assist states in implementing Medicaid 
eligibility, appeals, and enrollment changes, and other State health 
subsidy programs.
    Statement of Need: This final rule will implement provisions of the 
Affordable Care Act and the Children's Health Insurance Program 
Reauthorization Act of 2009 (CHIPRA). This rule reflects new statutory 
eligibility provisions; changes to provide States more flexibility to 
coordinate Medicaid and CHIP eligibility notices, appeals, and other 
related administrative procedures with similar procedures used by other 
health coverage programs authorized under the Affordable Care Act; 
modernizes and streamlines existing rules, eliminates obsolete rules, 
and updates provisions to reflect Medicaid eligibility pathways; 
implements other CHIPRA eligibility-related provisions, including 
eligibility for newborns whose mothers were eligible for and receiving 
Medicaid or CHIP coverage at the time of birth. With publication of 
this final rule, we desire to make our implementing regulations 
available to States and the public as soon as possible to facilitate 
continued efficient operation of the State flexibility authorized under 
section 1937 of the Act.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The Affordable Care Act extends and 
simplifies Medicaid eligibility. In the July 15, 2013, Federal 
Register, we issued the ``Medicaid and Children's Health Insurance 
Programs: Essential Health Benefits in Alternative Benefit Plans, 
Eligibility Notices, Fair Hearing and Appeal Processes, and Premiums 
and Cost Sharing; Exchanges: Eligibility and Enrollment'' final rule 
that finalized certain key Medicaid and CHIP eligibility provisions 
included in the January 22, 2013, proposed rule. In this final rule, we 
are addressing the remaining provisions of the January 22, 2013, 
proposed rule.
    Alternatives: The majority of Medicaid and CHIP eligibility 
provisions proposed in this rule serve to implement the Affordable Care 
Act. All of the provisions in this final rule are a result of the 
passage of the Affordable Care Act and are largely self-implementing. 
Therefore, alternatives considered for this final rule were constrained 
due to the statutory provisions.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The March 23, 2012 Medicaid 
eligibility final rule detailed the impact of the Medicaid eligibility 
changes related to implementation of the Affordable Care Act. The 
majority of provisions included in this final rule were described in 
detail in that rule, but in summary, we estimate a total savings of 
$465 million over 5 years, including $280 million in cost savings to 
the Federal Government and $185 million in savings to States.
    Risks: None. Delaying publication of this final rule delays states 
from moving forward with implementing changes to Medicaid and CHIP, and 
aligning operations between Medicaid, CHIP and the Exchanges.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Action........................   11/00/14  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State, Tribal.
    Agency Contact: Sarah DeLone, Health Insurance Specialist, 
Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare & 
Medicaid Services, Mail Stop S2-01-16, 7500 Security Boulevard, 
Baltimore, MD 21244, Phone: 410 786-0615, Email: 
[email protected].
    Related RIN: Related to 0938-AR04.
    RIN: 0938-AS27

HHS--ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES (ACF)

Final Rule Stage

67. Child Care and Development Fund Reforms To Support Child 
Development and Working Families

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: Sec 658E and other provisions of the Child Care 
and Development Block Grant Act of 1990, as amended
    CFR Citation: 45 CFR 98.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This rule would provide the first comprehensive update of 
Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) regulations since 1998. It would 
make changes in four key areas: (1) Improving health and safety; (2) 
improving the quality of child care; (3) establishing family-friendly 
policies; and (4) strengthening program integrity. The rule seeks to 
retain much of the flexibility afforded to States, territories, and 
tribes consistent with the nature of a block grant.
    Statement of Need: The CCDF program has far-reaching implications 
for America's poorest children. It provides child care assistance to 
1.6 million children from nearly 1 million low-income working families 
and families who are attending school or job training. Half of the 
children served are living at or below poverty level. In addition, 
children who receive CCDF are cared for alongside children who do not 
receive CCDF, by approximately

[[Page 76529]]

570,000 participating child care providers, some of whom lack basic 
assurances needed to ensure children are safe, healthy, and learning. 
Since 1996, a body of research has demonstrated the importance of the 
early years on brain development and has shown that high-quality, 
consistent child care can positively impact later success in school and 
life. This is especially true for low-income children who face a school 
readiness and achievement gap and can benefit the most from high-
quality early learning environments. In light of this research, many 
States, territories, and tribes, working collaboratively with the 
Federal Government, have taken important steps over the last 15 years 
to make the CCDF program more child-focused and family-friendly; 
however, implementation of these evidence-informed practices is uneven 
across the country and critical gaps remain. This regulatory action is 
needed in order to increase accountability in the CCDF program by 
ensuring that all children receiving federally funded child care 
assistance are in safe, quality programs that both support their 
parent's labor market participation, and help children develop the 
tools and skills they need to reach their full potential. A major focus 
of this final rule is to raise the bar on quality by establishing a 
floor of health and safety standards for child care paid for with 
Federal funds. National surveys have demonstrated that most parents 
logically assume that their child care providers have had a background 
check, have had training in child health and safety, and are regularly 
monitored. However, State policies surrounding the training and 
oversight of child care providers vary widely. In some States, many 
children receiving CCDF subsidies are cared for by providers that have 
little to no oversight with respect to compliance with basic standards 
designed to safeguard children's well-being, such as first-aid and safe 
sleep practices. This can leave children in unsafe conditions, even as 
their care is being funded with public dollars. In addition, the final 
rule empowers all parents who choose child care, regardless of whether 
they receive a Federal subsidy, with better information to make the 
best choices for their children. This includes providing parents with 
information about the quality of child care providers and making 
information about providers' compliance with health and safety 
regulations more transparent so that parents can be aware of the safety 
track record of providers when it's time to choose child care.
    Summary of Legal Basis: This final regulation is being issued under 
the authority granted to the Secretary of Health and Human Services by 
the CCDBG Act (42 U.S.C. 9858 et seq.) and section 418 of the Social 
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 618).
    Alternatives: The Administration for Children and Families 
considered a range of approaches to improve early childhood care and 
education, including administrative and regulatory action. ACF has 
taken administrative actions to recommend that States adopt stronger 
health and safety requirements and provided technical assistance to 
States. Despite these efforts to assist States in making voluntary 
reforms, unacceptable health and safety lapses remain. An alternative 
to this rule would be to take no regulatory action or to limit the 
nature of the required standards and the degree to which those 
standards are prescriptive. ACF believes this rulemaking is the 
preferable alternative to ensure children's health and safety and 
promote their learning and development.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Changes in this final rule directly 
benefit children and parents who use CCDF assistance to pay for child 
care. The 1.6 million children who are in child care funded by CCDF 
would have stronger protections for their health and safety, which 
addresses every parent's paramount concern. All children in the care of 
a participating CCDF provider will be safer because that provider is 
more knowledgeable about health and safety issues. In addition, the 
families of the 12 million children who are served in child care will 
benefit from having clear, accessible information about the safety 
compliance records and quality indicators of providers available to 
them as they make critical choices about where their children will be 
cared for while they work. Provisions also will benefit child care 
providers by encouraging States to invest in high quality child care 
providers and professional development and to take into account quality 
when they determine child care payment rates. A primary reason for 
revising the CCDF regulations is to better reflect current State and 
local practices to improve the quality of child care. Therefore, there 
are a significant number of States, territories, and tribes that have 
already implemented many of these policies. The cost of implementing 
the changes in this final rule will vary depending on a State's 
specific situation. ACF does not believe the costs of this final 
regulatory action would be economically significant and that the 
tremendous benefits to low-income children justify costs associated 
with this final rule.
    Risks: Not applicable.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   05/20/13  78 FR 29422
NPRM Comment Period End.............   08/05/13  .......................
Final Action........................   12/00/14  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: State, Tribal.
    Agency Contact: Andrew Williams, Policy Division Director, 
Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children 
and Families, Office of Child Care, 370 L'Enfant Promenade SW., 
Washington, DC 20447, Phone: 202 401-4795, Fax: 202 690-5600, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 0970-AC53
BILLING CODE 4150-24-P

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (DHS)

Fall 2014 Statement of Regulatory Priorities

    The Department of Homeland Security (DHS or Department) was created 
in 2003 pursuant to the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Public Law 107-
296. DHS has a vital mission: To secure the Nation from the many 
threats we face. This requires the dedication of more than 225,000 
employees in jobs that range from aviation and border security to 
emergency response, from cybersecurity analyst to chemical facility 
inspector. Our duties are wide-ranging, but our goal is clear--keeping 
America safe.
    Our mission gives us six main areas of responsibility:
    1. Prevent Terrorism and Enhance Security,
    2. Secure and Manage Our Borders,
    3. Enforce and Administer our Immigration Laws,
    4. Safeguard and Secure Cyberspace,
    5. Ensure Resilience to Disasters, and
    6. Mature and Strengthen DHS
    In achieving these goals, we are continually strengthening our 
partnerships with communities, first responders, law enforcement, and 
government agencies--at the State, local, tribal, Federal, and 
international levels. We are accelerating the deployment of science, 
technology, and innovation in order to make America more secure, and we 
are becoming

[[Page 76530]]

leaner, smarter, and more efficient, ensuring that every security 
resource is used as effectively as possible. For a further discussion 
of our main areas of responsibility, see the DHS Web site at http://www.dhs.gov/our-mission.
    The regulations we have summarized below in the Department's fall 
2014 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 2007 (9/11 Act), Public Law 110-53 (Aug. 3, 
2007); the Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008 (CNRA), Public 
Law 110-229 (May 8, 2008); the Security and Accountability for Every 
Port Act of 2006 (SAFE Port Act), Public Law 109-347 (Oct. 13, 2006); 
and the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing 
Appropriations Act, 2009, Public Law 110-329 (Sep. 30, 2008).
    DHS strives for organizational excellence and uses a centralized 
and unified approach in managing its regulatory resources. The Office 
of the General Counsel manages the Department's regulatory program, 
including the agenda and regulatory plan. In addition, DHS senior 
leadership reviews each significant regulatory project to ensure that 
the project fosters and supports the Department's mission.
    The Department is committed to ensuring that all of its regulatory 
initiatives are aligned with its guiding principles to protect civil 
rights and civil liberties, integrate our actions, build coalitions and 
partnerships, develop human resources, innovate, and be accountable to 
the American public.
    DHS is also committed to the principles described in Executive 
Orders 13563 and 12866 (as amended). Both Executive Orders direct 
agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory 
alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory 
approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, 
environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, 
and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of 
quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing 
rules, and of promoting flexibility.
    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.

Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations

    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 www.reginfo.gov. Some of the entries on this list, 
however, are active rulemakings. You can find entries for these 
rulemakings on www.regulations.gov.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      RIN                                 Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1601-AA58.....................................  Professional Conduct for
                                                 Practitioners Rules and
                                                 Procedures, and
                                                 Representation and
                                                 Appearances.
1615-AB92.....................................  Employment Authorization
                                                 for Certain H-4
                                                 Spouses.
1615-AB95.....................................  Immigration Benefits
                                                 Business
                                                 Transformation:
                                                 Nonimmigrants; Student
                                                 and Exchange Visitor
                                                 Program.
1615-AC00.....................................  Enhancing Opportunities
                                                 for H-1B1, CW-1, and E-
                                                 3 Nonimmigrants and EB-
                                                 1 Immigrants.
1625-AB38.....................................  Update to Maritime
                                                 Security.
1625-AB80.....................................  Revision to
                                                 Transportation Worker
                                                 Identification
                                                 Credential (TWIC)
                                                 Requirements for
                                                 Mariners.
1651-AA96.....................................  Definition of Form I-94
                                                 to Include Electronic
                                                 Format.
1651-AB05.....................................  Freedom of Information
                                                 Act (FOIA) Procedures.
1652-AA61.....................................  Standardized Vetting,
                                                 Adjudication, and
                                                 Redress Services.
1653-AA44.....................................  Amendment to Accommodate
                                                 Process Changes with
                                                 SEVIS II
                                                 Implementation.
1653-AA63.....................................  Adjustments to
                                                 Limitations on
                                                 Designated School
                                                 Official Assignment and
                                                 Study By F-2 and M-2
                                                 Nonimmigrants.
1660-AA77.....................................  Change in Submission
                                                 Requirements for State
                                                 Mitigation Plans.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation

    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 www.reginfo.gov. Some of the 
entries on this list, however, are active rulemakings. You can find 
entries for these rulemakings on www.regulations.gov.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      RIN                                 Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1625-AB38.....................................  Updates to Maritime
                                                 Security.
1651-AA70.....................................  Importer Security Filing
                                                 and Additional Carrier
                                                 Requirements.
1651-AA72.....................................  Changes to the Visa
                                                 Waiver Program To
                                                 Implement the
                                                 Electronic System for
                                                 Travel Authorization
                                                 (ESTA) Program.
1651-AA98.....................................  Amendments to Importer
                                                 Security Filing and
                                                 Additional Carrier
                                                 Requirements.
1651-AA96.....................................  Definition of Form I-94
                                                 to Include Electronic
                                                 Format.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 76531]]

    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 2014 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 2014 regulatory plan for DHS regulatory components, offices, 
and directorates.

United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

    U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) administers 
immigration benefits and services while protecting and securing our 
homeland. USCIS has a strong commitment to welcoming individuals who 
seek entry through the U.S. immigration system, providing clear and 
useful information regarding the immigration process, promoting the 
values of citizenship, and assisting those in need of humanitarian 
protection. Based on a comprehensive review of the planned USCIS 
regulatory agenda, USCIS will promulgate several rulemakings to 
directly support these commitments and goals.
Regulations to Facilitate Retention of High-Skilled Workers
    Employment Authorization for Certain H-4 Dependent Spouses. On May 
12, 2014, USCIS published a proposed rule intended to encourage 
professionals with high-demand skills to remain in the country and help 
spur innovation and growth of U.S. businesses. In the proposed rule, 
USCIS proposed to extend eligibility for employment authorization to H-
4 dependent spouses of principal H-1B nonimmigrants who have begun the 
process of seeking lawful permanent resident status through employment 
and have extended their authorized period of admission or ``stay'' in 
the United States under section 104(c) or 106(a) of Public Law 106-313, 
also known as the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century 
Act of 2000. USCIS plans to issue a final rule in the coming year.
    Enhancing Opportunities for High-Skilled Workers. Also on May 12, 
2014, USCIS published a proposed rule intended to encourage and 
facilitate the employment and retention of certain high-skilled and 
transitional workers. In the proposed rule, USCIS proposed to amend its 
regulations relating to the nonimmigrant classifications for specialty 
occupation professionals from Chile and Singapore (H-1B1) and from 
Australia (E-3), to include these classifications in the list of 
classes of aliens authorized for employment incident to status with a 
specific employer, to extend automatic employment authorization 
extensions with pending extension of stay requests, and to update 
filing procedures. USCIS also proposed to amend regulations regarding 
continued employment authorization for nonimmigrant workers in the 
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI)-only Transitional 
Worker (CW-1) classification. Finally, USCIS also proposed to amend 
regulations related to the immigration classification for employment-
based first preference (EB-1) outstanding professors or researchers to 
allow the submission of comparable evidence. USCIS plans to issue a 
final rule in the coming year.
Improvements to the Immigration System
    Requirements for Filing Motions and Administrative Appeals. USCIS 
will propose to revise the procedural regulations governing appeals and 
motions to reopen or reconsider before its Administrative Appeals 
Office, and to require that applicants and petitioners exhaust 
administrative remedies before seeking judicial review of an 
unfavorable decision. The changes proposed by the rule will streamline 
the procedures before the Administrative Appeals Office and improve the 
efficiency of the adjudication process.
    Regulations Related to the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana 
Islands. This final rule amends DHS and Department of Justice (DOJ) 
regulations to comply with the Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 
2008 (CNRA). The CNRA extends the immigration laws of the United States 
to the Consolidated Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI). In 2009, USCIS 
issued an interim final rule to implement conforming amendments to the 
DHS and DOJ regulations. This joint DHS-DOJ final rule titled 
``Application of Immigration Regulations to the CNMI'' would finalize 
the 2009 interim final rule.
Regulatory Changes Involving Humanitarian Benefits
    Asylum and Withholding Definitions. USCIS plans a regulatory 
proposal to amend the regulations that govern asylum eligibility and 
refugee status determinations. The amendments are expected to revise 
the portions of the existing regulations that deal with determinations 
of whether suffered or feared persecution is on account of a protected 
ground, the requirements for establishing that the government is unable 
or unwilling to protect the applicant, and the definition of membership 
in a particular social group. This proposal would provide greater 
clarity and consistency in this important area of the law.
    Exception to the Persecution Bar for Asylum, Refugee, or Temporary 
Protected Status, and Withholding of Removal. In a joint rulemaking, 
DHS and DOJ will propose amendments to existing DHS and DOJ regulations 
to resolve ambiguity in the statutory

[[Page 76532]]

language precluding eligibility for asylum, refugee resettlement, 
temporary protected status, and withholding or removal of an applicant 
who ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the 
persecution of others. The proposed rule would provide a limited 
exception for persecutory actions taken by the applicant under duress 
and would clarify the required level of the applicant's knowledge of 
the persecution.
    ``T'' and ``U'' Nonimmigrants. USCIS plans additional regulatory 
initiatives related to T nonimmigrants (victims of trafficking) and U 
nonimmigrants (victims of criminal activity). Through these regulatory 
initiatives, USCIS hopes to provide greater consistency in eligibility 
and application requirements for these vulnerable groups, their 
advocates, and the community. These rulemakings will contain provisions 
to adjust documentary requirements for this vulnerable population and 
provide greater clarity to the law enforcement community.
    Special Immigrant Juvenile Petitions. This final rule makes 
procedural changes and resolves interpretive issues following statutory 
amendments. The Secretary may grant Special Immigrant Juvenile 
classification to aliens whose reunification with one or both parents 
is not viable due to abuse, neglect, abandonment, or a similar basis 
found under State law. Such classification can regularize immigration 
status for these aliens and allow for adjustment of status to lawful 
permanent resident.

United States Coast Guard

    The U.S. Coast Guard (Coast Guard) is a military, multi-mission, 
maritime service of the United States and the only military 
organization within DHS. It is the principal federal agency responsible 
for maritime safety, security, and stewardship and delivers daily value 
to the Nation through multi-mission resources, authorities, and 
capabilities.
    Effective governance in the maritime domain hinges upon an 
integrated approach to safety, security, and stewardship. The Coast 
Guard's policies and capabilities are integrated and interdependent, 
delivering results through a network of enduring partnerships. The 
Coast Guard's ability to field versatile capabilities and highly-
trained personnel is one of the U.S. Government's most significant and 
important strengths in the maritime environment.
    America is a maritime nation, and our security, resilience, and 
economic prosperity are intrinsically linked to the oceans. Safety, 
efficient waterways, and freedom of transit on the high seas are 
essential to our well-being. The Coast Guard is leaning forward, poised 
to meet the demands of the modern maritime environment. The Coast Guard 
creates value for the public through solid prevention and response 
efforts. Activities involving oversight and regulation, enforcement, 
maritime presence, and public and private partnership foster increased 
maritime safety, security, and stewardship.
    The statutory responsibilities of the Coast Guard include ensuring 
marine safety and security, preserving maritime mobility, protecting 
the marine environment, enforcing U.S. laws and international treaties, 
and performing search and rescue. The Coast Guard supports the 
Department's overarching goals of mobilizing and organizing our Nation 
to secure the homeland from terrorist attacks, natural disasters, and 
other emergencies. The rulemaking projects identified for the Coast 
Guard in the Unified Agenda, and the rules appearing in the fall 2014 
Regulatory Plan below, contribute to the fulfillment of those 
responsibilities and reflect our regulatory policies.
    Vessel Requirements for Notices of Arrival and Departure, and 
Automatic Identification System. The Coast Guard intends to expand the 
applicability of notice of arrival and departure (NOAD) and automatic 
identification system (AIS) requirements to include more commercial 
vessels. This rule, once final, would expand the applicability of 
notice of arrival (NOA) requirements to include additional vessels, 
establish a separate requirement for certain vessels to submit notices 
of departure (NOD), set forth a mandatory method for electronic 
submission of NOA and NOD, and modify related reporting content, 
timeframes, and procedures. This rule would also extend the 
applicability of AIS requirements beyond Vessel Traffic Service (VTS) 
areas and require additional commercial vessels install and use AIS. 
These changes are intended to improve navigation safety, enhance our 
ability to identify and track vessels, and heighten the Coast Guard's 
overall maritime domain awareness, thus helping the Coast Guard address 
threats to maritime transportation safety and security and mitigate the 
possible harm from such threats.
    Inspection of Towing Vessels. The Coast Guard has proposed 
regulations governing the inspection of towing vessels, including an 
optional towing safety management system (TSMS). The regulations for 
this large class of vessels would establish operations, lifesaving, 
fire protection, machinery and electrical systems and equipment, and 
construction and arrangement standards for towing vessels. This 
rulemaking would also set standards for the optional TSMS and related 
third-party organizations, as well as procedures for obtaining a 
certificate of inspection under either the TSMS or Coast Guard annual-
inspection option. This rulemaking would implement section 415 of the 
Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2004. The intent of this 
rulemaking, which would establish a new subchapter dedicated to towing 
vessels, is to promote safer work practices and reduce towing vessel 
casualties.
    Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC)--Reader 
Requirements. In accordance with the Maritime Transportation Safety Act 
of 2002 (MTSA) and the Security and Accountability For Every Port Act 
of 2006 (SAFE Port Act), the Coast Guard is establishing rules 
requiring electronic TWIC readers at high-risk vessels and facilities. 
These rules would ensure that prior to being granted unescorted access 
to a designated secure area at a high-risk vessel or facility: (1) The 
individual will have his or her TWIC electronically authenticated; (2) 
the status of the individual's credential will be electronically 
validated against an up-to-date list maintained by the TSA; and (3) the 
individual's identity will be electronically confirmed by comparing his 
or her fingerprint with a biometric template stored on the credential. 
By promulgating these rules, the Coast Guard seeks to improve security 
at the highest risk vessels and facilities with broader use of 
electronic inspection of biometric credentials.

United States Customs and Border Protection

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is the federal agency 
principally responsible for the security of our Nation's borders, 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

[[Page 76533]]

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 issue 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.
    Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA). During the next 
fiscal year, CBP intends to issue a final rule that will finalize two 
Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) rulemakings, the 2008 
ESTA interim final rule and the 2010 ESTA fee interim final rule. On 
June 9, 2008, CBP published an interim final rule implementing the ESTA 
for aliens who wish to enter the United States under the Visa Waiver 
Program (VWP) at air or sea ports of entry. This rule was intended to 
fulfill the requirements of section 711 of the Implementing 
Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (9/11 Act). The rule 
established ESTA and required that each alien traveling to the United 
States under the VWP must obtain electronic travel authorization via 
the ESTA System in advance of such travel. VWP travelers may obtain the 
required ESTA authorization by electronically submitting to CBP 
biographic and other information that was previously submitted to CBP 
via the I-94W Nonimmigrant Alien Arrival/Departure Form (I-94W). ESTA 
became mandatory on January 12, 2009. Therefore, VWP travelers must 
either obtain travel authorization in advance of travel under ESTA or 
obtain a visa prior to traveling to the United States. 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 $10.00 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.
    Importer Security Filing and Additional Carrier Requirements. On 
November 25, 2008, CBP published an interim final rule 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. To increase the 
accuracy and reliability of the advance information, CBP intends to 
publish a notice of proposed rulemaking during the next fiscal year 
that proposes some changes to the current importer security filing 
regulations.
    Air Cargo Advance Screening (ACAS). The Trade Act of 2002, as 
amended, authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security to promulgate 
regulations providing for the transmission to CBP through an electronic 
data interchange system, of information pertaining to cargo to be 
brought into the United States or to be sent from the United States, 
prior to the arrival or departure of the cargo. The cargo information 
required is that which the Secretary determines to be reasonably 
necessary to ensure cargo safety and security. CBP's current Trade Act 
regulations pertaining to air cargo require the electronic submission 
of various advance data to CBP no later than either the time of 
departure of the aircraft for the United States (from specified 
locations) or four hours prior to arrival in the United States for all 
other locations. CBP intends to propose amendments to these regulations 
to implement the Air Cargo Advance Screening (ACAS) program. To improve 
CBP's risk assessment and targeting capabilities and to enable CBP to 
target, and identify risky cargo prior to departure of the aircraft to 
the United States, ACAS would require the submission of certain of the 
advance electronic information for air cargo as early as practicable 
but no later than prior to loading the cargo onto an aircraft destined 
to or transiting through the United States at the last foreign port of 
departure. CBP, in conjunction with TSA, has been operating ACAS as a 
voluntary pilot program since 2010 and would like to implement ACAS as 
a regulatory program.
    Implementation of the Guam-Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 
Islands (CNMI) Visa Waiver Program. CBP published an interim final rule 
in November 2008 amending the DHS regulations to replace the current 
Guam Visa Waiver Program with a new Guam-Commonwealth of the Northern 
Mariana Islands (CNMI) Visa Waiver Program. This rule implements 
portions of the Consolidated National Resources Act of 2008 (CNRA), 
which extends the immigration laws of the United States to the CNMI and 
among others things, provides for a visa waiver program for travel to 
Guam and the CNMI. The amended regulations set forth the requirements 
for nonimmigrant visitors who seek admission for business or pleasure 
and solely for entry into and stay on Guam or the CNMI without a visa. 
The rule also establishes six ports of entry in the CNMI for purposes 
of administering and enforcing the Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver Program. CBP 
intends to issue a final rule during the next fiscal year.
    Definition of Form I-94 to Include Electronic Format. DHS issues 
the Form I-94 to certain aliens and uses the Form I-94 for various 
purposes such as documenting status in the United States, the approved 
length of stay, and departure. DHS generally issues the Form I-94 to 
aliens at the time they lawfully enter the United States. On March 27, 
2013, CBP published an interim final rule amending existing regulations 
to add a new definition of the term ``Form I-94.'' The new definition 
includes the collection of arrival/departure and admission or parole 
information by DHS, whether in paper or electronic format. The 
definition also clarified various terms that are associated with the 
use of the Form I-94 to accommodate an electronic version of the Form 
I-94. The rule also added a valid, unexpired nonimmigrant DHS admission 
or parole stamp in a foreign passport to the list of documents 
designated as evidence of alien registration. These revisions enabled 
DHS to transition to an automated process whereby DHS creates a Form I-
94 in an electronic format based on passenger, passport and visa 
information that DHS obtains electronically from air and sea carriers 
and the Department of State as well as through the inspection process. 
CBP intends to publish a final rule during the next fiscal year.
    In addition to the regulations that CBP issues to promote DHS's 
mission, CBP

[[Page 76534]]

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 2015, 
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.

Federal Emergency Management Agency

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) does not have any 
significant regulatory actions planned for fiscal year 2015.

Federal Law Enforcement Training Center

    The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) does not have 
any significant regulatory actions planned for fiscal year 2015.

United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement

    ICE is the principal criminal investigative arm of the Department 
of Homeland Security and one of the three Department components charged 
with the civil enforcement of the Nation's immigration laws. Its 
primary mission is to protect national security, public safety, and the 
integrity of our borders through the criminal and civil enforcement of 
Federal law governing border control, customs, trade, and immigration. 
During fiscal year 2015, ICE will focus rulemaking efforts on 
implementing and planning improvements in the area of student and 
exchange visitor programs and to advance initiatives related to F-1 and 
M-1 nonimmigrant students.
    Adjustments to Limitations on Designated School Official Assignment 
and Study by F-2 and M-2 Nonimmigrants. On November 21, 2013, DHS 
published a notice of proposed rulemaking to revise the regulatory cap 
on the number of designated school officials (DSOs) that may be 
nominated for the oversight of each school's campus(es) where F-1 and/
or M-1 students are enrolled. Currently, schools are limited to ten 
DSOs per school or per campus in a multi-campus school. In addition, 
the proposed rule sought to modify the regulatory restrictions placed 
on the dependents of an F-1 or M-1 student, to permit F-2 and M-2 
nonimmigrants to enroll in less than a full course of study at a school 
certified by the ICE Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP). ICE 
intends to issue a final rule in FY 2015. ICE believes that, in many 
circumstances, elimination of a DSO limit may improve the capability of 
DSOs to meet their liaison, reporting, and oversight responsibilities. 
In addition, ICE recognizes that there is increasing global competition 
to attract the best and brightest international students to study in 
our schools. Allowing a more flexible approach to permit F-2 and M-2 
spouses and children to engage in less than a full course of study at 
SEVP-certified schools will provide a greater incentive for 
international students to travel to the United States for their 
education.

National Protection and Programs Directorate

    The National Protection and Programs Directorate's (NPPD) vision is 
a safe, secure, and resilient infrastructure where the American way of 
life can thrive. NPPD leads the national effort to protect and enhance 
the resilience of the nation's physical and cyber infrastructure.
    Ammonium Nitrate Security Program. Recognizing both the economic 
importance of ammonium nitrate and the fact that ammonium nitrate is 
susceptible to use by terrorists in explosive devices, Congress, in 
section 563 of the Fiscal Year 2008 DHS Appropriations Act, granted DHS 
the authority to ``regulate the sale and transfer of ammonium nitrate 
by an ammonium nitrate facility . . . to prevent the misappropriation 
or use of ammonium nitrate in an act of terrorism.'' The statute 
directs 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 statute 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 reviewed the public comments and, on August 3, 2011, published a 
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). DHS received comment on the NPRM 
until December 1, 2011, and is now reviewing and adjudicating the 
public comments in order to develop a final rule. The final rule is 
intended to aid the Federal Government in its efforts to protect 
against 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 protecting 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.

Transportation Security Administration

    The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) protects the 
Nation's transportation systems to ensure freedom of movement for 
people and commerce. TSA is committed to continuously setting the 
standard for excellence in transportation security through its people, 
processes, and technology as we work to meet the immediate and long-
term needs of the transportation sector.
    In fiscal year 2014, responding to new legislative mandates in the 
Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013, Pub. L. 113-67 (Dec. 26, 2013) TSA 
published two statutorily-required regulations: One that restructured 
the fee imposed on passengers (known as the September 11th Security 
Fee) and another that repealed TSA's authority to impose a fee on air 
carriers (known as the Aviation Security Infrastructure Fee).
    In fiscal year 2015, 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.
    Passenger Screening Using Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT). TSA 
intends to issue a final rule to amend its civil aviation regulations 
to address whether screening and inspection of an individual, conducted 
to control access to the sterile area of an airport or to an aircraft, 
may include the use of advanced imaging technology (AIT).

[[Page 76535]]

TSA published an NPRM on March 26, 2012, to comply with the decision 
rendered by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District Columbia Circuit 
in Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) v. U.S. Department of 
Homeland Security on July 15, 2011. 653 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2011). The 
Court directed TSA to conduct notice and comment rulemaking on the use 
of AIT in the primary screening of passengers.
    Security Training for Surface Mode Employees. TSA will propose 
regulations to enhance the security of several non-aviation modes of 
transportation. In particular, TSA will propose regulations requiring 
freight railroad carriers, public transportation agencies (including 
rail mass transit and bus systems), passenger railroad carriers, and 
over-the-road bus operators to conduct security training for front line 
employees. This regulation would implement sections 1408 (Public 
Transportation), 1517 (Freight Railroads), and 1534(a) (Over-the-Road-
Buses) of the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act 
of 2007 (9/11 Act). In compliance with the definitions of frontline 
employees in the pertinent provisions of the 9/11 Act, the notice of 
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) would propose to define which employees are 
required to undergo training. This NPRM would also propose definitions 
for transportation of security-sensitive materials as required by 
section 1501 of the 9/11 Act.
    Standardized Vetting, Adjudication, and Redress Process and Fees. 
TSA is developing a proposed rule to revise and standardize the 
procedures, adjudication criteria, and fees for most of the security 
threat assessments (STAs) of individuals that TSA conducts. TSA is 
considering a proposal that would include procedures for conducting 
STAs for transportation workers from almost all modes of 
transportation, including those covered under the 9/11 Act. In 
addition, TSA will propose equitable fees to cover the cost of the STAs 
and credentials for some personnel. TSA plans to identify new 
efficiencies in processing STAs and ways to streamline existing 
regulations by simplifying language and removing redundancies. As part 
of this proposed rule, TSA will propose revisions to the Alien Flight 
Student Program (AFSP) regulations. TSA published an interim final rule 
for the AFSP on September 20, 2004. TSA regulations require aliens 
seeking to train at Federal Aviation Administration-regulated flight 
schools to complete an application and undergo an STA prior to 
beginning flight training. There are four categories under which 
students currently fall; the nature of the STA depends on the student's 
category. TSA is considering changes to the AFSP that would improve 
equity among fee payers and enable the implementation of new 
technologies to support vetting.

United States Secret Service

    The United States Secret Service does not have any significant 
regulatory actions planned for fiscal year 2015.

DHS Regulatory Plan for Fiscal Year 2015

    A more detailed description of the priority regulations that 
comprise DHS's fall 2014 regulatory plan follows.

DHS--OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (OS)

Final Rule Stage

68. Ammonium Nitrate Security Program

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Unfunded Mandates: This action may affect the private sector under 
Pub. L. 104-4.
    Legal Authority: Pub. L. 110-161, 2008 Consolidated Appropriations 
Act, sec. 563, subtitle J--Secure Handling of Ammonium Nitrate
    CFR Citation: 6 CFR 31
    Legal Deadline: NPRM, Statutory, May 26, 2008, Publication of 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Final, Statutory, December 26, 2008, 
Publication of Final Rule.
    Abstract: This rulemaking will implement the December 2007 
amendment to the Homeland Security Act entitled ``Secure Handling of 
Ammonium Nitrate.'' The amendment requires the Department of Homeland 
Security to ``regulate the sale and transfer of ammonium nitrate by an 
ammonium nitrate facility . . . to prevent the misappropriation or use 
of ammonium nitrate in an act of terrorism.''
    Statement of Need: Pursuant to section 563 of the 2008 Consolidated 
Appropriations Act, subtitle J--Secure Handling of Ammonium Nitrate, 
Public Law 110-161, the Department of Homeland Security is required to 
promulgate a rulemaking to create a registration regime for certain 
buyers and sellers of ammonium nitrate. This rule would create that 
regime, and would aid the Federal Government in its efforts to protect 
against the misappropriation of ammonium nitrate for use in acts of 
terrorism. By protecting against such misappropriation, this rule could 
limit terrorists' abilities to threaten the public and to threaten the 
Nation's critical infrastructure and key resources. By securing the 
Nation's supply of ammonium nitrate, it should be much more difficult 
for terrorists to obtain ammonium nitrate materials for use in 
improvised explosive devices. As a result, there is a direct value in 
the deterrence of a catastrophic terrorist attack using ammonium 
nitrate, such as the Oklahoma City attack that killed over 160 and 
injured 853 people.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Section 563 of the 2008 Consolidated 
Appropriations Act, subtitle J--Secure Handling of Ammonium Nitrate, 
Public Law 110-161, authorizes and requires this rulemaking.
    Alternatives: The Department considered several alternatives when 
developing the Ammonium Nitrate Security Program proposed rule. The 
alternatives considered were: (a) Register individuals applying for an 
AN registered user number using a paper application (via facsimile or 
the U.S. mail) rather than through in person application at a local 
cooperative extension office or only through a Web-based portal; (b) 
verify AN purchasers through both an Internet-based verification portal 
and call center rather than only a verification portal or call center; 
(c) communicate with applicants for an AN registered user number 
through U.S. Mail rather than only through email or a secure Web-based 
portal; (d) establish a specific capability within the Department to 
receive, process, and respond to reports of theft or loss rather than 
leverage a similar capability which already exists with the Bureau of 
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF); (e) require AN 
facilities to maintain records electronically in a central database 
provided by the Department rather than providing flexibility to the AN 
facility to maintain their own records either in paper or 
electronically; (f) require agents to register with the Department 
prior to the sale or transfer of ammonium nitrate involving an agent 
rather than allow oral confirmation of the agent with the AN purchaser 
on whose behalf the agent is working; and (g) exempt explosives from 
this regulation rather than not exempting them. As part of its notice 
of proposed rulemaking, the Department sought public comment on the 
numerous alternative ways in which the Department could carry out the 
requirements of the Secure Handling of Ammonium Nitrate provisions of 
the Homeland Security Act.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: In its proposed rule, the Department

[[Page 76536]]

estimated the number of entities that purchase ammonium nitrate to 
range from 64,950 to 106,200. These purchasers include farms, 
fertilizer mixers, farm supply wholesalers and cooperatives (co-ops), 
golf courses, landscaping services, explosives distributors, mines, 
retail garden centers, and lab supply wholesalers. The Department 
estimated the number of entities that sell ammonium nitrate to be 
between 2,486 and 6,236, many of which are also purchasers. These 
sellers include ammonium nitrate fertilizer and explosive 
manufacturers, fertilizer mixers, farm supply wholesalers and co-ops, 
retail garden centers, explosives distributors, fertilizer applicator 
services, and lab supply wholesalers. Individuals or firms that provide 
transportation services within the distribution chain may be 
categorized as sellers, agents, or facilities depending upon their 
business relationship with the other parties to the transaction. The 
total number of potentially regulated farms and other businesses ranges 
from 64,986 to 106,236 (including overlap between the categories). The 
cost of 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 Department programs seeking to reduce the risks 
posed by terrorism, including the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism 
Standards program (which seeks in part to prevent terrorists from 
gaining access to dangerous chemicals) and the Transportation Worker 
Identification Credential program (which seeks in part to prevent 
terrorists from gaining access to certain critical infrastructure), 
among other programs.
    Risks: Explosives containing ammonium nitrate are commonly used in 
terrorist attacks. Such attacks have been carried out both domestically 
and internationally. The 1995 Murrah Federal Building attack in 
Oklahoma City claimed the lives of 167 individuals and demonstrated 
firsthand to America how ammonium nitrate could be misused by 
terrorists. In addition to the Murrah Building attack, the Provisional 
Irish Republican Army used ammonium nitrate as part of its London, 
England, bombing campaign in the early 1980s. More recently, ammonium 
nitrate was used in the 1998 East African Embassy bombings and in the 
November 2003 bombings in Istanbul, Turkey. Additionally, since the 
events of 9/11, stores of ammonium nitrate have been confiscated during 
raids on terrorist sites around the world, including sites in Canada, 
England, India, and the Philippines.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM...............................   10/29/08  73 FR 64280
Correction..........................   11/05/08  73 FR 65783
ANPRM Comment Period End............   12/29/08
NPRM................................   08/03/11  76 FR 46908
Notice of Public Meetings...........   10/07/11  76 FR 62311
Notice of Public Meetings...........   11/14/11  76 FR 70366
NPRM Comment Period End.............   12/01/11
Final Rule..........................   04/00/15
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State.
    Federalism: This action may have federalism implications as defined 
in EO 13132.
    URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Jon MacLaren, Chief, Rulemaking Section, Department 
of Homeland Security, National Protection and Programs Directorate, 
Infrastructure Security Compliance Division (NPPD/ISCD), 245 Murray 
Lane, Mail Stop 0610, Arlington, VA 20598-0610, Phone: 703 235-5263, 
Fax: 703 603-4712, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 1601-AA52

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

Proposed Rule Stage

69. Asylum and Withholding Definitions

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1103; 8 U.S.C. 1158; 8 U.S.C. 1226; 8 
U.S.C. 1252; 8 U.S.C. 1282
    CFR Citation: 8 CFR 2; 8 CFR 208.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This rule proposes to amend Department of Homeland 
Security regulations that govern eligibility for asylum and withholding 
of removal. The amendments focus on portions of the regulations that 
deal with the definitions of membership in a particular social group, 
the requirements for failure of State protection, and determinations 
about whether persecution is inflicted on account of a protected 
ground. This rule codifies long-standing concepts of the definitions. 
It clarifies that gender can be a basis for membership in a particular 
social group. It also clarifies that a person who has suffered or fears 
domestic violence may under certain circumstances be eligible for 
asylum on that basis. After the Board of Immigration Appeals published 
a decision on this issue in 1999, Matter of R-A-, Int. Dec. 3403 (BIA 
1999), it became clear that the governing regulatory standards required 
clarification. The Department of Justice began this regulatory 
initiative by publishing a proposed rule addressing these issues in 
2000.
    Statement of Need: This rule provides guidance on a number of key 
interpretive issues of the refugee definition used by adjudicators 
deciding asylum and withholding of removal (withholding) claims. The 
interpretive issues include whether persecution is inflicted on account 
of a protected ground, the requirements for establishing the failure of 
State protection, and the parameters for defining membership in a 
particular social group. This rule will aid in the adjudication of 
claims made by applicants whose claims fall outside of the rubric of 
the protected grounds of race, religion, nationality, or political 
opinion. One example of such claims which often fall within the 
particular social group ground concerns people who have suffered or 
fear domestic

[[Page 76537]]

violence. This rule is expected to consolidate issues raised in a 
proposed rule in 2000 and to address issues that have developed since 
the publication of the proposed rule. This rule should provide greater 
stability and clarity in this important area of the law. This rule will 
also provide guidance to the following adjudicators: USCIS asylum 
officers, Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review 
(EOIR) immigration judges, and members of the EOIR Board of Immigration 
Appeals (BIA).
    Summary of Legal Basis: The purpose of this rule is to provide 
guidance on certain issues that have arisen in the context of asylum 
and withholding adjudications. The 1951 Geneva Convention relating to 
the Status of Refugees contains the internationally accepted definition 
of a refugee. United States immigration law incorporates an almost 
identical definition of a refugee as a person outside his or her 
country of origin ``who is unable or unwilling to return to, and is 
unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of, 
that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of 
persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a 
particular social group, or political opinion.'' Section 101(a)(42) of 
the Immigration and Nationality Act.
    Alternatives: A sizable body of interpretive case law has developed 
around the meaning of the refugee definition. Historically, much of 
this case law has addressed more traditional asylum and withholding 
claims based on the protected grounds of race, religion, nationality, 
or political opinion. In recent years, however, the United States 
increasingly has encountered asylum and withholding applications with 
more varied bases, related, for example, to an applicant's gender or 
sexual orientation. Many of these new types of claims are based on the 
ground of ``membership in a particular social group,'' which is the 
least well-defined of the five protected grounds within the refugee 
definition.
    On December 7, 2000, DOJ published a proposed rule in the Federal 
Register providing guidance on the definitions of ``persecution'' and 
``membership in a particular social group.'' Before DHS publishes a new 
proposed rule, DHS will consider how the nexus between persecution and 
a protected ground might be further conceptualized; how membership in a 
particular social group might be defined and evaluated; and what 
constitutes a State's inability or unwillingness to protect the 
applicant where the persecution arises from a non-State actor. The 
alternative to publishing this rule would be to allow the standards 
governing this area of law to continue to develop piecemeal through 
administrative and judicial precedent. This approach has resulted in 
inconsistent and confusing standards, and the Department has therefore 
determined that promulgation of the new proposed rule is necessary.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: By providing a clear framework for 
key asylum and withholding issues, we anticipate that adjudicators will 
have clear guidance, increasing administrative efficiency and 
consistency in adjudicating these cases. The rule will also promote a 
more consistent and predictable body of administrative and judicial 
precedent governing these types of cases. We anticipate that this will 
enable applicants to better assess their potential eligibility for 
asylum, and to present their claims more efficiently when they believe 
that they may qualify, thus reducing the resources spent on 
adjudicating claims that do not qualify. In addition, a more consistent 
and predictable body of law on these issues will likely result in fewer 
appeals, both administrative and judicial, and reduce associated 
litigation costs. The Department has no way of accurately predicting 
how this rule will impact the number of asylum applications filed in 
the United States. Based on anecdotal evidence and on the reported 
experience of other nations that have adopted standards under which the 
results are similar to those we anticipate for this rule, we do not 
believe this rule will cause a change in the number of asylum 
applications filed.
    Risks: The failure to promulgate a final rule in this area presents 
significant risk of further inconsistency and confusion in the law. The 
Government's interests in fair, efficient, and consistent adjudications 
would be compromised.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   12/07/00  65 FR 76588
NPRM Comment Period End.............   01/22/01
NPRM................................   05/00/15
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Additional Information: CIS No. 2092-00.
    Transferred from RIN 1115-AF92
    URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Ted Kim, Deputy Chief, Asylum Division, Office of 
Refugee, Asylum, and International Operations, Department of Homeland 
Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 20 Massachusetts 
Avenue NW., Suite 6030, Washington, DC 20259, Phone: 202 272-1614, Fax: 
202 272-1994, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 1615-AA41

DHS--USCIS

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

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552; 5 U.S.C. 552a; 8 U.S.C. 1101; 8 
U.S.C. 1101 (note); 8 U.S.C. 1102; Pub. L. 113-4
    CFR Citation: 8 CFR 103; 8 CFR 204; 8 CFR 212; 8 CFR 214; 8 CFR 
299.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This rule proposes new application and eligibility 
requirements for U nonimmigrant status. The U classification is for 
non-U.S. citizen/lawful permanent resident victims of certain crimes 
who cooperate with an investigation or prosecution of those crimes. 
There is a limit of 10,000 principals per fiscal year. This rule would 
propose to establish new procedures to be followed to petition for the 
U nonimmigrant classifications. Specifically, the rule would address 
the essential elements that must be demonstrated to receive the 
nonimmigrant classification, procedures that must be followed to file a 
petition and evidentiary guidance to assist in the petitioning process. 
Eligible victims would be allowed to remain in the United States if 
granted U nonimmigrant status. The Trafficking Victims Protection 
Reauthorization Act of 2008, Public Law 110-457, and the Violence 
Against Women Reauthorization Act (VAWA) of 2013, Public Law 113-4, 
made amendments to the U nonimmigrant status provisions of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act. The Department of Homeland Security 
had issued an interim final rule in 2007.
    Statement of Need: This regulation is necessary to allow alien 
victims of certain crimes to petition for U nonimmigrant status. U 
nonimmigrant status is available to eligible victims of certain 
qualifying criminal activity who: (1) Has suffered substantial physical 
or mental abuse as a result of the qualifying criminal activity; (2) 
the alien possesses information about the crime; (3) the alien has 
been, is being, or is likely to be helpful in the investigation

[[Page 76538]]

or prosecution of the crime; and (4) the criminal activity took place 
in the United States, including military installations and Indian 
country, or the territories or possessions of the United States. This 
rule addresses the eligibility requirements that must be met for 
classification as a U nonimmigrant alien and implements statutory 
amendments to these requirements, streamlines the procedures to 
petition for U nonimmigrant status, and provides evidentiary guidance 
to assist in the petition process.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Congress created the U nonimmigrant 
classification in the Battered Immigrant Women Protection Act of 2000 
(BIWPA) to provide immigration relief for alien victims of certain 
qualifying criminal activity and who are helpful to law enforcement in 
the investigation or prosecution of these crimes.
    Alternatives: To provide victims with immigration benefits and 
services and keeping in mind the purpose of the U visa as a law 
enforcement tool, DHS is considering and using suggestions from 
stakeholders in developing this regulation. These suggestions came in 
the form of public comment from the 2007 interim final rule as well as 
USCIS' 6 years of experience with the U nonimmigrant status program, 
including regular meetings and outreach events with stakeholders and 
law enforcement.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: DHS estimated the total annual cost 
of the interim rule to petitioners to be $6.2 million in the interim 
final rule published in 2007. This cost included the biometric services 
fee, the opportunity cost of time needed to submit the required forms, 
the opportunity cost of time required and cost of traveling to visit a 
USCIS Application Support Center. DHS is currently in the process of 
updating our cost estimates since U nonimmigrant visa petitioners are 
no longer required to pay the biometric services fee. 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 8 U.S.C. 1184(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.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule..................   09/17/07  72 FR 53013
Interim Final Rule Effective........   10/17/07
Interim Final Rule Comment Period      11/17/07
 End.
NPRM................................   10/00/15
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State.
    Additional Information: Transferred from RIN 1115-AG39.
    URL For More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL For Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Maureen A. Dunn, Chief, Family Immigration and 
Victim Protection Division, Department of Homeland Security, U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services, Office of Policy and Strategy, 20 
Massachusetts Avenue NW., Suite 1200, Washington, DC 20529, Phone: 202 
272-1470, Fax: 202 272-1480, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 1615-AA67

DHS--USCIS

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

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101; 8 U.S.C. 1103; 8 U.S.C. 1158; 8 
U.S.C. 1226; Pub. L. 107-26; Pub. L. 110-229.
    CFR Citation: 8 CFR 1; 8 CFR 207; 8 CFR 208; 8 CFR 240; 8 CFR 244; 
8 CFR 1001; 8 CFR 1208; 8 CFR 1240.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This joint rule proposes amendments to Department of 
Homeland Security (DHS) and Department of Justice (DOJ) regulations to 
describe the circumstances under which an applicant will continue to be 
eligible for asylum, refugee, or temporary protected status, special 
rule cancellation of removal under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and 
Central American Relief Act, and withholding of removal, even if DHS or 
DOJ has determined that the applicant's actions contributed, in some 
way, to the persecution of others when the applicant's actions were 
taken when the applicant was under duress.
    Statement of Need: This rule resolves ambiguity in the statutory 
language precluding eligibility for asylum, refugee, and temporary 
protected status of an applicant who ordered, incited, assisted, or 
otherwise participated in the persecution of others. The proposed 
amendment would provide a limited exception for actions taken by the 
applicant under duress and clarify the required levels of the 
applicant's knowledge of the persecution.
    Summary of Legal Basis: In Negusie v. Holder, 129 S. Ct. 1159 
(2009), the Supreme Court addressed whether the persecutor bar should 
apply where an alien's actions were taken under duress. DHS believes 
that this is an appropriate subject for rulemaking and proposes to 
amend the applicable regulations to set out its interpretation of the 
statute. In developing this regulatory initiative, DHS has carefully 
considered the purpose and history behind enactment of the persecutor 
bar, including its international law origins and the criminal law 
concepts upon which they are based.
    Alternatives: DHS did consider the alternative of not publishing a 
rulemaking on these issues. To leave this important area of the law 
without an administrative interpretation would confuse adjudicators and 
the public.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The programs affected by this rule 
exist so that the United States may respond effectively to global 
humanitarian situations and assist people who are in need. USCIS 
provides a number of humanitarian programs and protection to assist 
individuals in need of shelter or aid from disasters, oppression, 
emergency medical issues, and other urgent circumstances. This rule 
will advance the humanitarian goals of the asylum/refugee program, and 
other specialized programs. The main benefits of such goals tend to be 
intangible and difficult to quantify in economic and monetary terms. 
These forms of relief have not been available to individuals who 
engaged in persecution of others under duress. This rule will allow an 
exception to this bar from protection for applicants who can meet the 
appropriate evidentiary standard. Consequently, this rule may result in 
a small increase in the number of applicants for humanitarian programs.

[[Page 76539]]

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   10/00/15
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Ronald W. Whitney, Deputy Chief, Refugee and Asylum 
Law Division, Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services, Office of Chief Counsel, 20 Massachusetts Avenue 
NW., Washington, DC 20529, Phone: 415 293-1244, Fax: 415 293-1269, 
Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 1615-AB89

DHS--USCIS

72. Administrative Appeals Office: Procedural Reforms To Improve 
Efficiency

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   10/00/15
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Governmental Jurisdictions.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Additional Information: Previously 1615-AB29 (CIS 2311-04), which 
was withdrawn in 2007.
    URL For More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL For Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: William K. Renwick, Supervisory Citizenship and 
Immigration Appeals Officer, Department of Homeland Security, U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services, Administrative Appeals Office, 
Washington, DC 20529-2090, Phone: 703 224-4501, Email: 
[email protected].
    Related RIN: Duplicate of 1615-AB29
    RIN: 1615-AB98

DHS--USCIS

Final Rule Stage

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

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552; 5 U.S.C. 552a; 8 U.S.C. 1101 to 
1104; 8 U.S.C. 1182; 8 U.S.C. 1184; 8 U.S.C. 1187; 8 U.S.C. 1201; 8 
U.S.C. 1224 to 1227; 8 U.S.C. 1252 to 1252a; 22 U.S.C. 7101; 22 U.S.C. 
7105; Pub. L. 113-4
    CFR Citation: 8 CFR 103; 8 CFR 212; 8 CFR 214; 8 CFR 274a; 8 CFR 
299.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The T nonimmigrant classification was created by the 
Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000, Public Law 
106-386. The classification was designed for eligible victims of severe 
forms of trafficking in persons who aid law enforcement with their 
investigation or prosecution of the traffickers, and who can establish 
that they would suffer extreme hardship involving unusual and severe 
harm if they were removed from the United States. The rule streamlines 
application procedures and responsibilities for the Department of 
Homeland Security (DHS) and provides guidance to the public on how to 
meet certain requirements to obtain T nonimmigrant status. Several 
reauthorizations, including the Violence Against Women Reauthorization 
Act of 2013, Public Law 113-4, have made amendments to the T 
nonimmigrant status provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act. 
This rule implements those amendments.
    Statement of Need: This rule addresses the essential elements that 
must be demonstrated for classification as a T nonimmigrant alien and 
implements statutory amendments to these elements, streamlines the 
procedures to be followed by applicants to apply for T nonimmigrant 
status, and evidentiary guidance to assist in the application process.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Section 107(e) of the Victims of 
Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 Public Law 106-386, as 
amended, established the T classification to provide immigration relief 
for certain eligible victims of severe forms of trafficking in persons 
who assist law enforcement authorities in investigating and prosecuting 
the perpetrators of these crimes.
    Alternatives: To provide victims with immigration benefits and 
services, keeping in mind the purpose of the T visa also being a law 
enforcement tool, DHS is considering and using suggestions from 
stakeholders in

[[Page 76540]]

developing this regulation. These suggestions came in the form of 
public comment to the 2002 interim final rule, as well as from over 10 
years of experience with the T nonimmigrant status program, including 
regular meetings with stakeholders and regular outreach events.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Applicants for T nonimmigrant status 
do not pay application or biometric fees. The anticipated benefits of 
these expenditures include: Assistance to trafficked victims and their 
families, prosecution of traffickers in persons, and the elimination of 
abuses caused by trafficking activities. Benefits which may be 
attributed to the implementation of this rule are expected to be: (1) 
An increase in the number of cases brought forward for investigation 
and/or prosecution; (2) heightened awareness by the law enforcement 
community of trafficking in persons; and (3) streamlining the 
application process for victims.
    Risks: There is a 5,000-person limit to the number of individuals 
who can be granted T-1 status per fiscal year. Eligible applicants who 
are not granted T-1 status due solely to the numerical limit will be 
placed on a waiting list maintained by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (USCIS). To protect T-1 applicants and their families, USCIS 
will use various means to prevent the removal of T-1 applicants on the 
waiting list, and their family members who are eligible for derivative 
T status, including its existing authority to grant deferred action, 
parole, and stays of removal, in cooperation with other DHS components.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule..................   01/31/02  67 FR 4784
Interim Final Rule Effective........   03/04/02
Interim Final Rule Comment Period      04/01/02
 End.
Interim Final Rule..................   04/00/15
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State.
    Additional Information: Transferred from RIN 1115-AG19.
    Agency Contact: Maureen A. Dunn, Chief, Family Immigration and 
Victim Protection Division, Department of Homeland Security, U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services, Office of Policy and Strategy, 20 
Massachusetts Avenue NW., Suite 1200, Washington, DC 20529, Phone: 202 
272-1470, Fax: 202 272-1480, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 1615-AA59

DHS--USCIS

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

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: Pub. L. 110-229; 8 U.S.C. 1101 and note; 8 U.S.C. 
1102; 8 U.S.C. 1103; 8 U.S.C. 1182 and note; 8 U.S.C. 1184; 8 U.S.C. 
1187; 8 U.S.C. 1223; 8 U.S.C. 1225; 8 U.S.C. 1226; 8 U.S.C. 1227; 8 
U.S.C. 1255; 8 U.S.C. 1185 note; 8 U.S.C. 48; U.S.C. 1806; 8 U.S.C. 
1186a; 8 U.S.C. 1187; 8 U.S.C. 1221; 8 U.S.C. 1281; 8 U.S.C. 1282; 8 
U.S.C. 1301 to 1305 and 1372; Pub. L. 104-208; Pub. L. 106-386; 
Compacts of Free Association with the Federated States of Micronesia 
and the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and with the Government of 
Palau, sec 141; 48 U.S.C. 1901 note and 1931 note; Pub. L. 105-100; 
Pub. L. 105-277; 8 U.S.C. 1324a
    CFR Citation: 8 CFR 212.4(k)(1) and (2); 8 CFR 214.16(a), (b), (c) 
and (d); 8 CFR 245.1(d)(1)(v) and (vi); 8 CFR 274a.12(b)(24); 8 CFR 
1245.1(d)(1)(v), (vi), and (vii); 8 CFR part 2
    Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, November 28, 2009, Consolidated 
Natural Resources Act (CNRA) of 2008. Public Law 110-229, the 
Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008 (CNRA), was enacted on May 
8, 2008. Title VII of this statute extended the provisions of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to the Commonwealth of the 
Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI).
    Abstract: This final rule amends the Department of Homeland 
Security (DHS) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) regulations to 
comply with the CNRA. The CNRA extends the immigration laws of the 
United States to the CNMI. This rule finalizes the interim rule and 
implements conforming amendments to their respective regulations.
    Statement of Need: This rule finalizes the interim rule to conform 
existing regulations with the CNRA. Some of the changes implemented 
under the CNRA affect existing regulations governing both DHS 
immigration policy and procedures and proceedings before the 
immigration judges and the Board. Accordingly, it is necessary to make 
amendments both to the DHS regulations and to the DOJ regulations. The 
Secretary and the Attorney General are making conforming amendments to 
their respective regulations in this single rulemaking document.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Congress extended the immigration laws of 
the United States to the CNMI. The stated purpose of the CNRA is to 
ensure effective border control procedures, to properly address 
national security and homeland security concerns by extending U.S. 
immigration law to the CNMI (phasing-out the CNMI's nonresident 
contract worker program while minimizing to the greatest extent 
practicable the potential adverse economic and fiscal effects of that 
phase-out), to maximize the CNMI's potential for future economic and 
business growth, and to assure worker protections from the potential 
for abuse and exploitation.
    Alternatives:
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Costs: The interim rule established 
basic provisions necessary for the application of the INA to the CNMI 
and updated definitions and existing DHS and DOJ regulations in areas 
that were confusing or in conflict with how they are to be applied to 
implement the INA in the CNMI. As such, that rule made no changes that 
had identifiable direct or indirect economic impacts that could be 
quantified. Benefits: This final rule makes regulatory changes in order 
to lessen the adverse impacts of the CNRA on employers and employees in 
the CNMI and assist the CNMI in its transition to the INA.
    Risks:
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule..................   10/28/09  74 FR 55725
Interim Final Rule Comment Period      11/27/09
 End.
Correction..........................   12/22/09  74 FR 67969
Final Action........................   03/00/15
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Additional Information: CIS 2460-08.
    URL For More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL For Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Kevin J. Cummings, Chief, Business and Foreign 
Workers Division, Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services, Office of Policy and Strategy, 20 Massachusetts 
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529-2140, Phone: 202 272-1470, Fax: 202 
272-1480, Email: [email protected].
    Related RIN: Related to 1615-AB76, Related to 1615-AB75
    RIN: 1615-AB77


[[Page 76541]]



DHS--USCIS

75. Special Immigrant Juvenile Petitions

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101; 8 U.S.C. 1103; 8 U.S.C. 1151; 8 
U.S.C. 1153; 8 U.S.C. 1154.
    CFR Citation: 8 CFR 204; 8 CFR 205; 8 CFR 245.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) proposes to 
amend its regulations governing the Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ) 
classification and related applications for adjustment of status to 
permanent resident. The Secretary may grant SIJ classification to 
aliens whose reunification with one or both parents is not viable due 
to abuse, neglect, abandonment, or a similar basis found under State 
law. This proposed rule would require a petitioner to be under the age 
of 21 only at the time of filing for SIJ classification. This proposed 
rule would require that juvenile court dependency be in effect at the 
time of filing for SIJ classification and continue through the time of 
adjudication unless the age of the juvenile prevents such continued 
dependency. Aliens granted SIJ classification are eligible immediately 
to apply for adjustment of status to that of permanent resident. The 
Department received comments on the proposed rule in 2011 and intends 
to issue a final rule in the coming year.
    Statement of Need: SIJ classification is available to eligible 
alien children who: (1) Are present in the United States; (2) have been 
declared dependent on a juvenile court or an individual or entity 
appointed by a State or juvenile court; (3) cannot reunify with one or 
both of the alien's parents due to abuse, abandonment, neglect, or a 
similar basis under State law; (4) it is not in the best interest to be 
returned to the home country. DHS must also consent to the grant of SIJ 
classification. This rule would address the eligibility requirements 
that must be met for SIJ classification and related adjustment of 
status, implement statutory amendments to these requirements, and 
provide procedural and evidentiary guidance to assist in the petition 
process.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Congress established the SIJ classification 
in the Immigration Act of 1990 (IMMACT). The 1998 Appropriations Act 
amended the SIJ classification by linking eligibility to aliens 
declared dependent on a juvenile court due to abuse, abandonment, or 
neglect and creating consent functions. The Trafficking Victims 
Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 made many changes to the SIJ 
classification including: (1) Creating a requirement that the alien's 
reunification with one or both parents not be viable due to abuse, 
abandonment, neglect, or a similar basis under State law; (2) expanding 
the aliens who may be eligible to include those placed by a juvenile 
court with an individual or entity; (3) modifying the consent 
functions; (4) providing age-out protection; and (5) creating a 
timeframe for adjudications.
    Alternatives: To provide victims with immigration benefits and 
services, keeping in mind the humanitarian purpose of the SIJ 
classification and the vulnerable nature of alien children who have 
been abused, abandoned or neglected, DHS is considering and using 
suggestions from stakeholders in developing this regulation. These 
suggestions came in the form of public comment from the 2011 proposed 
rule.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: In the 2011 proposed rule, DHS 
estimated there would be no additional regulatory compliance costs for 
petitioning individuals or any program costs for the government as a 
result of the proposed amendments. Qualitatively, DHS estimated that 
the proposed rule would codify the practices and procedures currently 
implemented via internal policy directives issued by USCIS, thereby 
establishing clear guidance for petitioners. DHS is currently in the 
process of updating our final cost and benefit estimates.
    Risks: The failure to promulgate a final rule in this area presents 
significant risk of further inconsistency and confusion in the law. The 
Government's interests in fair, efficient, and consistent adjudications 
would be compromised.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   09/06/11  76 FR 54978
NPRM Comment Period End.............   11/07/11  .......................
Final Rule..........................   07/00/15  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, State.
    URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Maureen A. Dunn, Chief, Family Immigration and 
Victim Protection Division, Department of Homeland Security, U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services, Office of Policy and Strategy, 20 
Massachusetts Avenue NW., Suite 1200, Washington, DC 20529, Phone: 202 
272-1470, Fax: 202 272-1480, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 1615-AB81

DHS--USCIS

76. Employment Authorization for Certain H-4 Dependent Spouses

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101; 8 U.S.C. 1102; 8 U.S.C. 1103; 8 
U.S.C. 1182; 8 U.S.C. 1184; 8 U.S.C. 1186a; 8 U.S.C. 1187; 8 U.S.C. 
1221; 8 U.S.C. 1281; 8 U.S.C. 1282; 8 U.S.C. 1301 to 1305 and 1372; 
Pub. L. 104-208, sec 643; Pub. L. 106-386; Compacts of Free Association 
with the Federated States of Micronesia and the Republic of the 
Marshall Islands, and with the Government of Palau, sec 141; 48 U.S.C. 
1901 note and 1931 note; 48 U.S.C. 1806; 8 U.S.C. 1324a; Pub. L. 110-
229.
    CFR Citation: 8 CFR 274a.12(c)(26); 8 CFR part 2; 8 CFR 
214.2(h)(9)(iv).
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) proposes to 
amend its regulations by extending the availability of employment 
authorization to certain H-4 dependent spouses of principal H-1B 
nonimmigrants who have begun the process of seeking lawful permanent 
resident status through employment. Allowing the eligible class of H-4 
dependent spouses to work encourages professionals with high demand 
skills to remain in the country and help spur the innovation and growth 
of U.S. companies.
    Statement of Need: Under current regulations, DHS does not list H-4 
dependents (spouses and unmarried children under 21) of H-1B 
nonimmigrant workers among the classes of aliens eligible to work in 
the United States. See 8 CFR 274a.12. The lack of employment 
authorization for H-4 dependent spouses often gives rise to personal 
and economic hardship for the families of H-1B nonimmigrants the longer 
they remain in the United States. In many cases, for those H-1B 
nonimmigrants and their families who wish to remain permanently in the 
United States, the timeframe required for an H-1B nonimmigrant to 
acquire lawful permanent residence through his or her employment may be 
many years. As a result, retention of highly educated and highly 
skilled nonimmigrant workers in the United States can become 
problematic for employers. Retaining highly skilled persons who

[[Page 76542]]

intend to acquire lawful permanent residence is important to the United 
States given the contributions of these individuals to the U.S. 
economy, including advances in entrepreneurial and research and 
development endeavors, which correlate highly with overall economic 
growth and job creation. In this rule, DHS proposes to extend 
employment authorization to certain H-4 dependent spouses of H-1B 
nonimmigrants. DHS believes that this rule would further encourage H-1B 
skilled workers to remain in the United States, continue contributing 
to the U.S. economy, and not abandon their efforts to become lawful 
permanent residents, to the detriment of their U.S. employer, because 
their H-4 nonimmigrant spouses are unable to obtain work authorization. 
This rule would also remove the disincentive for many H-1B families to 
start the immigrant process due to the lengthy waiting periods 
associated with acquiring status as a lawful permanent resident of the 
United States.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Sections 103(a), and 274A(h)(3) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) generally authorize the Secretary 
to provide for employment authorization for aliens in the United 
States. In addition, section 214(a)(1) of the INA authorizes the 
Secretary to prescribe regulations setting terms and conditions of 
admission of nonimmigrants.
    Alternatives: In enacting the American Competitiveness in the 
Twenty-First Century Act of 2000 (AC21), Congress was especially 
concerned with avoiding the disruption to U.S. businesses caused by the 
required departure of H-1B nonimmigrant workers (for whom the 
businesses intended to file employment-based immigrant visa petitions) 
upon the expiration of workers' maximum 6-year period of authorized 
stay. See S. Rep. No. 106-260, at 15 (2000). DHS rejected this 
alternative as overbroad, since such an alternative would offer 
eligibility for employment authorization to those spouses of 
nonimmigrant workers who have not taken steps to demonstrate a desire 
to continue to remain in and contribute to the U.S. economy by seeking 
lawful permanent residence.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The changes would impact spouses of 
H-1B workers who have been admitted or have extended their stay under 
the provisions of AC21 or who have an approved Immigrant Petition for 
Alien Worker, Form I-140. This population would include H-4 dependent 
spouses of H-1B nonimmigrants if the H-1B nonimmigrants are either the 
beneficiaries of an approved Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker, Form 
I-140, or have been granted an extension of their authorized period of 
admission in the United States under the AC21, amended by the 21st 
Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act. The 
costs of the rule stem from filing fees and the opportunity costs of 
time associated with filing an Application for Employment Authorization 
for those eligible H-4 spouses who decide to seek employment while 
residing in the United States. Allowing certain H-4 spouses the 
opportunity to work results in a negligible increase to the overall 
domestic labor force. The benefits of this rule would accrue to U.S. 
employers and the U.S. economy by increasing the likelihood of 
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 amendments bring U.S. immigration laws more 
in line with other countries that seek to attract skilled foreign 
workers.
    Risks:
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   05/12/14  79 FR 26886
NPRM Comment Period End.............   07/11/14
Final Action........................   12/00/14
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    International Impacts: This regulatory action will be likely to 
have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise be of 
international interest.
    Additional Information: Includes Retrospective Review under E.O. 
13563.
    Agency Contact: Kevin J. Cummings, Chief, Business and Foreign 
Workers Division, Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services, Office of Policy and Strategy, 20 Massachusetts 
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529-2140, Phone: 202 272-1470, Fax: 202 
272-1480, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 1615-AB92

DHS--USCIS

77. Enhancing Opportunities for H-1B1, CW-1, and E-3 Nonimmigrants and 
EB-1 Immigrants

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101; 8 U.S.C. 1103; 8 U.S.C. 1151; 8 
U.S.C. 1153; 8 U.S.C. 1154; 8 U.S.C. 1182; 8 U.S.C. 1184; 8 U.S.C. 
1186a; 8 U.S.C. 1255; 8 U.S.C. 1641; 8 U.S.C. 1187; 8 U.S.C. 1221; 8 
U.S.C. 1281; 8 U.S.C. 1282; 8 U.S.C. 1301-1305 and 1372; Pub. L. 104-
208, sec 643; Pub. L. 106-386; Compacts of Free Association with the 
Federated States of Micronesia and the Republic of Marshall Islands, 
and with the Government of Palau, sec 141; 48 U.S.C. 1901 note and 1931 
note; Pub. L. 110-229; 8 U.S.C. 1258; 8 U.S.C. 1324a; 48 U.S.C. 1806; 8 
U.S.C. 1102
    CFR Citation: 8 CFR 204.5(i)(3)(ii)-(iv); 8 CFR 214.1(c)(1); 8 CFR 
248.3(a); 8 CFR 274a.12(b)(9), (b)(20), (b)(23)-(25); 8 CFR part 2.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is updating the 
regulations to include nonimmigrant high-skilled specialty occupation 
professionals from Chile and Singapore (H-1B1) and from Australia (E-3) 
in the list of classes of aliens authorized for employment incident to 
status with a specific employer, to clarify that H-1B1 and principal E-
3 nonimmigrants are allowed to work without having to separately apply 
to DHS for employment authorization. DHS is also amending the 
regulations to provide authorization for continued employment with the 
same employer if the employer has timely filed for an extension of the 
nonimmigrant's stay. DHS is also providing for this same continued work 
authorization for Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI)-
Only Transitional Worker (CW-1) nonimmigrants if a Petition for a CNMI-
Only Nonimmigrant Transitional Worker, Form I-129CW, is timely filed to 
apply for an extension of stay. In addition, DHS is updating the 
regulations describing the filing procedures for extensions of stay and 
change of status requests to include the principal E-3 and H-1B1 
nonimmigrant classifications. These changes harmonize the regulations 
for E-3, H-1B1, and CW-1 nonimmigrant classifications with existing 
regulations for other, similarly situated nonimmigrant classifications. 
Finally, DHS is expanding the current list of evidentiary criteria for 
employment-based first preference (EB-1) outstanding professors and 
researchers to allow the submission of evidence comparable to the other 
forms of

[[Page 76543]]

evidence already listed in the regulations. This harmonizes the 
regulations for EB-1 outstanding professors and researchers with other 
employment-based immigrant categories that already allow for submission 
of comparable evidence. DHS is amending the regulations to benefit 
these high-skilled workers and CW-1 transitional workers by removing 
unnecessary hurdles that place such workers at a disadvantage when 
compared to similarly situated workers in other visa classifications.
    Statement of Need: The proposal would improve the programs serving 
the E-3, H-1B1, and CW-1 nonimmigrant classifications and the EB-1 
immigrant classification for outstanding professors and researchers. 
The proposed changes harmonize the regulations governing these 
classifications with regulations governing similar visa classifications 
by removing unnecessary hurdles that place E-3, H-1B1, CW-1 and certain 
EB-1 workers at a disadvantage.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The Homeland Security Act of 2002, Public 
Law 107-296, section 102, 116 Stat. 2135 (Nov. 25, 2002), 6 U.S.C. 112, 
and the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (INA), charge the 
Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary) with administration and 
enforcement of the immigration and nationality laws. See INA section 
103, 8 U.S.C. 1103.
    Alternatives: A number of the changes are part of DHS's 
Retrospective Review Plan for Existing Regulations. During development 
of DHS's Retrospective Review Plan, DHS received a comment from the 
public requesting specific changes to the DHS regulations that govern 
continued work authorization for E-3 and H-1B1 nonimmigrants when an 
extension of status petition is timely filed, and to expand the types 
of evidence allowable in support of immigrant petitions for outstanding 
researchers or professors. This rule is responsive to that comment, and 
with the retrospective review principles of Executive Order 13563.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The E-3 and H-1B1 provisions do not 
impose any additional costs on petitioning employers, individuals or 
government entities, including the Federal government. The regulatory 
amendments provide equity for E-3 and H-1B1 nonimmigrants relative to 
other employment-based nonimmigrants listed in 8 CFR 274a.12.(b)(20). 
Additionally, this provision may allow employers of E-3 or H-1B1 
nonimmigrant workers to avoid the cost of lost productivity resulting 
from interruptions of work while an extension of stay petition is 
pending. Additionally, the regulatory changes that clarify principal E-
3 and H-1B1 nonimmigrant classifications are employment authorized 
incident to status with a specific employer, and that these 
nonimmigrant classifications that must file a petition with USCIS to 
make an extension of stay or change of status request simply codify 
current practice and impose no additional costs. Likewise, the 
regulatory amendments governing CW-1 nonimmigrants would not impose any 
additional costs for petitioning employers or for CW-1 nonimmigrant 
workers. The benefits of the rule are to provide equity for CW-1 
nonimmigrant workers whose extension of stay request is filed by the 
same employer relative to other CW-1 nonimmigrant workers. 
Additionally, this provision mitigates any potential distortion in the 
labor market for employers of CW-1 nonimmigrant workers created by 
current inconsistent regulatory provisions which currently offer an 
incentive to file for extensions of stay with new employers rather than 
current employers. The portion of the rule addressing the evidentiary 
requirements for the EB-1 outstanding professor and researcher 
employment-based immigrant classification allows 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. Harmonizing the evidentiary 
requirements for EB-1 outstanding professors and researchers with other 
comparable employment-based immigrant classifications provides equity 
for EB-1 outstanding professors and researchers relative to those other 
employment-based visa categories.
    Risks:
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   05/12/14  79 FR 26870
NPRM Comment Period End.............   07/11/14
Final Action........................   04/00/15
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Organizations.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    International Impacts: This regulatory action will be likely to 
have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise be of 
international interest.
    Additional Information: Includes Retrospective Review under 
Executive Order 13563.
    Agency Contact: Kevin J. Cummings, Chief, Business and Foreign 
Workers Division, Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services, Office of Policy and Strategy, 20 Massachusetts 
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529-2140, Phone: 202 272-1470, Fax: 202 
272-1480, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 1615-AC00

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

Final Rule Stage

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

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1223; 33 U.S.C. 1225; 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 
U.S.C. 3716; 46 U.S.C. 8502; 46 U.S.C. 701; sec 102 of Pub. L. 107-295; 
EO 12234
    CFR Citation: 33 CFR 62; 33 CFR 66; 33 CFR 160; 33 CFR 161; 33 CFR 
164; 33 CFR 165; 33 CFR 101; 33 CFR 110; 33 CFR 117; 33 CFR 151; 46 CFR 
4; 46 CFR 148.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This rulemaking would expand the applicability for Notice 
of Arrival and Departure (NOAD) and Automatic Identification System 
(AIS) requirements. These expanded requirements would better enable the 
Coast Guard to correlate vessel AIS data with NOAD data, enhance our 
ability to identify and track vessels, detect anomalies, improve 
navigation safety, and heighten our overall maritime domain awareness. 
The NOAD portion of this rulemaking could expand the applicability of 
the NOAD regulations by changing the minimum size of vessels covered 
below the current 300 gross tons, require a notice of departure when a 
vessel is departing for a foreign port or place, and mandate electronic 
submission of NOAD notices to the National Vessel Movement Center. The 
AIS portion of this rulemaking would expand current AIS carriage 
requirements for the population identified in the Safety of Life at Sea 
(SOLAS) Convention and the Marine Transportation Marine Transportation 
Security Act (MTSA) of 2002.
    Statement of Need: There is no central mechanism in place to 
capture vessel, crew, passenger, or specific cargo information on 
vessels less than or equal to 300 gross tons (GT) intending to arrive 
at or depart from U.S. ports unless they are arriving with certain

[[Page 76544]]

dangerous cargo (CDC) or at a port in the 7th Coast Guard District; nor 
is there a requirement for vessels to submit notification of departure 
information. The lack of NOAD information of this large and diverse 
population of vessels represents a substantial gap in our maritime 
domain awareness (MDA). We can minimize this gap and enhance MDA by 
expanding NOAD applicability to vessels greater than 300 GT, all 
foreign commercial vessels and all U.S. commercial vessels coming from 
a foreign port, and further enhance (and corroborate) MDA by tracking 
those vessels (and others) with AIS. This information is necessary in 
order to expand our MDA and provide the Nation maritime safety and 
security.
    Summary of Legal Basis: This rulemaking is based on congressional 
authority provided in the Ports and Waterways Safety Act (see 33 U.S.C. 
1223(a)(5), 1225, 1226, and 1231) and section 102 of the Maritime 
Transportation Security Act of 2002 (codified at 46 U.S.C. 70114).
    Alternatives: Our goal is to extend our MDA and to identify 
anomalies by correlating vessel NOAD data with AIS data. NOAD and AIS 
information from a greater number of vessels, as proposed in this 
rulemaking, would expand our MDA. We considered expanding NOAD and AIS 
to even more vessels, but we determined that we needed additional 
legislative authority to expand AIS beyond what we propose in this 
rulemaking, and that it was best to combine additional NOAD expansion 
with future AIS expansion. Although not in conjunction with a proposed 
rule, the Coast Guard sought comment regarding expansion of AIS 
carriage to other waters and other vessels not subject to the current 
requirements (68 FR 39369, July 1, 2003; USCG 2003-14878; see also 68 
FR 39355). Those comments were reviewed and considered in drafting this 
rule and are available in this docket. To fulfill our statutory 
obligations, the Coast Guard needs to receive AIS reports and NOADs 
from vessels identified in this rulemaking that currently are not 
required to provide this information. Policy or other nonbinding 
statements by the Coast Guard addressed to the owners of these vessels 
would not produce the information required to sufficiently enhance our 
MDA to produce the information required to fulfill our Agency 
obligations.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This rulemaking will enhance the 
Coast Guard's regulatory program by making it more effective in 
achieving the regulatory objectives, which, in this case, is improved 
MDA. We provide flexibility in the type of AIS system that can be used, 
allowing for reduced cost burden. This rule is also streamlined to 
correspond with Customs and Border Protection's APIS requirements, 
thereby reducing unjustified burdens. We are further developing 
estimates of cost and benefit that were published in 2008. In the 2008 
NPRM, we estimated that both segments of the proposed rule would affect 
approximately 42,607 vessels. The total number of domestic vessels 
affected is approximately 17,323 and the total number of foreign 
vessels affected is approximately 25,284. We estimated that the 10-year 
total present discounted value or cost of the proposed rule to U.S. 
vessel owners is between $132.2 and $163.7 million (7 and 3 percent 
discount rates, respectively, 2006 dollars) over the period of 
analysis. The Coast Guard believes that this rule, through a 
combination of NOAD and AIS, would strengthen and enhance maritime 
security. The combination of NOAD and AIS would create a synergistic 
effect between the two requirements. Ancillary or secondary benefits 
exist in the form of avoided injuries, fatalities, and barrels of oil 
not spilled into the marine environment. In the 2008 NPRM, we estimated 
that the total discounted benefit (injuries and fatalities) derived 
from 68 marine casualty cases analyzed over an 8-year data period from 
1996 to 2003 for the AIS portion of the proposed rule is between $24.7 
and $30.6 million using $6.3 million for the value of statistical life 
(VSL) at 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.
    Risks: Considering the economic utility of U.S. ports, waterways, 
and coastal approaches, it is clear that a terrorist incident against 
our U.S. Maritime Transportation System (MTS) would have a direct 
impact on U.S. users and consumers and could potentially have a 
disastrous impact on global shipping, international trade, and the 
world economy. By improving the ability of the Coast Guard both to 
identify potential terrorists coming to the United States while the 
terrorists are far from our shores and to coordinate appropriate 
responses and intercepts before the vessel reaches a U.S. port, this 
rulemaking would contribute significantly to the expansion of MDA, and 
consequently is instrumental in addressing the threat posed by 
terrorist actions against the MTS.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   12/16/08  73 FR 76295
Notice of Public Meeting............   01/21/09  74 FR 3534
Notice of Second Public Meeting.....   03/02/09  74 FR 9071
NPRM Comment Period End.............   04/15/09
Notice of Second Public Meeting        04/15/09
 Comment Period End.
Final Rule..........................   12/00/14
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Additional Information: We have indicated in past notices and 
rulemaking documents, and it remains the case, that we have worked to 
coordinate implementation of AIS MTSA requirements with the development 
of our ability to take advantage of AIS data (68 FR 39355 and 39370, 
Jul. 1, 2003).
    Docket ID USCG-2005-21869.
    URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact:, LCDR Michael D. Lendvay, Program Manager, Office 
of Commercial Vessel, Foreign and Offshore Vessel Activities Div. (CG-
CVC-2), Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard, 2703 Martin 
Luther King Jr. Avenue SE., STOP 7501, Washington, DC 20593-7501, 
Phone: 202 372-1218, Email: [email protected].
    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, 
Phone: 202 372-1563, Email: [email protected].
    Related RIN: Related to 1625-AA93, Related to 1625-AB28
    RIN: 1625-AA99

DHS--USCG

79. Inspection of Towing Vessels

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 46 U.S.C. 3103; 46 U.S.C. 3301; 46 U.S.C. 3306; 46 
U.S.C. 3308; 46 U.S.C. 3316; 46 U.S.C. 3703; 46 U.S.C. 8104; 46 U.S.C. 
8904; DHS Delegation No 0170.1
    CFR Citation: 46 CFR 2; 46 CFR 15; 46 CFR 136 to 144.

[[Page 76545]]

    Legal Deadline: NPRM, Statutory, January 13, 2011. Final, 
Statutory, October 15, 2011. On October 15, 2010, the Coast Guard 
Authorization Act of 2010 was enacted as Public Law 111-281. It 
requires that a proposed rule be issued within 90 days after enactment 
and that a final rule be issued within 1 year of enactment.
    Abstract: This rulemaking would implement a program of inspection 
for certification of towing vessels, which were previously uninspected. 
It would prescribe standards for safety management systems and third-
party auditors and surveyors, along with standards for construction, 
operation, vessel systems, safety equipment, and recordkeeping.
    Statement of Need: This rulemaking would implement section 415 of 
the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2004. The intent of 
the proposed rule is to promote safer work practices and reduce 
casualties on towing vessels by ensuring that towing vessels adhere to 
prescribed safety standards. This proposed rule was developed in 
cooperation with the Towing Vessel Safety Advisory Committee. It would 
establish a new subchapter dedicated to towing vessels, covering vessel 
equipment, systems, operational standards, and inspection requirements.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Proposed new subchapter authority: 46 
U.S.C. 3103, 3301, 3306, 3308, 3316, 8104, 8904; 33 CFR 1.05; DHS 
Delegation 0170.1. The Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 
2004 (CGMTA 2004), Public Law 108-293, 118 Stat. 1028, (Aug. 9, 2004), 
established new authorities for towing vessels as follows: section 415 
added towing vessels, as defined in section 2101 of title 46, United 
States Code (U.S.C.), as a class of vessels that are subject to safety 
inspections under chapter 33 of that title (Id. at 1047). Section 415 
also added new section 3306(j) of title 46, authorizing the Secretary 
of Homeland Security to establish, by regulation, a safety management 
system appropriate for the characteristics, methods of operation, and 
nature of service of towing vessels (Id.). Section 409 added new 
section 8904(c) of title 46, U.S.C., authorizing the Secretary to 
establish, by regulation, ``maximum hours of service (including 
recording and recordkeeping of that service) of individuals engaged on 
a towing vessel that is at least 26 feet in length measured from end to 
end over the deck (excluding the sheer).'' (Id. at 1044-45.)
    Alternatives: We considered the following alternatives for the 
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM): One regulatory alternative would 
be the addition of towing vessels to one or more existing subchapters 
that deal with other inspected vessels, such as cargo and miscellaneous 
vessels (subchapter I), offshore supply vessels (subchapter L), or 
small passenger vessels (subchapter T). We do not believe, however, 
that this approach would recognize the often ``unique'' nature and 
characteristics of the towing industry in general and towing vessels in 
particular. The same approach could be adopted for use of a safety 
management system by requiring compliance with title 33, Code of 
Federal Regulations, part 96 (Rules for the Safe Operation of Vessels 
and Safety Management Systems). Adoption of these requirements, without 
an alternative safety management system, would also not be 
``appropriate for the characteristics, methods of operation, and nature 
of service of towing vessels.'' The Coast Guard has had extensive 
public involvement (four public meetings, over 100 separate comments 
submitted to the docket, as well as extensive ongoing dialogue with 
members of the Towing Safety Advisory Committee (TSAC)) regarding 
development of these regulations. Adoption of one of the alternatives 
discussed above would likely receive little public or industry support, 
especially considering the TSAC efforts toward development of standards 
to be incorporated into a separate subchapter dealing specifically with 
the inspection of towing vessels. An approach that would seem to be 
more in keeping with the intent of Congress would be the adoption of 
certain existing standards from those applied to other inspected 
vessels. In some cases, these existing standards would be appropriately 
modified and tailored to the nature and operation of certain categories 
of towing vessels. The adopted standards would come from inspected 
vessels that have demonstrated ``good marine practice'' within the 
maritime community. These regulations would be incorporated into a 
subchapter specifically addressing the inspection for certification of 
towing vessels. The law requiring the inspection for certification of 
towing vessels is a statutory mandate, compelling the Coast Guard to 
develop regulations appropriate for the nature of towing vessels and 
their specific industry.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: We estimate that owners and 
operators of towing vessels would incur additional annualized costs in 
the range of $14.3 million to $17.1 million at 7 percent discounted 
from this rulemaking. The cost of this rulemaking would involve 
provisions for safety management systems, standards for construction, 
operation, vessel systems, safety equipment, and recordkeeping. Our 
cost assessment includes existing and new vessels. The Coast Guard 
developed the requirements in the proposed rule by researching both the 
human factors and equipment failures that caused towing vessel 
accidents. We believe that the proposed rule would address a wide range 
of causes of towing vessel accidents and supports the main goal of 
improving safety in the towing industry. The primary benefit of the 
proposed rule is an increase in vessel safety and a resulting decrease 
in the risk of towing vessel accidents and their consequences. We 
estimate an annualized benefit of $28.5 million from this rule.
    Risks: This regulatory action would reduce the risk of towing 
vessel accidents and their consequences. Towing vessel accidents result 
in fatalities, injuries, property damage, pollution, and delays.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   08/11/11  76 FR 49976
Notice of Public Meetings...........   09/09/11  76 FR 55847
NPRM Comment Period End.............   12/09/11
Final Rule..........................   08/00/15
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, 
Organizations.
    Government Levels Affected: State.
    Additional Information: Docket ID USCG-2006-24412.
    URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: LCDR William Nabach, Project Manager, Office of 
Design & Engineering Standards, CG-OES-2, Department of Homeland 
Security, U.S. Coast Guard, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE., 
STOP 7509, Washington, DC 20593-7509, Phone: 202 372-1386, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 1625-AB06

DHS--USCG

80. Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC); Card Reader 
Requirements

    Priority: Other Significant.

[[Page 76546]]

    Legal Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226; 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. 701; 50 
U.S.C. 191; 50 U.S.C. 192; EO 12656
    CFR Citation: 33 CFR, subchapter H.
    Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, August 20, 2010, SAFE Port Act, 
codified at 46 U.S.C. 70105(k). The final rule is required 2 years 
after the commencement of the pilot program. The final rule is required 
2 years after the commencement of the pilot program.
    Abstract: The Coast Guard is establishing electronic card reader 
requirements for maritime facilities and vessels to be used in 
combination with TSA's Transportation Worker Identification Credential 
(TWIC). Congress enacted several statutory requirements within the 
Security and Accountability for Every (SAFE) Port Act of 2006 to guide 
regulations pertaining to TWIC readers, including the need to evaluate 
TSA's final pilot program report as part of the TWIC reader rulemaking. 
During the rulemaking process, we will take into account the final 
pilot data and the various conditions in which TWIC readers may be 
employed. For example, we will consider the types of vessels and 
facilities that will use TWIC readers, locations of secure and 
restricted areas, operational constraints, and need for accessibility. 
Recordkeeping requirements, amendments to security plans, and the 
requirement for data exchanges (i.e., Canceled Card List) between TSA 
and vessel or facility owners/operators will also be addressed in this 
rulemaking.
    Statement of Need: The Maritime Transportation Security Act (MTSA) 
of 2002 explicitly required the issuance of a biometric transportation 
security card to all U.S. merchant mariners and to workers requiring 
unescorted access to secure areas of MTSA-regulated facilities and 
vessels. On May 22, 2006, the Transportation Security Administration 
(TSA) and the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking 
(NPRM) to carry out this statute, proposing a Transportation Worker 
Identification Credential (TWIC) Program where TSA conducts security 
threat assessments and issues identification credentials, while the 
Coast Guard requires integration of the TWIC into the access control 
systems of vessels, facilities, and Outer Continental Shelf facilities. 
Based on comments received during the public comment period, TSA and 
the Coast Guard split the TWIC rule. The final TWIC rule, published in 
January of 2007, addressed the issuance of the TWIC and use of the TWIC 
as a visual identification credential at access control points. In an 
ANPRM, published in March of 2009, and a NPRM, published in April of 
2013, the Coast Guard proposed a risk-based approach to TWIC reader 
requirements and included proposals to classify MTSA-regulated vessels 
and facilities into one of three risk groups, based on specific factors 
related to TSI consequence, and apply TWIC reader requirements for 
vessels and facilities in conjunction with their relative risk-group 
placement. 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.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The statutory authorities for the Coast 
Guard to prescribe, change, revise, or amend these regulations are 
provided under 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 
191, 192; Executive Order 12656, 3 CFR 1988 Comp., p. 585; 33 CFR 1.05-
1, 6.04-11, 6.14, 6.16, and 6.19; Department of Homeland Security 
Delegation No. 0170.1.
    Alternatives: The implementation of TWIC reader requirements is 
mandated by the SAFE Port Act. We considered several alternatives in 
the formulation of this proposal. These alternatives were based on risk 
analysis of different combinations of facility and vessel populations 
facing TWIC reader requirements. The preferred alternative selected 
allowed the Coast Guard to target the highest risk entities while 
minimizing the overall burden.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The main cost drivers of this rule 
are the acquisition and installation of TWIC readers and the 
maintenance of the affected entity's TWIC reader system. Initial costs, 
which we would distribute over a phased-in implementation period, 
consist predominantly of the costs to purchase, install, and integrate 
approved TWIC readers into their current physical access control 
system. Recurring annual costs will be driven by costs associated with 
canceled card list updates, opportunity costs associated with delays 
and replacement of TWICs that cannot be read, and maintenance of the 
affected entity's TWIC reader system. As reported in the NPRM 
Regulatory Analysis, the total 10-year total industry and government 
cost for the TWIC is $234.3 million undiscounted and $186.1 discounted 
at 7 percent. We estimate the annualized cost of this rule to industry 
to be $26.5 million at a 7 percent discount rate. The benefits of the 
rulemaking include the enhancement of the security of vessel ports and 
other facilities by ensuring that only individuals who hold valid TWICs 
are granted unescorted access to secure areas at those locations.
    Risks: USCG used risk-based decision-making to develop this 
rulemaking. Based on this analysis, the Coast Guard has proposed 
requiring higher-risk vessels and facilities to meet the requirements 
for electronic TWIC inspection, while continuing to allow lower-risk 
vessels and facilities to use TWIC as a visual identification 
credential.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM...............................   03/27/09  74 FR 13360
Notice of Public Meeting............   04/15/09  74 FR 17444
ANPRM Comment Period End............   05/26/09
Notice of Public Meeting Comment       05/26/09
 Period End.
NPRM................................   03/22/13  78 FR 20558
NPRM Comment Period Extended........   05/10/13  78 FR 27335
NPRM Comment Period Extended End....   06/20/13
Final Rule..........................   04/00/15
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Additional Information: Docket ID USCG-2007-28915.
    URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: LT Mason Wilcox, Project Manager, Department of 
Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard, Commandant (CG-FAC-2), 2703 Martin 
Luther King Jr Ave. SE., STOP 7501, Washington, DC 20593-7501, Phone: 
202 372-1123, Email: [email protected].
    Related RIN: Related to 1625-AB02
    RIN: 1625-AB21

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

Proposed Rule Stage

81. Amendments to Importer Security Filing and Additional Carrier 
Requirements

    Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 
undetermined.
    Legal Authority: Pub. L. 109-347, sec 203; 5 U.S.C. 301; 19 U.S.C. 
66; 19

[[Page 76547]]

U.S.C. 1431; 19 U.S.C. 1433; 19 U.S.C. 1434; 19 U.S.C. 1624; 19 U.S.C. 
2071 (note); 46 U.S.C. 60105
    CFR Citation: 19 CFR 4.7c; 19 CFR 149.1
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Importer Security Filing (ISF) regulations require 
carriers and importers to provide to CBP, via a CBP-approved electronic 
data interchange system, information necessary to assist CBP in 
identifying high-risk shipments to prevent smuggling and ensure cargo 
safety and security. Importers and carriers must currently submit 
specified information before the cargo is brought into the United 
States by vessel in accordance with specified time frames. To increase 
the accuracy and reliability of the advance information, this rule will 
propose changes to the ISF regulations.
    Statement of Need: Since 2009 CBP has collected advance data 
elements from importers and carriers carrying cargo to the United 
States by vessel. CBP uses these data to target incoming cargo and 
prevent dangerous or otherwise illegal cargo from arriving in the 
United States. To increase the accuracy and reliability of this 
information CBP intends to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking that 
proposes some changes to the current importer security filing 
regulations. This rule is needed to provide CBP with additional data 
that are needed to conduct security screening and to ensure that the 
party with the best access to the data is the party responsible for 
providing this information to CBP.
    Summary of Legal Basis:
    Alternatives:
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: CBP anticipates that this rule will 
result in a cost to ISF importers to submit the additional data to CBP 
and a security benefit resulting from improved targeting.
    Risks:
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   10/00/15
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    International Impacts: This regulatory action will be likely to 
have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise be of 
international interest.
    URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Craig Clark, Program Manager, Vessel Manifest & 
Importer Security Filing, Office of Cargo and Conveyance Security, 
Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 
1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20229, Phone: 202 344-
3052, Email: [email protected].
    Related RIN: Related to 1651-AA70
    RIN: 1651-AA98

DHS--USCBP

82.  Air Cargo Advance Screening (ACAS)

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: Not Yet Determined.
    CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is proposing to 
amend the implementing regulations of the Trade Act of 2002 regarding 
the submission of advance electronic information for air cargo and 
other provisions to provide for the Air Cargo Advance Screening (ACAS) 
program. ACAS would require the submission of certain advance 
electronic information for air cargo. This will allow CBP to better 
target and identify dangerous cargo and ensure that any risk associated 
with such cargo is mitigated before the aircraft departs for the United 
States. CBP, in conjunction with TSA, has been operating ACAS as a 
voluntary pilot program since 2010 and would like to implement ACAS as 
a regulatory program.
    Statement of Need: DHS has identified an elevated risk associated 
with cargo being transported to the United States by air. This rule 
will help address this risk by giving DHS the data it needs to improve 
targeting of the cargo prior to takeoff.
    Summary of Legal Basis:
    Alternatives:
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Costs of this program to carriers 
include one-time costs to upgrade systems to facilitate transmission of 
these data to CBP and recurring per transmission costs. Benefits of the 
program include improved security that will result from having these 
data further in advance.
    Risks:
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   08/00/15  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
    International Impacts: This regulatory action will be likely to 
have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise be of 
international interest.
    Agency Contact: Regina Kang, Cargo and Conveyance Security, Office 
of Field Operations, Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and 
Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20229, 
Phone: 202 344-2368, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 1651-AB04

DHS--USCBP

Final Rule Stage

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

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Legal Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1103; 8 U.S.C. 1187.
    CFR Citation: 8 CFR 217.5.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: On June 9, 2008, CBP issued an interim final rule which 
implemented the Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) for 
aliens who travel to the United States under the Visa Waiver Program 
(VWP) at air or sea ports of entry. Under the rule, VWP travelers must 
provide certain biographical information to CBP electronically before 
departing for the United States. This advance information allows CBP to 
determine before their departure whether these travelers are eligible 
to travel to the United States under the VWP and whether such travel 
poses a security risk. The interim final rule also fulfilled the 
requirements of section 711 of the Implementing recommendations of the 
9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (9/11 Act). In addition to fulfilling a 
statutory mandate, the rule served the two goals of promoting border 
security and legitimate travel to the United States. 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 at the ports of entry. CBP requested 
comments on all aspects of the interim final rule and plans to issue a 
final rule after completion of the comment analysis.
    Statement of Need: The rule fulfills the requirements of section 
711 of the 9/11 Act to develop and implement a fully automated 
electronic travel

[[Page 76548]]

authorization system in advance of travel for VWP travelers. The 
advance information allows CBP to determine before their departure 
whether VWP travelers are eligible to travel to the United States and 
to determine 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. ESTA increases national security by allowing for 
vetting of subjects of potential interest before they depart for the 
United States. It promotes legitimate travel to the United States by 
providing for greater efficiencies in the screening of travelers 
thereby reducing traveler delays upon arrival at U.S. ports of entry.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The ESTA program is based on congressional 
authority provided under section 711 of the Implementing 
Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (Pub. L. 110-53) and 
section 217 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 
1187.
    Alternatives: When developing the interim final rule, CBP 
considered three alternatives to this rule: (1) The ESTA requirements 
in the rule, but with a $1.50 fee per each travel authorization (more 
costly) (2) The ESTA requirements in the rule, but with only the name 
of the passenger and the admissibility questions on the I-94W form 
(less burdensome) (3) The ESTA requirements in the rule, but only for 
the countries entering the VWP after 2009 (no new requirements for VWP, 
reduced burden for newly entering countries). CBP determined that the 
rule provides the greatest level of enhanced security and efficiency at 
an acceptable cost to traveling public and potentially affected air 
carriers.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The purpose of ESTA is to allow DHS 
and CBP to establish the eligibility of certain foreign travelers to 
travel to the United States under the VWP, and whether the alien's 
proposed travel to the United States poses a law enforcement or 
security risk. Upon review of such information, DHS will determine 
whether the alien is eligible to travel to the United States under the 
VWP. Costs to Air & Sea Carriers: CBP estimated that 8 U.S.-based air 
carriers and 11 sea carriers will be affected by the rule. An 
additional 35 foreign-based air carriers and 5 sea carriers will be 
affected. CBP concluded that costs to air and sea carriers to support 
the requirements of the ESTA program could cost $137 million to $1.1 
billion over the next 10 years depending on the level of effort 
required to integrate their systems with ESTA, how many passengers they 
need to assist in applying for travel authorizations, and the discount 
rate applied to annual costs. Costs to Travelers: ESTA will present new 
costs and burdens to travelers in VWP countries who were not previously 
required to submit any information to the U.S. Government in advance of 
travel to the United States. Travelers from Roadmap countries who 
become VWP countries will also incur costs and burdens, though these 
are much less than obtaining a nonimmigrant visa (category B1/B2), 
which is currently required for short-term pleasure or business to 
travel to the United States. CBP estimated that the total quantified 
costs to travelers will range from $1.1 billion to $3.5 billion 
depending on the number of travelers, the value of time, and the 
discount rate. Annualized costs are estimated to range from $133 
million to $366 million. Benefits: As set forth in section 711 of the 
9/11 Act, it was the intent of Congress to modernize and strengthen the 
security of the Visa Waiver Program under section 217 of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187) by simultaneously 
enhancing program security requirements and extending visa-free travel 
privileges to citizens and eligible nationals of eligible foreign 
countries that are partners in the war on terrorism. By requiring 
passenger data in advance of travel, CBP may be able to determine, 
before the alien departs for the United States, the eligibility of 
citizens and eligible nationals from VWP countries to travel to the 
United States under the VWP, and whether such travel poses a law 
enforcement or security risk. In addition to fulfilling a statutory 
mandate, the rule serves the twin goals of promoting border security 
and legitimate travel to the United States. By modernizing the VWP, 
ESTA is intended to both increase national security and provide for 
greater efficiencies in the screening of international travelers by 
allowing for the screening of subjects of potential interest well 
before boarding, thereby reducing traveler delays based on potentially 
lengthy processes at U.S. ports of entry. CBP concluded that the total 
benefits to travelers could total $1.1 billion to $3.3 billion over the 
period of analysis. Annualized benefits could range from $134 million 
to $345 million. In addition to these benefits to travelers, CBP and 
the carriers should also experience the benefit of not having to 
administer the I-94W except in limited situations. While CBP has not 
conducted an analysis of the potential savings, it should accrue 
benefits from not having to produce, ship, and store blank forms. CBP 
should also be able to accrue savings related to data entry and 
archiving. Carriers should realize some savings as well, though 
carriers will still have to administer the Customs Declaration forms 
for all passengers aboard the aircraft and vessel.
    Risks:
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Action................   06/09/08  73 FR 32440
Interim Final Rule Effective........   08/08/08  .......................
Interim Final Rule Comment Period      08/08/08  .......................
 End.
Notice_Announcing Date Rule Becomes    11/13/08  73 FR 67354
 Mandatory.
Final Action........................   03/00/15  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

DHS--USCBP

84. Implementation of the Guam-Cnmi Visa Waiver Program (Section 610 
Review)

    Priority: Other Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Legal Authority: Pub. L. 110-229, sec. 702.
    CFR Citation: 8 CFR 100.4; 8 CFR 212.1; 8 CFR 233.5; 8 CFR 235.5; 
19 CFR 4.7b; 19 CFR 122.49a.
    Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, November 4, 2008, Pub. L. 110-
229.
    Abstract: The IFR (or the final rule planned for the coming year) 
rule amends Department of Homeland

[[Page 76549]]

Security (DHS) regulations to implement section 702 of the Consolidated 
Natural Resources Act of 2008 (CNRA). This law extends the immigration 
laws of the United States to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 
Islands (CNMI) and provides for a joint visa waiver program for travel 
to Guam and the CNMI. This rule implements section 702 of the CNRA by 
amending the regulations to replace the current Guam Visa Waiver 
Program with a new Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver Program. The amended 
regulations set forth the requirements for nonimmigrant visitors who 
seek admission for business or pleasure and solely for entry into and 
stay on Guam or the CNMI without a visa. This rule also establishes six 
ports of entry in the CNMI for purposes of administering and enforcing 
the Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver Program. Section 702 of the Consolidated 
Natural Resources Act of 2008 (CNRA), subject to a transition period, 
extends the immigration laws of the United States to the Commonwealth 
of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) and provides for a visa waiver 
program for travel to Guam and/or the CNMI. On January 16, 2009, the 
Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Customs and Border Protection 
(CBP), issued an interim final rule in the Federal Register replacing 
the then-existing Guam Visa Waiver Program with the Guam-CNMI Visa 
Waiver Program and setting forth the requirements for nonimmigrant 
visitors seeking admission into Guam and/or the CNMI under the Guam-
CNMI Visa Waiver Program. As of November 28, 2009, the Guam-CNMI Visa 
Waiver Program is operational. This program allows nonimmigrant 
visitors from eligible countries to seek admission for business or 
pleasure for entry into Guam and/or the CNMI without a visa for a 
period of authorized stay not to exceed 45 days. This rulemaking would 
finalize the January 2009 interim final rule.
    Statement of Need: Previously, aliens who were citizens of eligible 
countries could apply for admission to Guam at a Guam port of entry as 
nonimmigrant visitors for a period of 15 days or less, for business or 
pleasure, without first obtaining a nonimmigrant visa, provided that 
they are otherwise eligible for admission. Section 702(b) of the CNRA 
supersedes the Guam visa waiver program by providing for a visa waiver 
program for Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands 
(Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver Program). Section 702(b) required DHS to 
promulgate regulations within 180 days of enactment of the CNRA to 
allow nonimmigrant visitors from eligible countries to apply for 
admission into Guam and the CNMI, for business or pleasure, without a 
visa, for a period of authorized stay of no longer than 45 days. 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.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver Program is based 
on congressional authority provided under 702(b) of the Consolidated 
Natural Resources Act of 2008 (CNRA).
    Alternatives: None.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: CBP is currently evaluating the 
costs and benefits associated with finalizing the interim final rule. 
The most significant change for admission to the CNMI as a result of 
the rule was for visitors from those countries who are not included in 
either the existing U.S. Visa Waiver Program or the Guam-CNMI Visa 
Waiver Program established by the rule. These visitors must apply for 
U.S. visas, which require in-person interviews at U.S. embassies or 
consulates and higher fees than the CNMI assessed for its visitor entry 
permits. These are losses associated with the reduced visits from 
foreign travelers who no longer visited the CNMI upon implementation of 
this rule. The anticipated benefits of the rule were enhanced security 
that would result from the federalization of the immigration functions 
in the CNMI.
    Risks: No risks.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule..................   01/16/09  74 FR 2824
Interim Final Rule Effective........   01/16/09  .......................
Interim Final Rule Comment Period      03/17/09  .......................
 End.
Technical Amendment; Change of         05/28/09  74 FR 25387
 Implementation Date.
Final Action........................   08/00/15  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    International Impacts: This regulatory action will be likely to 
have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise be of 
international interest.
    URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Paul Minton, CBP Officer (Program Manager), 
Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 
1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20229, Phone: 202 344-
2723, Email: [email protected].
    Related RIN: Related to 1651-AA81
    RIN: 1651-AA77

DHS--USCBP

85. Definition of Form I-94 To Include Electronic Format.

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101; 8 U.S.C. 1103; 8 U.S.C. 1201; 8 
U.S.C. 1301; 8 U.S.C. 1303 to 1305; 5 U.S.C. 301; Pub. L. 107-296, 116 
stat 2135; 6 U.S.C. 1 et seq..
    CFR Citation: 8 CFR 1.4; 8 CFR 264.1(b).
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Form I-94 is issued to certain aliens upon arrival in 
the United States or when changing status in the United States. The 
Form I-94 is used to document arrival and departure and provides 
evidence of the terms of admission or parole. CBP is transitioning to 
an automated process whereby it will create a Form I-94 in an 
electronic format based on passenger, passport, and visa information 
currently obtained electronically from air and sea carriers and the 
Department of State as well as through the inspection process. Prior to 
this rule, the Form I-94 was

[[Page 76550]]

solely a paper form that was completed by the alien upon arrival. After 
the implementation of the Advance Passenger Information System (APIS) 
following 9/11, CBP began collecting information on aliens traveling by 
air or sea to the United States electronically from carriers in advance 
of arrival. For aliens arriving in the United States by air or sea, CBP 
obtains almost all of the information contained on the paper Form I-94 
electronically and in advance via APIS. The few fields on the Form I-94 
that are not collected via APIS are either already collected by the 
Department of State and transmitted to CBP or can be collected by the 
CBP officer from the individual at the time of inspection. This means 
that CBP no longer needs to collect Form I-94 information as a matter 
of course directly from aliens traveling to the United States by air or 
sea. At this time, the automated process will apply only to aliens 
arriving at air and sea ports of entry.
    Statement of Need: This rule makes the necessary changes to the 
regulations to enable CBP to transition to an automated process whereby 
CBP will create an electronic Form I-94 based on the information in its 
databases.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Section 103(a) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (INA) generally authorizes the Secretary of Homeland 
Security to establish such regulations and prescribe such forms of 
reports, entries, and other papers necessary to carry out his or her 
authority to administer and enforce the immigration and nationality 
laws and to guard the borders of the United States against illegal 
entry of aliens.
    Alternatives: CBP considered two alternatives to this rule: 
eliminating the paper Form I-94 in the air and sea environments 
entirely and providing the paper Form I-94 to all travelers who are not 
B-1/B-2 travelers. Eliminating the paper Form I-94 option for refugees, 
applicants for asylum, parolees, and those travelers who request one 
would not result in a significant cost savings to CBP and would harm 
travelers who have an immediate need for an electronic Form I-94 or who 
face obstacles to accessing their electronic Form I-94. A second 
alternative to the rule is to provide a paper Form I-94 to any 
travelers who are not B-1/B-2 travelers. Under this alternative, 
travelers would receive and complete the paper Form I- 94 during their 
inspection when they arrive in the United States. The electronic Form 
I-94 would still be automatically created during the inspection, but 
the CBP officer would need to verify that the information appearing on 
the form matches the information in CBP's systems. In addition, CBP 
would need to write the Form I-94 number on each paper Form I-94 so 
that their paper form matches the electronic record. As noted in the 
analysis, 25.1 percent of aliens are non-B-1/B-2 travelers. Filling out 
and processing this many paper Forms I-94 at airports and seaports 
would increase processing times considerably. At the same time, it 
would only provide a small savings to the individual traveler.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: With the implementation of this 
rule, CBP will no longer collect Form I-94 information as a matter of 
course directly from aliens traveling to the United States by air or 
sea. Instead, CBP will create an electronic Form I-94 for foreign 
travelers based on the information in its databases. This rule makes 
the necessary changes to the regulations to enable CBP to transition to 
an automated process. 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. More information on costs and 
benefits can be found in the interim final rule.
    Risks: N/A.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule..................   03/27/13  78 FR 18457
Interim Final Rule Comment Period      04/26/13
 End.
Interim Final Rule Effective........   04/26/13
Final Action........................   03/00/15
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    International Impacts: This regulatory action will be likely to 
have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise be of 
international interest.
    Additional Information: Includes Retrospective Review under E.O. 
13563.
    URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Suzanne Shepherd, Director, Electronic System for 
Travel Authorization, Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and 
Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20229, 
Phone: 202 344-2073, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 1651-AA96


[[Page 76551]]



DHS--TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (TSA)

Proposed Rule Stage

86. Security Training for Surface Mode Employees

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 114; Pub. L. 110-53, secs 1408, 1517, 
and 1534.
    CFR Citation: 49 CFR 1520; 49 CFR 1570; 49 CFR 1580; 49 CFR 1582 
(new); 49 CFR 1584 (new).
    Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, November 1, 2007, Interim Rule 
for public transportation agencies is due 90 days after date of 
enactment.
    Final, Statutory, August 3, 2008, Rule for public transportation 
agencies is due 1 year after date of enactment.
    Final, Statutory, February 3, 2008, Rule for railroads and over-
the-road buses are due 6 months after date of enactment.
    According to section 1408 of Public Law 110-53, Implementing 
Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (Aug. 3, 2007; 121 
Stat. 266), interim final regulations for public transportation 
agencies are due 90 days after the date of enactment (Nov. 1, 2007), 
and final regulations are due 1 year after the date of enactment of 
this Act. According to section 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.
    Abstract: The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) intends 
to propose a new regulation to address the security of freight 
railroads, public transportation, passenger railroads, and over-the-
road buses in accordance with the Implementing Recommendations of the 
9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (9/11 Act). As required by the 9/11 Act, 
the rulemaking will propose that certain railroads, public 
transportation agencies, and over-the-road bus companies provide 
security training to their frontline employees in the areas of security 
awareness, operational security, and incident prevention and response. 
The rulemaking will also propose extending security coordinator and 
reporting security incident requirements applicable to rail operators 
under current 49 CFR part 1580 to the non-rail transportation 
components of covered public transportation agencies and over-the-road 
buses. The regulation will take into consideration any current security 
training requirements or best practices and will propose definitions 
for transportation of security-sensitive materials, as required by the 
9/11 Act.
    Statement of Need: Employee training is an important and effective 
tool for averting or mitigating potential terrorist attacks by 
terrorists or others with malicious intent who may target surface 
transportation and plan or perpetrate actions that may cause 
significant injuries, loss of life, or economic disruption.
    Summary of Legal Basis:, 49 U.S.C. 114; sections 1408, 1517, and 
1534 of Public Law 110-53, Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 
Commission Act of 2007 (Aug. 3, 2007; 121 Stat. 266).
    Alternatives:, TSA is required by statute to publish regulations 
requiring security training programs for these owner/operators. As part 
of its notice of proposed rulemaking, TSA will seek public comment on 
the alternative ways in which the final rule could carry out the 
requirements of the statute.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits:, TSA is in the process of 
determining the costs and benefits of this rulemaking.
    Risks:, The Department of Homeland Security aims to prevent 
terrorist attacks within the United States and to reduce the 
vulnerability of the United States to terrorism. By providing for 
security training for personnel, TSA intends in this rulemaking to 
reduce the risk of a terrorist attack on this transportation sector.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   10/00/15
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: Local.
    URL For Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Chandru (Jack) Kalro, Deputy Director, Surface 
Division, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security 
Administration, Office of Security Policy and Industry Engagement, 601 
South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6028, Phone: 571 227-1145, Fax: 
571 227-2935, Email: [email protected].
    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, 601 
South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6028, Phone: 571 227-3329, 
Email: [email protected].
    David Kasminoff, Senior Counsel, Regulations and Security Standards 
Division, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security 
Administration, Office of the Chief Counsel, 601 South 12th Street, 
Arlington, VA 20598-6002, Phone: 571 227-3583, Fax: 571 227-1378, 
Email: [email protected].
    Related RIN:, Related to 1652-AA56, Merged with 1652-AA57, Merged 
with 1652-AA59
    RIN: 1652-AA55

DHS--TSA

87. Standardized Vetting, Adjudication, and Redress Services

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
    Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 114, 5103A, 44903 and 44936; 46 U.S.C. 
70105; 6 U.S.C. 469; Pub. L. 110-53, secs 1411, 1414, 1520, 1522 and 
1602.
    CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) intends 
to propose new regulations to revise and standardize the procedures, 
adjudication criteria, and fees for most of the security threat 
assessments (STA) of individuals for which TSA is responsible. The 
scope of the rulemaking will include transportation workers who are 
required to undergo an STA, including surface, maritime, and aviation 
workers. 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 interim final rule (IFR), TSA will propose revisions 
to the Alien Flight Student Program (AFSP) regulations. TSA published 
an interim final rule for AFSP on September 20, 2004. TSA regulations 
require aliens seeking to train at Federal Aviation Administration-
regulated flight schools to complete an application and undergo an STA 
prior to beginning flight training. There are four categories under 
which students currently fall; the nature of the STA depends on the 
student's category. TSA is considering changes to the AFSP that would 
improve the equity among fee payers and enable the implementation of 
new technologies to support vetting.
    Statement of Need: TSA proposes to meet the requirements of 6 
U.S.C. 469, which requires TSA to fund security threat assessment and 
credentialing activities through user fees. The proposed rulemaking 
should reduce reliance on appropriations for certain vetting services; 
minimize redundant background checks; and increase transportation 
security by enhancing identification and immigration verification 
standards.

[[Page 76552]]

    Summary of Legal Basis: 49 U.S.C. 114(f): Under the Aviation and 
Transportation Security Act (ATSA) (Pub. L. 170-71, Nov. 19, 2001, 115 
Stat. 597), TSA assumed responsibility to assess security in all modes 
of transportation and minimize threats to national and transportation 
security. TSA is required to vet certain aviation workers pursuant to 
49 U.S.C. 44903 and 44936. TSA is required to vet individuals with 
unescorted access to maritime facilities pursuant to the Maritime 
Transportation Security Act (MTSA) (Pub. L. 107-295, sec. 102, Nov. 25, 
2002, 116 Stat. 2064), codified at 46 U.S.C. 70105. 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 6 U.S.C. 469, Congress directed TSA to fund 
vetting and credentialing programs in the field of transportation 
through user fees.
    Alternatives: TSA considered a number of viable alternatives to the 
proposed regulation. These alternatives are discussed in detail in the 
proposed rule and regulatory impact analysis.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: TSA is in the process determining 
the costs and benefits of this proposed rulemaking.
    Risks:
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   08/00/15
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
    Federalism: Undetermined.
    Additional Information: Includes Retrospective Review under 
Executive Order 13563.
    URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Chang Ellison, Branch Manager, Program Initiatives 
Branch, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security 
Administration, Office of Intelligence and Analysis, TSA-10, HQ E6, 601 
South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6010, Phone: 571 227-3604, 
Email: [email protected].
    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, 601 
South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6028, Phone: 571 227-3329, 
Email: [email protected].
    John Vergelli, Senior Counsel, Regulations and Security Standards 
Division, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security 
Administration, Office of the Chief Counsel, 601 South 12th Street, 
Arlington, VA 20598-6002, Phone: 571 227-4416, Fax: 571 227-1378, 
Email: [email protected].
    Related RIN: Related to 1652-AA35
    RIN: 1652-AA61

DHS--TSA

Final Rule Stage

88. Passenger Screening Using Advanced Imaging Technology

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 44925.
    CFR Citation: 49 CFR 1540.107.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) intends 
to issue a final rule to address whether screening and inspection of an 
individual, conducted to control access to the sterile area of an 
airport or to an aircraft, may include the use of advanced imaging 
technology (AIT). The notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) was 
published on March 26, 2012, to comply with the decision rendered by 
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 
Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) v. U.S. Department of 
Homeland Security on July 15, 2011. 653 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2011). The 
Court directed TSA to conduct notice and comment rulemaking on the use 
of AIT in the primary screening of passengers.
    Statement of Need: TSA is issuing this rulemaking to respond to the 
decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 
Circuit in EPIC v. DHS 653 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2011).
    Summary of Legal Basis: In its decision in EPIC v. DHS 653 F.3d 1 
(D.C. Cir. 2011), the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 
Circuit found that TSA failed to justify its failure to conduct notice 
and comment rulemaking and remanded to TSA for further proceedings.
    Alternatives: As alternatives to the preferred regulatory proposal 
presented in the NPRM, TSA examined three other options. These 
alternatives include a continuation of the screening environment prior 
to 2008 (no action), increased use of physical pat-down searches that 
supplements primary screening with walk through metal detectors 
(WTMDs), and increased use of explosive trace detection (ETD) screening 
that supplements primary screening with WTMDs. These alternatives, and 
the reasons why TSA rejected them in favor of the proposed rule, are 
discussed in detail in chapter 3 of the AIT NPRM regulatory evaluation.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: TSA reports that the net cost of AIT 
deployment from 2008-2011 has been $841.2 million (undiscounted) and 
that TSA has borne over 99 percent of all costs related to AIT 
deployment. TSA projects that from 2012-2015 net AIT related costs will 
be approximately $1.5 billion (undiscounted), $1.4 billion at a three 
percent discount rate, and $1.3 billion at a seven percent discount 
rate. During 2012-2015, TSA estimates it will also incur over 98 
percent of AIT-related costs with equipment and personnel costs being 
the largest categories of expenditures. 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 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. More information 
about costs and benefits can be found in the Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking.
    Risks: DHS aims to prevent terrorist attacks and to reduce the 
vulnerability of the United States to terrorism. By screening 
passengers with AIT, TSA will reduce the risk that a terrorist will 
smuggle a non-metallic threat on board an aircraft.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   03/26/13  78 FR 18287
NPRM Comment Period End.............   06/24/13  .......................
Final Rule..........................   07/00/15  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.

[[Page 76553]]

    Agency Contact: Chawanna Carrington, Project Manager, Passenger 
Screening Program, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation 
Security Administration, Office of Security Capabilities, 601 South 
12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6016, Phone: 571 227-2958, Fax: 571 
227-1931, Email: [email protected].
    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, 601 
South 12th Street, Arlington, VA 20598-6028, Phone: 571 227-3329, 
Email: [email protected].
    Linda L. Kent, Asst. Chief Counsel for Regulations and Security 
Standards, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security 
Administration, Office of the Chief Counsel, 601 South 12th Street, 
Arlington, VA 20598-6002, Phone: 571 227-2675, Fax: 571 227-1381, 
Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 1652-AA67

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

Final Rule Stage

89. Adjustments to Limitations on Designated School Official Assignment 
and Study by F-2 and M-2 Nonimmigrants

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101 to 1103; 8 U.S.C. 1182; 8 U.S.C. 
1184
    CFR Citation: 8 CFR 214.2(f)(15); 8 CFR 214.3(a); 8 CFR 214.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This final rule will revise 8 CFR parts 214.2 and 214.3. 
As proposed, it would provide additional flexibility to schools in 
determining the number of designated school officials (DSOs) to 
nominate for the oversight of the school's campuses where F-1 and M-1 
nonimmigrant students are enrolled. Current regulation limits the 
number of DSOs to 10 per school, or 10 per campus in a multi-campus 
school. Second, as proposed, the rule would permit F-2 and M-2 spouses 
and children accompanying academic and vocational nonimmigrant students 
with F-1 or M-1 nonimmigrant status to enroll in study at an SEVP-
certified school so long as any study remains less than a full course 
of study.
    Statement of Need: The rule would improve management of 
international student programs and increase opportunities for study by 
spouses and children of nonimmigrant students. The rule would grant 
school officials more flexibility in determining the number of 
designated school officials (DSOs) to nominate for the oversight of 
campuses. The rule would also provide greater incentive for 
international students to study in the United States by permitting 
accompanying spouses and children of academic and vocational 
nonimmigrant students with F-1 or M-1 nonimmigrant status to enroll in 
less than a full course of study at an SEVP-certified school.
    Summary of Legal Basis:
    Alternatives:
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The anticipated costs of the rule 
derive from the existing requirement for reporting to DHS additional 
DSOs and any training that new DSOs would undertake. The primary 
benefits of the NPRM are providing flexibility to schools in the number 
of DSOs allowed and providing greater incentive for international 
students to study in the United States by permitting accompanying 
spouses and children of academic and vocational nonimmigrant students 
in F-1 or M-1 status to enroll in study at an SEVP-certified school so 
long as they are not engaged in a full course of study.
    Risks:
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   11/21/13  78 FR 69778
NPRM Comment Period End.............   01/21/14  .......................
Final Rule..........................   02/00/15  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    International Impacts: This regulatory action will be likely to 
have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise be of 
international interest.
    URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Katherine H. Westerlund, Acting Unit Chief, SEVP 
Policy, Student and Exchange Visitor Program, Department of Homeland 
Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Potomac Center 
North, 500 12th Street, SW., STOP 5600, Washington, DC 20536-5600, 
Phone: 703 603-3414, Email: [email protected].
    Related RIN: Previously reported as 1615-AA19
    RIN: 1653-AA63
BILLING CODE 9110-9B-P

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Statement of Regulatory Priorities

    The Regulatory Plan for the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development (HUD) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2015, together with HUD's Fall 
Semiannual Agenda of Regulations, highlights the most significant 
regulatory initiatives that HUD seeks to complete during the upcoming 
fiscal year. As described by Secretary Castro during his confirmation 
hearings, HUD is a critical federal agency because it directly impacts 
American families, from enforcing fair housing rights to revitalizing 
distressed areas, from assisting veterans and finding permanent 
housing, to helping communities rebuild after a natural disaster hits, 
HUD impacts small towns, big cities, rural communities and tribal 
communities across the country.\1\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee 
Confirmation Hearing on the Nomination of Julian Castro to be 
Housing and Urban Development Secretary and Laura S. Wertheimer to 
be the Federal Housing Finance Agency Inspector General, 113th Cong. 
(June 17, 2014) (Statement of Juli[aacute]n Castro).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in HUD's 2010-2015, Strategic Plan, a central feature 
of HUD's mission is nurturing opportunities for job growth and business 
expansion in American communities, particularly those that are 
economically distressed. HUD's experience is that job growth and 
business expansion are essential to creating viable communities that 
provide residents opportunities that enhance their quality of life. 
Economic development, however, must be tailored to the assets and needs 
of the community in a way that maintains and enhances affordability and 
local character. HUD utilizes several tools to achieve this goal, 
including the providing tax incentives and Federal financial assistance 
that assist communities to carry out a wide range of community 
development activities directed toward neighborhood revitalization, 
economic development, and improved community facilities and services. 
Another tool that HUD has to support job growth and economic activity 
is Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, as 
amended, which ensures that

[[Page 76554]]

employment and other economic opportunities generated by Federal 
financial assistance for housing and community development programs 
are, to the greatest extent feasible, directed toward low- and very 
low-income persons, particularly those who are recipients of government 
assistance for housing.
    Consistent with its 2010-2015 Strategic Plan, HUD's Regulatory Plan 
for FY2015 focuses on strengthening, through regulation, Section 3 to 
update and better align it with the statutory changes to HUD's housing 
and community development programs since HUD issued the regulation in 
1994. This effort will also provide recipients of HUD financial 
assistance more discretion when carrying out their Section 3 
responsibilities while simultaneously increasing their accountability 
to HUD and the communities that they serve.

Priority: Enhancing Economic Development and Job Creation Through 
Section 3

    The purpose of Section 3 is to ensure that the employment and other 
economic opportunities generated by Federal financial assistance, to 
the greatest extent feasible, be directed to low-and very low-income 
persons, particularly those who are recipients of government assistance 
for housing. In this regard, the statute recognizes that the employment 
and other economic opportunities generated by projects and activities 
that receive Federal housing and community development assistance offer 
an effective means of empowering low- and very low-income persons and 
to business concerns that provide economic opportunities to these 
persons. Notwithstanding, HUD's Section 3 regulations have not been 
updated since 1994. In the 20 years that have passed since HUD 
promulgated its Section 3 regulations, significant legislation has been 
enacted that affects HUD programs that are subject Section 3. These 
legislative changes are not adequately addressed by HUD's current 
Section 3 regulations.
    In addition, recipients of Section 3 covered HUD financial 
assistance, community advocates, representatives from national housing 
organizations, Section 3 residents and businesses, and other interested 
parties have expressed, in HUD's organized listening sessions, that the 
existing regulations are not sufficiently explicit about specific 
actions that could be undertaken to achieve compliance; that the 
existing regulations do not clearly describe the extent to which 
recipients may require subrecipients, contractors, and subcontractors 
to comply with Section 3; and actions that recipients may take to 
impose meaningful sanctions for noncompliance by their subrecipients, 
contractors, and subcontractors. Finally, HUD's Office of Inspector 
General (OIG) conducted an audit in 2013 to assess HUD's oversight of 
Section 3 in response to concerns about economic opportunities that 
were provided (or should have been provided) as a result of the 
expenditure of financial assistance under the American Reinvestment and 
Recovery Act (Recovery Act) (Public Law 111-5, approved February 17, 
2009).
    As a result, HUD proposes to update and clarify its Section 3 
regulations to better fulfill the purpose of Section 3 and maximize the 
employment and contracting opportunities available to the low and very 
low-income residents of communities enjoying the benefit of Federal 
financial assistance in support of economic development and to business 
concerns that provide economic opportunities to these persons.
Regulatory Action: Creating Economic Opportunities for Low- and Very 
Low-Income Persons and Eligible Businesses Through Strengthened 
``Section 3'' Requirements
    Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, as 
amended by the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992, 
contributes to the establishment of stronger, more sustainable 
communities by ensuring that employment and other economic 
opportunities generated by Federal financial assistance for housing and 
community development programs are, to the greatest extent feasible, 
directed toward low- and very low-income persons, particularly those 
who are recipients of government assistance for housing and to business 
concerns that provide economic opportunities to these persons. HUD is 
statutorily charged with the authority and responsibility to implement 
and enforce Section 3. HUD's regulations implementing the requirements 
of Section 3 have not been updated since 1994. This proposed rule would 
update HUD's Section 3 regulations to address new programs established 
since 1994 that are subject to the Section 3 requirements, and revise 
the regulations to both better promote compliance with the requirements 
of Section 3 by recipients of Section 3 covered financial assistance, 
while also recognizing barriers to compliance that may exist, and 
overall strengthening HUD's oversight of Section 3.

Aggregate Costs and Benefits

    Executive Order 12866, as amended, requires the agency to provide 
its best estimate of the combined aggregate costs and benefits of all 
regulations included in the agency's Regulatory Plan that will be made 
effective in calendar year 2015. HUD expects that the neither the total 
economic costs nor the total efficiency gains will exceed $100 million.

Priority Regulations in HUD's FY 2015 Regulatory Plan

HUD--OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

Proposed Rule Stage

Creating Economic Opportunities for Low- and Very Low-Income Persons 
and Eligible Businesses Through Strengthened ``Section 3'' Requirements
    Priority: Significant.
    Legal Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1701u; 42 U.S.C. 1450; 42 U.S.C. 3301; 
42 U.S.C. 3535(d).
    CFR Citation: 24 CFR 135.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This proposed rule would revise HUD's regulations found 
at 24 CFR part 135, which ensure that employment, training, and 
contracting opportunities generated by certain HUD financial assistance 
shall, to the greatest extent feasible, and consistent with existing 
Federal, State, and local laws and regulations, be directed to low- and 
very low-income persons, particularly those who are recipients of 
Government assistance for housing and to business concerns that provide 
economic opportunities to these persons. Part 135 was last revised to 
incorporate the statutory amendments of the Housing and Community 
Development Act of 1992. This proposed rule would update part 135 to: 
(1) Reflect certain changes in the design and implementation of HUD 
programs that are subject to the section 3 regulations; (2) clarify the 
obligations of covered recipient agencies; and (3) simplify the 
Department's section 3 complaint processing procedures.
    Statement of Need: Section 3 requirements have been governed by an 
interim regulation since 1994 and the Department is obligated to 
promulgate final regulations. Equally important, HUD programs subject 
to Section 3 have undergone significant legislative change. This 
includes, reforms made to HUD's Indian housing programs by the Native 
American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 
(NAHASDA) (Public Law 104-330, approved October 26, 1996); public 
housing reforms made by the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act 
of 1998 (QHWRA) (Public Law 105-276,

[[Page 76555]]

approved by October 21, 1998); reforms made to HUD's supportive housing 
programs by the Section 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly Act of 
2010 (Public Law 111-372, approved January 4, 2011), and the Frank 
Melville Supportive Housing Investment Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-347, 
approved January 4, 2011); and more recently reforms made to HUD's 
public housing by the Rental Assistance Demonstration program 
authorized by the act appropriating 2012 funding for HUD, the 
Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2012 (Public 
Law 112-55, approved November 18, 2011). HUD proposes to clarify and 
strengthen its Section 3 regulations to incorporate new programs 
established since 1994 that are subject to Section 3 requirements, 
revise the existing regulation to enhance compliance by recipients of 
covered HUD assistance, and mitigate barriers to achieving compliance.
    In August 2010, HUD hosted a Section 3 Listening Forum \2\ that 
brought together recipients of Section 3 covered HUD financial 
assistance, community advocates, representatives from national housing 
organizations, Section 3 residents and businesses, and other interested 
parties to highlight best practices and to discuss barriers to 
implementation across the country. The forum offered recipients of 
Section 3 covered financial assistance the opportunity to identify 
challenges they were facing in complying with Section 3. Participants 
stated that the existing regulations are not sufficiently explicit 
about specific actions that could be undertaken to achieve compliance; 
that the existing regulations do not clearly describe the extent to 
which recipients may require subrecipients, contractors, and 
subcontractors to comply with Section 3; and actions that recipients 
may take to impose meaningful sanctions for noncompliance by their 
subrecipients, contractors, and subcontractors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ https://nhlp.org/files/09%20Section%203%20Barriers%20and%20best%20practices%208%2024%2010%20Final%20with%20attachment.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, HUD's Office of Inspector General (OIG) conducted an 
audit in 2013 to assess HUD's oversight of Section 3 in response to 
concerns about economic opportunities that were provided (or should 
have been provided) as a result of the expenditure of financial 
assistance under the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (Recovery 
Act) (Public Law 111-5, approved February 17, 2009). HUD's OIG 
concluded that HUD did not enforce the reporting requirements of 
Section 3 for recipients of FY 2009 Recovery Act Public Housing Capital 
funds from HUD.\3\ HUD's OIG made several recommendations to address 
its findings including developing procedures to take administrative 
measures against recipients that fail to comply with Section 3 
requirements and publishing a Section 3 final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See: http://www.hudoig.gov/reports-publications/audit-reports/hud-did-not-enforce-reporting-requirements-of-section-3-of.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Alternatives: Efforts have been made to improve HUD's Section 3 
efforts independent of regulatory change, by increased reporting 
compliance, use of Notices of Financial Assistance (NOFA) competitions 
for Section 3 coordinators, and a business registry. These initiatives 
have been helpful, but as HUD's Office of Inspector General \4\ noted, 
regulatory change is important and necessary to clarify areas of 
confusion without subjecting recipients who operated in good faith to 
legal problems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ http://www.hudoig.gov/reports-publications/audit-reports/hud-did-not-enforce-reporting-requirements-of-section-3-of
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Anticipated Costs and Benefits: The proposed rule will enhance 
employment opportunities for Section 3 residents and contracting 
opportunities for Section 3 businesses. In doing so, the proposed rule 
imposes additional recordkeeping, verification, procurement, 
monitoring, and complaint processing requirements on covered 
recipients. Additional administrative work will be one of the outcomes 
of an invigorated effort to provide economic opportunities to the 
greatest extent feasible. HUD has estimated that total reporting and 
record keeping burden would be $6.5 million the first year the rule 
goes into effect and $2.2 million annually in succeeding years.
    Section 3 does not create additional jobs. Instead, a more rigorous 
targeting of economic opportunity will direct (transfer) positions and 
contracts to those eligible under Section 3. A reasonable estimate of 
the impact would be protection for an additional 1,400 Section 3 jobs 
annually from increased oversight and clarification of program 
standards. Finally, as tenant incomes rise, the federal rental subsidy 
for those tenants would decline. Such an effect would constitute a 
transfer from tenants to the U.S. government and could be as large as 
$19 million annually.
    This rule will not have any impact on the level of funding for the 
impacted programs. Funding is determined independently by congressional 
appropriations. It will, however, affect the allocation of resources.
    Risks: This rule poses no risk to public health, safety, or the 
environment.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Action                      Date          FR CITE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM....................................     12/00/  ...................
                                               2014
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    # Federalism Affected: No.
    # Energy Affected: No.
    International Impacts: No.
    Agency Contact:Agency Contact: Sara K. Pratt, Deputy Assistant 
Secretary for Enforcement and Programs, Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410, Phone: 202 402-
6978.
    RIN: 2529-AA91

HUD--Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO)

Proposed Rule Stage

90. Economic Opportunities for Low- and Very Low-Income Persons (FR-
4893)

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1701u; 42 U.S.C. 1450; 42 U.S.C. 3301; 
42 U.S.C. 3535(d)
    CFR Citation: 24 CFR 135.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This proposed rule would revise HUD's regulations found 
at 24 CFR part 135, which ensure that employment, training, and 
contracting opportunities generated by certain HUD financial assistance 
shall, to the greatest extent feasible, and consistent with existing 
Federal, State, and local laws and regulations, be directed to low- and 
very low-income persons, particularly those who are recipients of 
Government assistance for housing and to business concerns that provide 
economic opportunities to these persons. Part 135 was last revised to 
incorporate the statutory amendments of the Housing and Community 
Development Act of 1992. This proposed rule would update part 135 to: 
(1) Reflect certain changes in the design and implementation of HUD 
programs that are subject to the section 3 regulations; (2) clarify the 
obligations of covered recipient agencies; and (3) simplify the 
Department's section 3 complaint processing procedures.
    Statement of Need: Section 3 requirements have been governed by an

[[Page 76556]]

interim regulation since 1994 and the Department is obligated to 
promulgate final regulations. Equally important, HUD programs subject 
to Section 3 have undergone significant legislative change. This 
includes, reforms made to HUD's Indian housing programs by the Native 
American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 
(NAHASDA) (Public Law 104-330, approved October 26, 1996); public 
housing reforms made by the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act 
of 1998 (QHWRA) (Public Law 105-276, approved by October 21, 1998); 
reforms made to HUD's supportive housing programs by the Section 202 
Supportive Housing for the Elderly Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-372, 
approved January 4, 2011), and the Frank Melville Supportive Housing 
Investment Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-347, approved January 4, 2011); 
and more recently reforms made to HUD's public housing by the Rental 
Assistance Demonstration program authorized by the act appropriating 
2012 funding for HUD, the Consolidated and Further Continuing 
Appropriations Act, 2012 (Public Law 112-55, approved November 18, 
2011). HUD proposes to clarify and strengthen its Section 3 regulations 
to incorporate new programs established since 1994 that are subject to 
Section 3 requirements, revise the existing regulation to enhance 
compliance by recipients of covered HUD assistance, and mitigate 
barriers to achieving compliance.
    In August 2010, HUD hosted a Section 3 Listening Forum \5\ that 
brought together recipients of Section 3 covered HUD financial 
assistance, community advocates, representatives from national housing 
organizations, Section 3 residents and businesses, and other interested 
parties to highlight best practices and to discuss barriers to 
implementation across the country. The forum offered recipients of 
Section 3 covered financial assistance the opportunity to identify 
challenges they were facing in complying with Section 3. Participants 
stated that the existing regulations are not sufficiently explicit 
about specific actions that could be undertaken to achieve compliance; 
that the existing regulations do not clearly describe the extent to 
which recipients may require subrecipients, contractors, and 
subcontractors to comply with Section 3; and actions that recipients 
may take to impose meaningful sanctions for noncompliance by their 
subrecipients, contractors, and subcontractors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ https://nhlp.org/files/09%20Section%203%20Barriers%20and%20best%20practices%208%2024%2010%20Final%20with%20attachment.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, HUD's Office of Inspector General (OIG) conducted an 
audit in 2013 to assess HUD's oversight of Section 3 in response to 
concerns about economic opportunities that were provided (or should 
have been provided) as a result of the expenditure of financial 
assistance under the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (Recovery 
Act) (Public Law 111-5, approved February 17, 2009). HUD's OIG 
concluded that HUD did not enforce the reporting requirements of 
Section 3 for recipients of FY 2009 Recovery Act Public Housing Capital 
funds from HUD \6\. HUD's OIG made several recommendations to address 
its findings including developing procedures to take administrative 
measures against recipients that fail to comply with Section 3 
requirements and publishing a Section 3 final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See: http://www.hudoig.gov/reports-publications/audit-reports/hud-did-not-enforce-reporting-requirements-of-section-3-of.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Summary of Legal Basis: Section 3 was enacted as a part of the 
Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 (Public Law 90-448, approved 
August 1, 1968) to bring economic opportunities, generated by the 
expenditure of certain HUD financial assistance, to the greatest extent 
feasible, to low- and very low-income persons residing in communities 
where the financial assistance is expended. Section 3 recognizes that 
HUD funds are often one of the largest sources of funds expended in 
low-income communities and, where such funds are spent on activities 
such as construction and rehabilitation of housing and other public 
facilities, the expenditure results in new jobs and other 
opportunities. By directing new economic opportunities to residents and 
businesses in the community in which the funds are expended, the 
expenditure can have the double benefit of creating new or 
rehabilitated housing or other facilities in such communities while 
also creating jobs for the residents of these communities. Section 3 
was amended by the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 
(Public Law 102-550, approved October 28, 1992), which required the 
Secretary of HUD to promulgate regulations to implement Section 3, 
codified at 12 U.S.C. 1701u. HUD's Section 3 regulations were 
promulgated through an interim rule published on June 30, 1994, at 59 
FR 33880, and are codified in 24 CFR part 135. This proposed rule would 
update HUD's Section 3 regulations to address new programs established 
since 1994 that are subject to the Section 3 requirements, and revise 
the regulations to both better promote compliance with the requirements 
of Section 3 by recipients of Section 3 covered financial assistance, 
while also recognizing barriers to compliance that may exist, and 
overall strengthening HUD's oversight of Section 3.
    Alternatives: Efforts have been made to improve HUD's Section 3 
efforts independent of regulatory change, by increased reporting 
compliance, use of Notices of Financial Assistance (NOFA) competitions 
for Section 3 coordinators, and a business registry. These initiatives 
have been helpful, but as HUD's Office of Inspector General \7\ noted, 
regulatory change is important and necessary to clarify areas of 
confusion without subjecting recipients who operated in good faith to 
legal problems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ http://www.hudoig.gov/reports-publications/audit-reports/hud-did-not-enforce-reporting-requirements-of-section-3-of.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The proposed rule will enhance 
employment opportunities for Section 3 residents and contracting 
opportunities for Section 3 businesses. In doing so, the proposed rule 
imposes additional recordkeeping, verification, procurement, 
monitoring, and complaint processing requirements on covered 
recipients. Additional administrative work will be one of the outcomes 
of an invigorated effort to provide economic opportunities to the 
greatest extent feasible. HUD has estimated that total reporting and 
record keeping burden would be $6.5 million the first year the rule 
goes into effect and $2.2 million annually in succeeding years.
    Section 3 does not create additional jobs. Instead, a more rigorous 
targeting of economic opportunity will direct (transfer) positions and 
contracts to those eligible under Section 3. A reasonable estimate of 
the impact would be protections for an additional 1,400 Section 3 jobs 
annually from increased oversight and clarification of program 
standards. Finally, as tenant incomes rise, the federal rental subsidy 
for those tenants would decline. Such an effect would constitute a 
transfer from tenants to the U.S. government and could be as large as 
$19 million annually.
    This rule will not have any impact on the level of funding for the 
impacted programs. Funding is determined independently by congressional 
appropriations. It will, however, affect the allocation of resources.
    Risks: This rule poses no risk to public health, safety, or the 
environment.

[[Page 76557]]

    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   12/00/14
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Sara K. Pratt, Deputy Assistant Secretary for 
Enforcement and Programs, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 
451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410, Phone: 202 402-6978.
    RIN: 2529-AA91
BILLING CODE 4210-67-P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR (DOI)

Statement of Regulatory Priorities

    The Department of the Interior (DOI) is the principal Federal 
steward of our Nation's public lands and resources, including many of 
our cultural treasures. DOI serves as trustee to Native Americans and 
Alaska 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 
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.
    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. 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 and promote tribal self-determination and self-
governance;
     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.

Major Regulatory Areas

    The Department's 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.

Regulatory Policy

    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 responded 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 will create jobs and contribute to a healthy economy while 
protecting our signature landscapes, natural resources, wildlife, and 
cultural resources.
    (3) Empowering People and Communities.
    The Department strongly encourages public participation in the 
regulatory process 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

[[Page 76558]]

backgrounds and interests to have a voice in management of public 
lands.

Retrospective Review of Regulations

    President Obama's Executive Order 13563 directs agencies to make 
the regulatory system work better for the American public. Regulations 
should ``. . . protect public health, welfare, safety, and our 
environment while promoting economic growth, innovation, 
competitiveness, and job creation.'' DOI's plan for retrospective 
regulatory review identifies specific efforts to relieve regulatory 
burdens, add jobs to the economy, and make regulations work better for 
the American public while protecting our environment and resources. The 
DOI plan seeks to strengthen and maintain a culture of retrospective 
review by consolidating all regulatory review requirements into DOI's 
annual regulatory plan.
    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) were identified as associated with 
retrospective review and analysis in the Department's final 
retrospective review of regulations plan, which can be viewed at http://www.doi.gov/open/regsreview.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Reduces burdens on  small
              Bureau                   Title & RIN             Description                   business?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of Natural Resources        Oil and Gas Royalty  DOI is exploring a        Yes.
 Revenue.                           Valuation.           simplified market-based
                                   1012-AA13..........   approach to arrive at
                                                         the value of oil and
                                                         gas for royalty
                                                         purposes that could
                                                         dramatically reduce
                                                         accounting and
                                                         paperwork requirements
                                                         and costs on industry
                                                         and better ensure
                                                         proper royalty
                                                         valuation by creating a
                                                         more transparent
                                                         royalty calculation
                                                         method.
Fish and Wildlife Service........  ESA Section 7        Court decisions over the  No.
                                    Consultation         last decade have
                                    Process;             prompted us, along with
                                    Incidental Take      the National Marine
                                    Statements.          Fisheries Service
                                   1018-AX85..........   (NOAA, Commerce), to
                                                         consider clarifying our
                                                         regulations concerning
                                                         incidental take
                                                         statements during
                                                         section 7 consultation
                                                         under the Endangered
                                                         Species Act. A proposed
                                                         rule published on
                                                         September 4, 2013. The
                                                         proposed changes
                                                         address use of
                                                         surrogates to express
                                                         the limit of exempted
                                                         take and how to
                                                         determine when deferral
                                                         of an incidental take
                                                         exemption is
                                                         appropriate. This is a
                                                         joint rulemaking with
                                                         NOAA.
Fish and Wildlife Service........  Regulations          The proposed rule would   No.
                                    Governing            revise requirements for
                                    Designation of       designating critical
                                    Critical Habitat     habitat under the
                                    Under Section 4 of   Endangered Species Act.
                                    the ESA.             The proposed revisions
                                   1018-AX86..........   would make minor edits
                                                         to the scope and
                                                         purpose, add and remove
                                                         some definitions, and
                                                         clarify the criteria
                                                         for designating
                                                         critical habitat. A
                                                         number of factors,
                                                         including litigation
                                                         and experience in
                                                         interpreting and
                                                         applying the statutory
                                                         definition of critical
                                                         habitat, have
                                                         highlighted the need to
                                                         clarify or revise the
                                                         current regulations.
                                                         This is a joint
                                                         rulemaking with NOAA.
Fish and Wildlife Service........  Policy Regarding     This draft policy would   No.
                                    Implementation of    explain how we consider
                                    Section 4(b)(2) of   partnerships and
                                    the Endangered       conservation plans;
                                    Species Act.         habitat conservation
                                   1018-AX87..........   plans; and tribal,
                                                         military, and Federal
                                                         lands in the exclusion
                                                         process. This draft
                                                         policy is meant to
                                                         complement our proposed
                                                         regulatory amendments
                                                         regarding exclusions
                                                         from critical habitat
                                                         and to clarify
                                                         expectations regarding
                                                         critical habitat. The
                                                         policy would provide a
                                                         credible, predictable,
                                                         and simplified critical-
                                                         habitat-exclusion
                                                         process and foster
                                                         clarity and consistency
                                                         in designation of
                                                         critical habitat. We
                                                         will seek public review
                                                         and comment on the
                                                         proposed policy. This
                                                         is a joint policy with
                                                         NOAA.
Fish and Wildlife Service........  ESA Section 7        The proposed rule would   No.
                                    Consultation         amend the existing
                                    Regulations;         regulations governing
                                    Definition of        section 7 consultation
                                    ``Destruction or     under the Endangered
                                    Adverse              Species Act to revise
                                    Modification'' of    the definition of
                                    Critical Habitat.    ``destruction or
                                   1018-AX88..........   adverse modification''
                                                         of critical habitat.
                                                         The current regulatory
                                                         definition has been
                                                         invalidated by the
                                                         courts for being
                                                         inconsistent with the
                                                         language of the
                                                         Endangered Species Act.
                                                         The revised definition
                                                         will provide the
                                                         Services and Federal
                                                         agencies with greater
                                                         clarity in how to
                                                         ensure that any action
                                                         they authorize, fund,
                                                         or carry out is not
                                                         likely to result in the
                                                         destruction or adverse
                                                         modification of
                                                         critical habitat,
                                                         consistent with section
                                                         7(a)(2) of the ESA.
                                                         This is a joint
                                                         rulemaking with NOAA.

[[Page 76559]]

 
Bureau of Indian Affairs.........  Procedures for       The Department is         No.
                                    Establishing that    examining its
                                    an Indian Group      regulations governing
                                    Exists as an         the process and
                                    Indian Tribe.        criteria by which
                                   1076-AF18..........   Indian groups are
                                                         federally acknowledged
                                                         as Indian tribes to
                                                         determine how
                                                         regulatory changes
                                                         could increase
                                                         transparency,
                                                         timeliness, efficiency,
                                                         and flexibility, while
                                                         maintaining the
                                                         integrity of the
                                                         acknowledgment process.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOI bureaus work to make our regulations easier to comply with and 
understand. Our regulatory process ensures that bureaus share ideas on 
how to reduce regulatory burdens while meeting the requirements of the 
laws they enforce and improving their stewardship of the environment 
and resources. Results include:
     Effective stewardship of our Nation's resources in a way 
that is responsive to the needs of small businesses;
     Increased benefits per dollar spent by careful evaluation 
of the economic effects of planned rules; and
     Improved compliance and transparency by use of plain 
language in our regulations and guidance documents.

Bureaus and Offices Within DOI

    The following sections give an overview of some of the major 
regulatory priorities of DOI bureaus and offices.
Bureau of Indian Affairs
    The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 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. The Bureau also 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. 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. The Bureau 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 in 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 criticize the current process as 
cumbersome, overly restrictive, and lacking transparency. 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.
Bureau of Land Management
    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 outdated 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 will finalize a rule that will 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 recovered fluids.
     Creating a competitive process for offering lands for 
solar and wind energy development.
    BLM recently published 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

[[Page 76560]]

solar and wind energy development leasing areas, define qualifications 
for potential bidders, and structure the financial arrangements 
necessary for the process. The 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 gas and ensuring fair return 
to the taxpayer.
    BLM's current requirements regarding venting and flaring from oil 
and gas operations are over three decades old. The agency is currently 
preparing a proposed rule to address emissions reductions and minimize 
waste through improved standards for venting, flaring, and fugitive 
losses of methane from oil and gas production facilities on Federal and 
Indian lands.
     Seeking public input on managing waste mine methane.
    BLM issued 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. The BLM is currently reviewing the information received 
through that process to identify potential appropriate regulatory 
approaches to reduce the waste of methane from mining operations on 
public lands.
     Ensuring a fair return to the American taxpayer for oil 
shale development.
    BLM is preparing a final rule that would ensure responsible 
development of federal oil shale resources and evaluate necessary 
safeguards to protect scarce water resources and important wildlife 
habitat while ensuring a fair royalty to the American people.
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM)
    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 efficient and 
effective manner, balancing the need for economic growth with the 
protection of the environment. BOEM thoughtfully considers and balances 
the potential environmental impacts involved in exploring and 
extracting these resources. BOEM's near-term regulatory agenda will 
focus on a number of issues, including:
     Expanding renewable energy resources.
    As part of President Obama's comprehensive plan to expand domestic 
clean energy sources, BOEM has held multiple offshore renewable energy 
lease sales along the Atlantic coast. These lease sales are the result 
of years of collaboration, data gathering and analysis, and outreach 
and have resulted in the identification of areas that are rich with 
potential wind resources but also minimize conflicts with other 
important OCS uses. . Based on the experiences to date in the offshore 
renewable energy program, BOEM is evaluating lessons learned and 
identifying opportunities for improvement in the program. As a part of 
this effort, BOEM is conducting a comprehensive review of our renewable 
energy regulations and highlighting areas for potential revision. For 
example, the Bureau recently completed a rulemaking to provide 
additional time for renewable energy developers to submit certain 
plans, after BOEM determined that the previous timelines for submission 
were proving to be unreasonable. This change provides an appropriate 
balance between ensuring diligent progress on our renewable energy 
leases and accounting for the needs of the renewable energy development 
community.
    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 Arctic 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 ensure that the effects of any future 
potential oil spills can be minimized and fully mitigated, BOEM is 
amending its regulations to raise the limits of liability associated 
with future spills. BOEM has teamed with the U.S. Coast Guard and the 
Department of Justice in developing new regulations to ensure that 
necessary resources will be made available to address potential 
contingencies of any future oil spill and associated damages.
     Updating BOEM's Air Quality Program.
    BOEM's original air quality rules date largely from 1980 and have 
not been updated substantially since that time. From 1990 to 2012, 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 Slope Borough of the State of Alaska, 
including the Beaufort Sea, the Chukchi Sea, and part of the Hope 
Basin. BOEM is in the process of updating its regulations to reflect 
changes that have occurred over the past thirty-four years and the new 
regulatory jurisdiction. In its development of proposed regulations, 
BOEM will continue to consult and coordinate its efforts with the U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park Service and the 
Environmental Protection Agency.
     Modernizing Oil and Gas Leasing Regulations.
    BOEM is developing a final rule to update and streamline the 
existing OCS leasing regulations to better reflect modern policy 
priorities, including incentivizing diligent development, as well as to 
reflect changes in applicable laws that have occurred over the past 
several years. The final rule reorganizes leasing requirements to 
communicate more effectively and clearly the leasing process as it has 
evolved, and to better delineate the roles, responsibilities and 
associated liabilities of all parties having an economic interest in 
leases or facilities on the OCS.
     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

[[Page 76561]]

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.
     Promoting Effective Financial Assurance and Risk 
Management.
    BOEM has the responsibility to ensure that lessees and operators on 
the OCS do not engage in activities that could generate an undue risk 
of financial loss to the government. BOEM formally established a 
program office to review these issues, and issued an advance notice of 
proposed rulemaking seeking feedback on potential regulatory approaches 
to promote effective financial assurance and risk management. Agency 
staff will continue to work with industry and others to determine how 
to improve the regulatory regime to better align with the realities of 
aging offshore infrastructure, hazard risks, and increasing costs of 
decommissioning.
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement
    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.
    BSEE has identified the following four areas of regulatory 
priorities: (1) Safety; (2) Oil Spill Response; (3) Arctic; and (4) 
Managing and Mitigating Risk via Improved Technology. Other regulatory 
topics under development include decommissioning costs, pipelines, and 
renewable energy.
     Safety
    BSEE will be requesting comments on regulatory options for 
improving aviation safety, crane safety, and safety management systems.
     Oil Spill Response
    BSEE will update regulations for offshore oil spill response 
planning and preparedness. This rule will incorporate lessons learned 
from the Deepwater Horizon incident, improved preparedness capability 
standards, and applicable research findings.
     Arctic
    BSEE is working with BOEM on a joint proposed rule to promote safe, 
responsible, and effective drilling activities on the Arctic OCS while 
ensuring protection of the Arctic's communities and marine environment.
     Managing and Mitigating Risk via Improved Technology
    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 
Deepwater Horizon incident.
    Additionally, BSEE will finalize revisions of its rule on 
production safety systems and life cycle analysis. This rule will 
expand the use of life cycle management of critical equipment. The rule 
addresses issues such as subsurface safety devices, safety device 
testing, and expands the requirements for operating production systems 
on the OCS.
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 is as follows:
     Simplify valuation regulations
    ONRR plans to simplify the regulations at title 30 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations (CFR) part 1206 for establishing the value for 
royalty purposes of (1) oil and natural gas produced from Federal 
leases; and (2) coal 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.
     Clarify and simplify issuing notices of noncompliance and 
civil penalties
    This rule would amend ONRR civil penalty regulations to: (1) Codify 
application of those regulations to solid minerals and geothermal 
leases as the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 authorizes; (2) adjust 
Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act civil penalty amounts for 
inflation as the Federal Civil Penalty Inflation Adjustment Act 
requires; (3) clarify and simplify the existing regulations for issuing 
notices of noncompliance and civil penalties under 30 CFR part 1241; 
and (4) provide notice that ONRR will post its matrices for civil 
penalty assessments on the ONRR Web site.
     Clarify and simplify distribution and disbursement of 
qualified revenues from certain leases under the GOMESA
    ONRR would amend the regulations on the distribution and 
disbursement of qualified revenues from certain leases on the Gulf of 
Mexico's Outer Continental Shelf, under the provisions of the Gulf of 
Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006. These proposed regulations set 
forth the formulas and methodologies for calculating and allocating 
revenues during the second phase of revenue sharing to: The States of 
Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas; their eligible Coastal 
Political Subdivisions; the Land and Water Conservation Fund; and the 
United States Treasury. Additionally, in this proposed rule, the 
Department of the Interior moves the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act 
of 2006's Phase I regulations from the Bureau of Ocean Energy 
Management's 30 CFR chapter V to ONRR's 30 CFR chapter XII, and 
proposes additional clarification and minor definition changes to the 
current revenue-sharing regulations.
     Clarify and simplify valuation regulations for Indian oil 
leases
    ONRR would ensure that Indian lessors receive maximum revenues from 
their mineral resources, as required by statute and the Secretary's 
trust responsibility. The existing rule was published in 1988 with some 
amendments published in December 2007. Changes in the oil markets have 
raised concerns regarding the valuation methods for Indian oil. 
Generally, Indian leases have a provision that place the value of their 
oil at the highest price paid for a major portion of production of 
like-quality oil from the same field or area. Proposed changes that 
followed the 1988 rule were met with disagreement from Tribes and 
industry.
    In 2011, the Secretary convened the Indian Oil Negotiated 
Rulemaking Committee (Committee), established under the Federal 
Advisory Committee

[[Page 76562]]

Act, to address the major portion provision of the current Indian oil 
and gas rule. The Committee submitted its recommendations to ONRR in 
September 2013. Those recommendations form the basis of this proposed 
rule. By revising the method for valuing oil produced on Indian leases, 
the proposed rule provides clarity and certainty to all concerned 
parties while additionally assuring that Tribes and allottees receive, 
in a timely fashion, royalties that satisfy the major portion provision 
contained in most Indian leases.
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
    The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) was 
created by the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 
(SMCRA). Under SMCRA, OSM has two principal functions--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. OSM plans to revise 
its regulations to improve the balance between environmental protection 
and the Nation's need for coal by better protecting streams from the 
adverse impacts of surface coal mining operations.
     Coal Combustion Residues.
    Establish Federal standards for the beneficial use of coal 
combustion residues on active and abandoned coal mines.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
    The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is to work 
with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, and 
plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American 
people. FWS also provides 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.
    During the next year, FWS regulatory priorities will include:
Regulations under the Endangered Species Act (ESA):
    We will issue multiple rules to add species to, remove species 
from, and reclassify species on the Lists of Endangered and Threatened 
Wildlife and Plants and to designate critical habitat for certain 
listed species, and rules to transform the processes for listing 
species and designating critical habitat. We will improve the listing 
process by issuing rules to more clearly describe areas where listed 
species are protected and revise the process for submitting petitions 
to list, delist, or reclassify species. We will further the protection 
of native species and their ecosystems through a policy that will 
provide incentives for voluntary conservation actions taken for species 
prior to their listing under the ESA. We will issue rules to improve 
the process of critical habitat designation, including clarifying 
definitions of ``critical habitat'' and ``destruction or adverse 
modification'' of critical habitat, and a policy to explain how we 
consider various factors in determining exclusions to critical habitat 
under section 4(b)(2) of the ESA.
Regulations under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA):
    In carrying out our responsibility to manage migratory bird 
populations, we issue annual migratory bird hunting regulations, which 
establish the frameworks (outside limits) for States to establish 
season lengths, bag limits, and areas for migratory game bird hunting. 
To ensure proper administration of the MBTA, we will revise our 
regulations to prevent the wanton waste of migratory game birds to 
clarify that the hunting public must make reasonable efforts to 
retrieve birds that have been killed or injured. We will also revise 
our regulations regarding permits for certain take of eagles and eagle 
nests and propose regulations for the use of raptors other than eagles 
for abatement (the use of trained raptors to mitigate depredation 
problems caused by birds or other wildlife).
Regulations to administer the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS):
    In carrying out our statutory responsibility to provide wildlife-
dependent recreational opportunities on NWRS lands, we issue an annual 
rule to update the hunting and fishing regulations on specific refuges. 
To ensure protection of NWRS resources, we will issue a proposed rule 
to ensure that businesses 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. We will also issue a policy 
for managing cultural resources (archaeological resources, historic and 
architectural properties, and areas or sites of traditional or 
religious significance to Native Americans) on NWRS lands.
Regulations to carry out the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration (WSFR) 
Act:
    To strengthen our partnership with State conservation 
organizations, we are working on several rules to update and clarify 
our WSFR regulations. States rely on FWS to distribute finances, and 
the FWS relies on the States to implement

[[Page 76563]]

eligible conservation projects. We will expand on existing regulations 
that prescribe processes that applicants and grantees must follow when 
applying for and managing grants from FWS. Among other rules, we will 
also revise our regulations under the Clean Vessel Act and Boating 
Infrastructure Grant programs to improve management and execution of 
those programs.
    In accordance with section 3(a) of Executive Order 13609 
(``Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation''), we will issue the 
following rulemaking actions:
Regulations to carry out the Convention on International Trade in 
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES):
    We will update our CITES regulations to incorporate provisions 
resulting from the 16th Conference of the Parties to CITES. The 
revisions will help us more effectively promote species conservation 
and help U.S. importers and exporters of wildlife products understand 
how to conduct lawful international trade. We will also rewrite a 
substantial portion of our regulations for the importation, 
exportation, and transportation of wildlife by proposing changes to the 
port structure and inspection fees and making the regulations easier to 
understand.
    To help protect African elephants, we will revise our regulations 
regarding ivory from African elephants to prohibit interstate commerce 
and export, except for antique specimens and certain other items. 
Import of sport-hunted trophies would still be allowed, but the number 
of trophies that could be imported by a hunter in a given year would be 
limited.
    Finally, to protect native species and prevent the spread of 
injurious species, we will propose regulations to improve our process 
for making injurious wildlife determinations for foreign species under 
the Lacey Act to prevent the interstate transportation and commerce of 
injurious wildlife.
National Park Service
    The NPS preserves unimpaired the natural and cultural resources and 
values within more than 400 units of the National Park System 
encompassing nearly 84 million acres of lands and waters for the 
enjoyment, education, and inspiration of this and future generations. 
NPS also cooperates with partners to extend the benefits of natural and 
resource conservation and outdoor recreation throughout the United 
States and the world.
    To achieve this mission NPS adheres to the following guiding 
principles:
     Excellent Service: Providing the best possible service to 
park visitors and partners.
     Productive Partnerships: Collaborating with Federal, 
State, tribal, and local governments, private organizations, and 
businesses to work toward common goals.
     Citizen Involvement: Providing opportunities for citizens 
to participate in the decisions and actions of the National Park 
Service.
     Heritage Education: Educating park visitors and the 
general public about their history and common heritage.
     Outstanding Employees: Empowering a diverse workforce 
committed to excellence, integrity, and quality work.
     Employee Development: Providing developmental 
opportunities and training so employees have the ``tools to do the 
job'' safely and efficiently.
     Wise Decisions: Integrating social, economic, 
environmental, and ethical considerations into the decision-making 
process.
     Effective Management: Instilling a performance management 
philosophy that fosters creativity, focuses on results, and requires 
accountability at all levels.
     Research and Technology: Incorporating research findings 
and new technologies to improve work practices, products, and services.
    NPS regulatory priorities for the coming year include:
     Managing Off-Road Vehicle Use
    Rules for Fire Island National Seashore, Lake Meredith National 
Recreation Area, Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, and Cape Lookout 
National Seashore would allow for management of off-road vehicle (ORV) 
use, to protect and preserve natural and cultural resources, and 
provide a variety of visitor use experiences while minimizing conflicts 
among user groups. Further, the rules would designate ORV routes and 
establish operational requirements and restrictions.
     Managing Bicycling
    New rules would authorize and manage bicycling at Cuyahoga Valley 
National Park, and Bryce Canyon National Park.
     Implementing the Native American Graves Protection and 
Repatriation Act
    (1) 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, eliminate ambiguity, clarify terms, 
and include Native Hawaiians in the process. The rule would eliminate 
unnecessary requirements for museums and would not add processes or 
collect additional information.
     Regulating non-Federal oil and gas activity on NPS land
    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.
     Authorizing and managing service animals
    The rule will define and differentiate service animals from pets, 
and will describe the circumstances under which service animals would 
be allowed in a park area. The rule will ensure NPS compliance with 
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (28 U.S.C. 794) and 
better align NPS regulations with the Americans with Disabilities Act 
of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 1211 et seq.) and the Department of Justice Service 
Animal regulations of 2011 (28 CFR 36.104).
     Preserving and managing paleontological resources
    This rule would implement provisions of the Paleontological 
Resources Protection Act. The rule would preserve, manage, and protect 
paleontological resources on Federal lands and ensure that these 
resources are available for current and future generations to enjoy as 
part of America's national heritage. The rule would address management, 
collection, and curation of paleontological resources from Federal 
lands using scientific principles and expertise. Provisions of the rule 
will ensure that resources are collected in accordance with permits and 
curated in an approved repository. The rule would also protect 
confidential locality data, and authorize penalties for illegally 
collecting, damaging, altering, defacing, or selling paleontological 
resources.
     Collecting plants for traditional cultural practices
    The rule would propose authorizing Park Superintendents to enter 
into agreements with federally recognized tribes to permit tribal 
members to collect limited quantities of plant resources in parks to be 
used for traditional cultural practices and activities.
Bureau of Reclamation
    The Bureau of Reclamation's mission is to manage, develop, and 
protect water and related resources in an environmentally and 
economically sound manner in the interest of the American public. To 
accomplish this

[[Page 76564]]

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.
    Our regulatory program focus in fiscal year 2015 is to publish a 
proposed minor amendment to 43 CFR part 429 to bring it into compliance 
with the requirements of the recently published final rule, 43 CFR part 
5, Commercial Filming and Similar Projects and Still Photography on 
Certain Areas under Department Jurisdiction. Publishing this rule will 
implement the provisions of Public Law 106-206, which directs the 
establishment of permits and reasonable fees for commercial filming and 
certain still photography activities on public lands.
BILLING CODE 4310-10-P

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (DOJ)--FALL 2014

Statement of Regulatory Priorities

    The mission of the Department of Justice is to enforce the law and 
defend the interests of the United States according to the law, to 
ensure public safety against 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 process. Although their regulatory efforts are 
not separately discussed in this overview of the regulatory priorities, 
those components have key roles in implementing the Department's anti-
terrorism and law enforcement priorities.

Civil Rights Division

    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 2016. 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, as well as revising 
regulations implementing section 274B of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act.
    ADA Amendments Act. In September 2008, Congress passed the ADA 
Amendments Act, which revises the definition of ``disability'' to more 
broadly encompass impairments that substantially limit a major life 
activity. On January 30, 2014, the Department published a Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) proposing amendments to both its title II 
and title III ADA regulations in order to incorporate the statutory 
changes set forth in the ADA Amendments Act. The comment period closed 
on March 31, 2014. The Department expects to publish a final rule 
incorporating these changes into the ADA implementing regulations in 
the second quarter of fiscal year 2015. The Department also plans to 
propose amendments to its section 504 regulations to implement the ADA 
Amendments Act of 2008 in the third quarter of fiscal year 2015.
    Captioning and Audio Description in Movie Theaters. Title III of 
the ADA requires public accommodations to take ``such steps as may be 
necessary to ensure that no individual with a disability is treated 
differently because of the absence of auxiliary aids and services, 
unless the covered entity can demonstrate that taking such steps would 
cause a fundamental alteration or would result in an undue burden.'' 42 
U.S.C. 12182(b)(2)(A)(iii). Both open and closed captioning and audio 
recordings are examples of auxiliary aids and services that should be 
provided by places of public accommodations, 28 CFR 36.303(b)(1)-(2). 
The Department stated in the preamble to its 1991 rule that ``[m]ovie 
theaters are not required . . . to present open-captioned films,'' 28 
CFR part 36, app. C (2011), but it did not address closed captioning 
and audio description in movie theaters. In the movie theater context, 
``closed captioning'' refers to captions that only the patron 
requesting the closed captions can see because the captions are 
delivered to the patron at or near the patron's seat. Audio description 
is a technology that enables individuals who are blind or have low 
vision to enjoy movies by providing a spoken narration of key visual 
elements of a visually delivered medium, such as actions, settings, 
facial expressions, costumes, and scene changes.
    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 an 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 video description

[[Page 76565]]

ANPRM. On August 1, 2014, the Department published its NPRM proposing 
to revise the ADA title III regulation to require movie theaters to 
have the capability to exhibit movies with closed movie captioning and 
audio description (which was described in the ANPRM as video 
description) for all showings of movies that are available with closed 
movie captioning or audio description, to require theaters to provide 
notice to the public about the availability of these services, and to 
ensure that theaters have staff available who can provide information 
to patrons about the use of these services. In response to a request 
for an extension of the public comment period, the Department has 
issued a notice extending the comment period for 60 days until December 
1, 2014.
    Web site Accessibility. The Internet as it is known today did not 
exist when Congress enacted the ADA, yet today the World Wide Web plays 
a critical role in the daily personal, professional, civic, and 
business life of Americans. The ADA's expansive nondiscrimination 
mandate reaches goods and services provided by public accommodations 
and public entities using Internet Web sites. Being unable to access 
Web sites puts individuals at a great disadvantage in today's society, 
which is driven by a dynamic electronic marketplace and unprecedented 
access to information. On the economic front, electronic commerce, or 
``e-commerce,'' often offers consumers a wider selection and lower 
prices than traditional, ``brick-and-mortar'' storefronts, with the 
added convenience of not having to leave one's home to obtain goods and 
services. For individuals with disabilities who experience barriers to 
their ability to travel or to leave their homes, the Internet may be 
their only way to access certain goods and services. Beyond goods and 
services, information available on the Internet has become a gateway to 
education, socializing, and entertainment.
    The Internet is also dramatically changing the way that 
governmental entities serve the public. Public entities are 
increasingly providing their constituents access to government services 
and programs through their Web sites. Through Government Web sites, the 
public can obtain information or correspond with local officials 
without having to wait in line or be placed on hold. They can also pay 
fines, apply for benefits, renew State-issued identification, register 
to vote, file taxes, request copies of vital records, and complete 
numerous other everyday tasks. The availability of these services and 
information online not only makes life easier for the public but also 
often enables governmental entities to operate more efficiently and at 
a lower cost.
    The ADA's promise to provide an equal opportunity for individuals 
with disabilities to participate in and benefit from all aspects of 
American civic and economic life will be achieved in today's 
technologically advanced society only if it is clear to State and local 
governments, businesses, educators, and other public accommodations 
that their Web sites must be accessible. Consequently, the Department 
is considering amending its regulations implementing title II and title 
III of the ADA to require public entities and public accommodations 
that provide products or services to the public through Internet Web 
sites to make their sites accessible to and usable by individuals with 
disabilities.
    In particular, the Department's ANPRM on Web site accessibility 
sought public comment regarding what standards, if any, it should adopt 
for Web site accessibility, whether the Department should adopt 
coverage limitations for certain entities, like small businesses, and 
what resources and services are available to make existing Web sites 
accessible to individuals with disabilities. The Department also 
solicited comments on the costs of making Web sites accessible and on 
the existence of any other effective and reasonably feasible 
alternatives to making Web sites accessible. The Department received 
approximately 440 public comments and is in the process of reviewing 
these comments. The Department will be publishing separate NPRMs 
addressing Web site accessibility pursuant to titles II and III of the 
ADA. On July 9, 2014, the Department submitted its title II Web site 
Accessibility NPRM to OMB for E.O. 12866 review with a goal of 
publishing the NPRM before the end of the 2014 calendar year. The 
Department plans to follow with the publication of the title III NPRM 
in the third quarter of fiscal year 2015.
    The final rulemaking initiatives from the 2010 ANPRMs are included 
in the Department's long-term priorities projected for fiscal year 
2016:
    Next Generation 9-1-1. This ANPRM sought information on possible 
revisions to the Department's regulation to ensure direct access to 
Next Generation 9-1-1 (NG 9-1-1) services for individuals with 
disabilities. In 1991, the Department of Justice published a regulation 
to implement title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 
(ADA). That regulation requires public safety answering points (PSAPs) 
to provide direct access to persons with disabilities who use analog 
telecommunication devices for the deaf (TTYs), 28 CFR 35.162. Since 
that rule was published, there have been major changes in the types of 
communications technology used by the general public and by people who 
have disabilities that affect their hearing or speech. Many individuals 
with disabilities now use the Internet and wireless text devices as 
their primary modes of telecommunications. At the same time, PSAPs are 
planning to shift from analog telecommunications technology to new 
Internet-Protocol (IP)-enabled NG 9-1-1 services that will provide 
voice and data (such as text, pictures, and video) capabilities. As 
PSAPs transition from the analog systems to the new technologies, it is 
essential that people with communication disabilities be able to use 
the new systems. Therefore, the Department published this ANPRM to 
begin to develop appropriate regulatory guidance for PSAPs that are 
making this transition. The Department is in the process of completing 
its review of the approximately 146 public comments it received in 
response to its NG 9-1-1 ANPRM and expects to publish an NPRM 
addressing accessibility of NG 9-1-1 in the first quarter of fiscal 
year 2016.
    Equipment and Furniture. Both title II and title III of the ADA 
require covered entities to make reasonable modifications in their 
programs or services to facilitate participation by persons with 
disabilities. In addition, covered entities are required to ensure that 
people are not excluded from participation because facilities are 
inaccessible or because the entity has failed to provide auxiliary 
aids. The use of accessible equipment and furniture is often critical 
to an entity's ability to provide a person with a disability equal 
access to its services. Changes in technology have resulted in the 
development and improved availability of accessible equipment and 
furniture that benefit individuals with disabilities. The 2010 ADA 
Standards include accessibility requirements for some types of fixed 
equipment (e.g., ATMs, washing machines, dryers, tables, benches and 
vending machines) and the Department plans to look to these standards 
for guidance, where applicable, when it proposes accessibility 
standards for equipment and furniture that is not fixed. The ANPRM 
sought information about other categories of equipment, including beds 
in accessible guest rooms, and medical equipment and furniture. The 
Department received approximately 420

[[Page 76566]]

comments in response to its ANPRM and is in the process of reviewing 
these comments. The Department plans to publish in early fiscal year 
2016 a separate NPRM pursuant to title III of the ADA on beds in 
accessible guest rooms and a more detailed ANPRM pursuant to titles II 
and III of the ADA that focuses solely on accessible medical equipment 
and furniture. The remaining items of equipment and furniture addressed 
in the 2010 ANPRM will be the subject of an NPRM that the Department 
anticipates publishing in mid-fiscal year 2016.
    Coordination of Enforcement of Non-Discrimination in Federally 
Assisted Programs. In addition, the Department is planning to revise 
the co-ordination regulations implementing title VI of the Civil Rights 
Act, which have not been updated in over 30 years. Among other things, 
the updates will revise outdated provisions, streamline procedural 
steps, streamline and clarify provisions regarding information and data 
collection, promote opportunities to encourage public engagement, and 
incorporate current law regarding meaningful access for individuals who 
are limited English proficient.
    Implementation of Section 247B of the Immigration and Nationality 
Act. The Department also proposes to revise regulations implementing 
section 274B of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The proposed 
revisions are appropriate to conform the regulations to the statutory 
text as amended, simplify and add definitions of statutory terms, 
update and clarify the procedures for filing and processing charges of 
discrimination, ensure effective investigations of unfair immigration-
related employment practices, and update outdated references. The 
regulations will also be revised to reflect the new name of the office 
within the Department charged with enforcing this statute.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF)
    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 published a final rule 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.

Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)

    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 collectively 
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 providing for the legitimate 
medical, scientific, research, and industrial needs of the United 
States.
    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 2015, in addition to 
initiating temporary scheduling actions to prevent imminent hazard to 
the public safety, DEA will also consider petitions to control or 
reschedule various substances. Among other regulatory reviews and 
initiatives, the DEA will initiate the notice of proposed rulemaking 
titled, ``Transporting Controlled Substances Away from Principal Places 
of Business or Principal Places of Professional Practice on an As 
Needed and Random Basis.'' In this rule, the DEA proposes to amend its 
regulations governing the registration, security, reporting, 
recordkeeping, and ordering requirements in circumstances where 
practitioners transport controlled substances for dispensing to 
patients on an as needed and random basis. Lastly, the DEA will 
finalize its Interim Final Rule for Electronic Prescriptions for 
Controlled Substances. By this final rule, the DEA would finalize its 
regulations to clarify: (1) the criteria by which DEA-registered 
practitioners may electronically issue controlled substance 
prescriptions; and (2) the criteria by which DEA-registered pharmacies 
may receive and archive these electronic prescriptions.
Bureau of Prisons
    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

[[Page 76567]]

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               RIN                      Title            Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1140-AA40........................  Rules of         ATF has begun a
                                    Practice in      rulemaking process
                                    Explosives       that will lead to
                                    License and      promulgation of a
                                    Permit           revised set of
                                    Proceedings.     regulations
                                                     governing the
                                                     procedure and
                                                     practice for
                                                     disapproval of
                                                     applications for
                                                     explosives licenses
                                                     or permits. This
                                                     new set of
                                                     regulations, 27
                                                     C.F.R. part 771
                                                     will replace the
                                                     regulations
                                                     previously codified
                                                     at 27 C.F.R. part
                                                     71 (2002), many of
                                                     which are outmoded
                                                     and need to be
                                                     revised.
1125-AA71........................  Retrospective    Advance notice of
                                    Regulatory       future rulemaking
                                    Review Under     concerning appeals
                                    E.O. 13563 of    of DHS decisions (8
                                    8 CFR Parts      C.F.R. part 1103),
                                    1003, 1103,      documentary
                                    1211, 1212,      requirements for
                                    1215, 1216,      aliens (8 C.F.R.
                                    1235.            parts 1211 and
                                                     1212), control of
                                                     aliens departing
                                                     from the United
                                                     States (8 C.F.R.
                                                     part 1215),
                                                     procedures
                                                     governing
                                                     conditional
                                                     permanent resident
                                                     status (8 C.F.R.
                                                     part 1216), and
                                                     inspection of
                                                     individuals
                                                     applying for
                                                     admission to the
                                                     United States (8
                                                     C.F.R. part 1235).
                                                     A number of
                                                     attorneys, firms,
                                                     and organizations
                                                     in immigration
                                                     practice are small
                                                     entities. EOIR
                                                     believes this rule
                                                     will improve the
                                                     efficiency and
                                                     fairness of
                                                     adjudications
                                                     before EOIR by, for
                                                     example,
                                                     eliminating
                                                     duplication,
                                                     ensuring
                                                     consistency with
                                                     the Department of
                                                     Homeland Security's
                                                     regulations in
                                                     chapter I of title
                                                     8 of the CFR, and
                                                     delineating more
                                                     clearly the
                                                     authority and
                                                     jurisdiction of
                                                     each agency.
1125-AA78........................  Separate         This rule proposes
                                    Representation   to amend the
                                    for Custody      Executive Office
                                    and Bond         for Immigration
                                    Proceedings.     Review (EOIR)
                                                     regulations
                                                     relating to the
                                                     representation of
                                                     aliens in custody
                                                     and bond
                                                     proceedings.
                                                     Specifically, this
                                                     rule proposes to
                                                     allow a
                                                     representative to
                                                     enter an appearance
                                                     in custody and bond
                                                     proceedings before
                                                     EOIR without
                                                     committing to
                                                     appear on behalf of
                                                     the alien for all
                                                     proceedings before
                                                     the Immigration
                                                     Court.
1117-NYD.........................  Implementation   DEA is continuing to
                                    of the           consider possible
                                    International    changes to its
                                    Trade Data       existing
                                    System.          regulations (e.g.,
                                                     21 CFR 1312.14,
                                                     1312.24) to take
                                                     account of the
                                                     submission of
                                                     import and export
                                                     permits to U.S.
                                                     Customs and Border
                                                     Protection in
                                                     electronic form.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 76568]]

Executive Order 13609--Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation

    The Department is not currently engaged in international regulatory 
cooperation activities that are reasonably anticipated to lead to 
significant regulations.

Executive Order 13659

    Executive Order 13659, ``Streamlining the Export/Import Process for 
America's Businesses,'' provided new directives for agencies to improve 
the technologies, policies, and other controls governing the movement 
of goods across our national borders. This includes additional steps to 
implement the International Trade Data System as an electronic 
information exchange capability, or ``single window,'' through which 
businesses will transmit data required by participating agencies for 
the importation or exportation of cargo.
    At the Department of Justice, stakeholders must obtain pre-import 
and pre-export authorizations from the Drug Enforcement Administration 
(DEA) (relating to controlled substances and listed chemicals), or from 
the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) (relating 
to firearms, ammunition, and explosives). The ITDS ``single window'' 
will work in conjunction with these pre-import and pre-export 
authorizations.
    Pursuant to section 6 of E.O. 13659, DEA and ATF have consulted 
with CBP and are continuing to study whether some modifications or 
technical changes to their existing regulations are needed to achieve 
the goals of E.O. 13659.

DOJ--CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION (CRT)

Proposed Rule Stage

91. Implementation of the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (Section 504 of 
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973)

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: Pub. L. 110-325; 29 U.S.C. 794 (sec 504 of the 
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended); E.O. 12250 (45 FR 72955; 11/
04/1980)
    CFR Citation: 28 CFR 39; 28 CFR 41; 28 CFR 42, subpart G.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract:
    This rule would propose to amend the Department's regulations 
implementing section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 
28 CFR part 39 and part 42, subpart G, and its regulation implementing 
Executive Order 12250, 28 CFR part 41, to reflect statutory amendments 
to the definition of disability applicable to section 504 of the 
Rehabilitation Act, which were enacted in the ADA Amendments Act of 
2008, Public Law 110-325, 122 Stat. 3553 (Sep. 25, 2008). The ADA 
Amendments Act took effect on January 1, 2009.
    The ADA Amendments Act revised 29 U.S.C. 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.
    Statement of Need: This rule is necessary to bring the Department's 
prior section 504 regulations into compliance with the ADA Amendments 
Act of 2008, which became effective on January 1, 2009.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The summary of the legal basis of authority 
for this regulation is set forth above in the abstract.
    Alternatives: Because this NPRM implements statutory changes to the 
section 504 definition of disability, there are no appropriate 
alternatives to issuing this NPRM.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The Department's preliminary 
assessment in this early stage of the rulemaking process is that this 
rule will not be ``economically significant,'' that is, that the rule 
will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million, or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, the environment, public health or safety or State, local or 
tribal Governments or communities. The Department's section 504 rule 
will incorporate the same changes made by the ADA Amendments Act to the 
definition of disability as are included in the proposed changes to the 
ADA title II and title III rules (1190-AA59), which will be published 
in the Federal Register in the near future. Therefore, we do not 
believe that the revisions to the Department's existing section 504 
federally assisted regulations will have any additional economic 
impact, because public and private entities that receive federal 
financial assistance from the Department are also likely to be subject 
to titles II or III of the ADA. The Department expects to consider 
further the economic impact of the proposed rule on the Department's 
existing section 504 federally conducted regulations, but anticipates 
that the rule will not be economically significant within the meaning 
of Executive Order 12866. This is because the revisions to these 
regulations will only apply to the Department's programs and activities 
and how those programs and activities are operated so as to ensure 
compliance with the nondiscrimination requirements of section 504. In 
the NPRM, the Department will be soliciting public comment in response 
to its initial assessment of the impact of the proposed rule.
    Risks: Failure to update the Department's section 504 regulations 
to conform to statutory changes will interfere with the Department's 
enforcement efforts and lead to confusion about the law's requirements 
among entities that receive Federal financial assistance from the 
Department or who participate in its federally conducted programs.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   05/00/15  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions.
    Government Levels Affected: Local, State.
    Federalism: Undetermined.
    Agency Contact: Rebecca B. Bond, Chief, Department of Justice, 
Civil Rights Division, Disability Rights Section, 950 Pennsylvania Ave. 
NW., Washington, DC 20530, Phone: 800 514-0301.
    RIN: 1190-AA60


[[Page 76569]]



DOJ--CRT

92. Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability; Accessibility of Web 
Information and Services of Public Accommodations

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 12101, et seq.
    CFR Citation: 28 CFR 36.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Department of Justice is considering proposed 
revisions to the regulation implementing title III of the Americans 
with Disabilities Act (ADA) in order to address the obligations of 
public accommodations to make goods, services, facilities, privileges, 
accommodations, or advantages they offer via the Internet, specifically 
at sites on the World Wide Web (Web), accessible to individuals with 
disabilities. The ADA requires that public accommodations provide 
individuals with disabilities with full and equal enjoyment of their 
goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and 
accommodations. 42. U.S.C. 12182. The Internet as it is known today did 
not exist when Congress enacted the ADA. Today the Internet, most 
notably the sites on the Web, plays a critical role in the daily 
personal, professional, and business life of most Americans. 
Increasingly, private entities of all types are providing goods and 
services to the public through Web sites that operate as places of 
public accommodation under title III of the ADA. Many Web sites of 
public accommodations, however, render use by individuals with 
disabilities difficult or impossible due to barriers posed by Web sites 
designed without accessible features. 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.
    Statement of Need: Many people with disabilities use ``assistive 
technology'' to enable them to use computers and access the Internet. 
Individuals who are blind or have low vision who cannot see computer 
monitors may use screen readers--devices that speak the text that would 
normally appear on a monitor. People who have difficulty using a 
computer mouse can use voice recognition software to control their 
computers with verbal commands. People with other types of disabilities 
may use still other kinds of assistive technology. New and innovative 
assistive technologies are being introduced every day. 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.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The ADA requires that public accommodations 
provide individuals with disabilities with full and equal enjoyment of 
their goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and 
accommodations. 42. U.S.C. 12182. Increasingly, private entities of all 
types are providing goods and services to the public through Web sites 
that operate as places of public accommodation under title III of the 
ADA.
    Alternatives: The Department intends to consider various 
alternatives for ensuring full access to Web sites of public 
accommodations, including alternative implementation schedules and 
technical requirements applicable to certain Web features or based on a 
covered entity's size. The Department will solicit public comment 
addressing its proposed alternatives.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The Department anticipates that this 
rule will be ``economically significant.'' The Department believes that 
revising its title III rule to clarify the obligations of public 
accommodations to provide accessible Web sites will significantly 
increase the opportunities of individuals with disabilities to access 
the variety of goods and services public accommodations offer on the 
Web, while increasing the number of customers that access the Web sites 
to procure the goods and services offered by these public 
accommodations. In drafting this NPRM, the Department will attempt to 
minimize the compliance costs to public accommodations, while ensuring 
the benefits of compliance to

[[Page 76570]]

persons with disabilities. At this stage in the process, the Department 
is not yet able to provide a preliminary estimate of costs and 
benefits.
    Risks: If the Department does not revise its ADA title III 
regulations to address Web site accessibility, persons with 
disabilities will continue to be unable to access the many goods and 
services of public accommodations available on the Web to individuals 
without disabilities.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM...............................   07/26/10  75 FR 43460
ANPRM Comment Period End............   01/24/11  .......................
NPRM................................   06/00/15  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Additional Information: See also RIN 1190-AA65 which was split from 
this RIN of 1190-AA61.
    Agency Contact: Rebecca B. Bond, Chief, Department of Justice, 
Civil Rights Division, Disability Rights Section, 950 Pennsylvania Ave. 
NW., Washington, DC 20530, Phone: 800 514-0301.
    RIN: 1190-AA61

DOJ--CRT

93. Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability; Movie Captioning and 
Audio Description

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 12101, et seq.
    CFR Citation: 28 CFR 36.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: Following its advance notice of proposed rulemaking 
published on July 26, 2010, the Department plans to publish a proposed 
rule addressing the requirements for captioning and video description 
of movies exhibited in movie theatres under title III of the Americans 
with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). Title III prohibits discrimination 
on the basis of disability in the activities of places of public 
accommodation (private entities whose operations affect commerce and 
that fall into one of twelve categories listed in the ADA). 42 U.S.C. 
12181-12189. Title III makes it unlawful for places of public 
accommodation, such as movie theaters, to discriminate against 
individuals with disabilities in the full and equal enjoyment of the 
goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations 
of a place of public accommodation (42 U.S.C. 12182[a]). Moreover, 
title III prohibits places of public accommodation from affording an 
unequal or lesser service to individuals or classes of individuals with 
disabilities than is offered to other individuals (42 U.S.C. 
12182(b)(1)(A)(ii)). Title III requires places of public accommodation 
to take ``such steps as may be necessary to ensure that no individual 
with a disability is excluded, denied services, segregated or otherwise 
treated differently because of the absence of auxiliary aids and 
services, such as captioning and video description, unless the entity 
can demonstrate that taking such steps would fundamentally alter the 
nature of the good, service, facility, privilege, advantage, or 
accommodation being offered or would result in an undue burden,'' (42 
U.S.C. 12182(b)(2)(A)(iii)).
    Statement of Need: A significant-and increasing-proportion of 
Americans have hearing or vision disabilities that prevent them from 
fully and effectively understanding movies without captioning or audio 
description. For persons with hearing and vision disabilities, the 
unavailability of captioned or audio-described movies inhibits their 
ability to socialize and fully take part in family outings and deprives 
them of the opportunity to meaningfully participate in an important 
aspect of American culture. Many individuals with hearing or vision 
disabilities who commented on the Department's 2010 ANPRM remarked that 
they have not been able to enjoy a commercial movie unless they watched 
it on TV, or that when they took their children to the movies they 
could not understand what they were seeing or discuss what was 
happening with their children. 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.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The summary of the legal basis of authority 
for this regulation is set forth above in the abstract.
    Alternatives: The Department will consider any public comments that 
propose achievable alternatives that will still accomplish the goal of 
providing access to movies for persons with hearing and vision 
disabilities. However, the Department believes that the baseline 
alternative of not providing such access would be inconsistent with the 
provisions of title III of the ADA.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The Department's preliminary 
analysis indicates that the proposed rule would not be ``economically 
significant,'' that is, that the rule will not have an annual effect on 
the economy of $100 million, or adversely affect in a material way the 
economy, a sector of the economy, the environment, public health or 
safety or State, local or tribal governments or communities. In the 
NPRM, the Department will be soliciting public comment in response to 
its preliminary analysis regarding the costs imposed by the rule.
    Risks: Without the proposed changes to the Department's title III 
regulation, persons with hearing and vision disabilities will continue 
to be denied access to movies shown in movie theaters and movie theater 
owners and operators will not understand what they are required to do 
in order to provide auxiliary aids and services to patrons with hearing 
and vision disabilities.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM...............................   07/26/10  75 FR 43467
ANPRM Comment Period End............   01/24/11  .......................
NPRM................................   08/01/14  79 FR 44975
NPRM Comment Period Extended........   09/08/14  79 FR 53146
NPRM Comment Period End.............   09/30/14  .......................
NPRM Extended Comment Period End....   12/01/14  .......................
Final Action........................   09/00/15  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 76571]]

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Rebecca B. Bond, Chief, Department of Justice, 
Civil Rights Division, Disability Rights Section, 950 Pennsylvania Ave. 
NW., Washington, DC 20530, Phone: 800 514-0301.
    RIN: 1190-AA63

DOJ--CRT

94. Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability: Accessibility of Web

Information and Services of State and Local Governments

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 
is undetermined.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.
    CFR Citation: 28 CFR 35.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Department published an ANPRM on July 26, 2010, RIN 
1190-AA61, that addressed issues relating to proposed revisions of both 
the title II and title III ADA regulations in order to provide guidance 
on the obligations of covered entities to make programs, services and 
activities offered over the Web accessible to individuals with 
disabilities. 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.
    Statement of Need: Many people with disabilities use ``assistive 
technology'' to enable them to use computers and access the Internet. 
Individuals who are blind or have low vision who cannot see computer 
monitors may use screen readers--devices that speak the text that would 
normally appear on a monitor. People who have difficulty using a 
computer mouse can use voice recognition software to control their 
computers with verbal commands. People with other types of disabilities 
may use still other kinds of assistive technology. New and innovative 
assistive technologies are being introduced every day.
    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.
    Summary of Legal Basis: 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.
    Alternatives: The Department intends to consider various 
alternatives for ensuring full access to Web sites of State and local 
Governments and will solicit public comment addressing these 
alternatives.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The Department anticipates that this 
rule will be ``economically significant,'' that is, that the rule will 
have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million, or adversely 
affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, the 
environment, public health or safety or State, local or tribal 
Governments or communities. However, the Department believes that 
revising its title II rule to clarify the obligations of State and 
local Governments to provide accessible Web sites will significantly 
increase the opportunities for citizens with disabilities to 
participate in, and benefit from, State and local Government programs, 
activities, and services. It will also ensure that individuals have 
access to important information that is provided over the Internet, 
including emergency information. The Department also believes that 
providing accessible Web sites will benefit State and local Governments 
as it will increase the numbers of citizens who can use these Web 
sites, and thus improve the efficiency of delivery of services to the 
public. In drafting this NPRM, the Department will attempt to minimize 
the compliance costs to State and local Governments while ensuring the 
benefits of compliance to persons with disabilities.

[[Page 76572]]

    Risks: If the Department does not revise its ADA title II 
regulations to address Web site accessibility, persons with 
disabilities in many communities will continue to be unable to access 
their State and local governmental services in the same manner 
available to citizens without disabilities, and in some cases will not 
be able to access those services at all.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM...............................   07/26/10  75 FR 43460
ANPRM Comment Period End............   01/21/11  .......................
NPRM................................   12/00/14  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Small Entities Affected: Governmental Jurisdictions.
    Government Levels Affected: Local, State.
    Federalism: Undetermined.
    Additional Information: Split from RIN 1190-AA61.
    Agency Contact: Rebecca B. Bond, Chief, Department of Justice, 
Civil Rights Division, Disability Rights Section, 950 Pennsylvania Ave. 
NW., Washington, DC 20530, Phone: 800 514-0301.
    RIN: 1190-AA65

DOJ--CRT

Final Rule Stage

95. Implementation of the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (Title II and 
Title III of The ADA)

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: Pub. L. 110-325; 42 U.S.C. 12134(a); 42 U.S.C. 
12186(b)
    CFR Citation: 28 CFR 35; 28 CFR 36.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This rule would propose to amend the Department's 
regulations implementing title II and title III of the Americans with 
Disabilities Act (ADA), 28 CFR part 35 and 28 CFR part 36, to implement 
changes to the ADA enacted in the ADA Amendments Act of 2008, Public 
Law 110-325, 122 Stat. 3553 (Sept. 25, 2008). The ADA Amendments Act 
took effect on January 1, 2009.
    The ADA Amendments Act amended the Americans with Disabilities Act, 
42 U.S.C. 12101, et seq., to clarify terms within the definition of 
disability and to establish standards that must be applied to determine 
if a person has a covered disability. These changes are intended to 
mitigate the effects of the Supreme Court's decisions in Sutton v. 
United Airlines, 527 U.S. 471 (1999), and Toyota Motor Manufacturing v. 
Williams, 534, U.S. 184 (2002). Specifically, the ADA Amendments Act 
(1) adds 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) clarifies 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) 
adds 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]).
    Statement of Need: This rule is necessary to bring the Department's 
ADA regulations into compliance with the ADA Amendments Act of 2008, 
which became effective on January 1, 2009. In addition, this rule is 
necessary to make the Department's ADA title II and title III 
regulations consistent with the ADA title I regulations issued on March 
25, 2011 by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) 
incorporating the ADA Amendments Act definition of disability.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The summary of the legal basis of authority 
for this regulation is set forth above in the abstract.
    Alternatives: In order to ensure consistency in application of the 
ADA Amendments Act across titles I, II and III of the ADA, this rule is 
intended to be consistent with the language of the EEOC's rule 
implementing the ADA Amendments Act with respect to title I of the ADA 
(employment). The Department will, however, consider alternative 
regulatory language suggested by commenters so long as it maintains 
that consistency.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
    The Department's preliminary analysis indicates that the proposed 
rule would not be ``economically significant,'' that is, the rule will 
not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million, or adversely 
affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, the 
environment, public health or safety or State, local or tribal 
governments or communities. According to the Department's preliminary 
analysis, it is anticipated that the rule will cost between $36.32 
million and $61.8 million in the first year (the year with the highest 
costs). The Department estimates that in the first year of the 
implementation of the proposed rule, approximately 142,000 students 
will take advantage of additional testing accommodations than otherwise 
would have been able to without the changes made to the definition of 
disability to conform to the ADA Amendments Act. The Department 
believes that this will result in benefits for many of these 
individuals in the form of significantly higher earnings potential. The 
Department expects that the rule will also have significant non-
quantifiable benefits to persons with newly covered disabilities in 
other contexts, such as benefits of non-exclusion from the programs, 
services and activities of State and local governments and public 
accommodations, and the benefits of access to reasonable modifications 
of policies, practices and procedures to meet their needs in a variety 
of contexts. In this NPRM, the Department will be soliciting public 
comment in response to its preliminary analysis.
    Risks: The ADA authorizes the Attorney General to enforce the ADA 
and to promulgate regulations implementing the law's requirements. 
Failure to update the Department's regulations to conform to statutory 
changes and to be consistent with the EEOC regulations under title I of 
the ADA will interfere with the Department's enforcement efforts and 
lead to confusion about the law's requirements among entities covered 
by titles I, II and III of the ADA, as well as members of the public.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   01/30/14  79 FR 4839
NPRM Comment Period End.............   03/31/14
Final Action........................   03/00/15
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions.
    Government Levels Affected: Local, State.
    Agency Contact: Rebecca B. Bond, Chief, Department of Justice, 
Civil Rights Division, Disability Rights Section, 950 Pennsylvania Ave. 
NW., Washington, DC 20530, Phone: 800 514-0301.
    RIN: 1190-AA59
BILLING CODE 4410-BP-P


[[Page 76573]]



U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Fall 2014 Statement of Regulatory Priorities

Introduction

    For over 100 years, the U.S. Department of Labor has been central 
to safeguarding and expanding the American Dream for America's working 
families. The Department's Fall 2014 Regulatory Agenda is driven by a 
commitment to the basic bargain of America--if you work hard and play 
by the rules and take responsibility for yourself and your family, you 
can succeed in and climb the rungs of the middle class. There are many 
components to Secretary Thomas E. Perez's opportunity agenda that are 
reflected in the Department's regulatory agenda:
     training more people, including veterans and people with 
disabilities, to have the skills they need for the in-demand jobs of 
the 21st century;
     ensuring that people have the peace of mind that comes 
with access to health care, retirement, and Federal workers' 
compensation benefits when they need them;
     safeguarding a fair day's pay for a fair day's work for 
all hardworking Americans, regardless of race, gender, religion, sexual 
orientation, or gender identity;
     giving workers a voice in their workplaces; and
     protecting the safety and health of workers so they do not 
have to risk their lives for a paycheck.
    The values embodied in the Department's regulatory agenda are 
America's values. In developing the Department's regulatory agenda, 
with a focus on strengthening our economy, the Department has sought 
input and expertise from a broad cross section of American society, 
including business leaders, workers, labor organizations, academics and 
state and local officials. Expanding opportunity benefits all of us. 
When the middle class is strong, our nation is strong.
    The Fall 2014 Regulatory Agenda reflects the Department's 
commitment to rebuilding this strength through expanding opportunity.

The Department's Regulatory Priorities

    The Department of Labor 2014 Regulatory Plan highlights the most 
noteworthy and significant regulatory projects that will be undertaken 
by its regulatory agencies: the Employee Benefits Security 
Administration (EBSA), Employment and Training Administration (ETA), 
Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), Office of Federal 
Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP), Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration (OSHA), Office of Labor-Management Standards (OLMS), 
Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (OWCP), Veterans' Employment 
Service (VETS), and Wage and Hour Division (WHD). The initiatives and 
priorities listed in the regulatory plan exemplify the five components 
of the Secretary's opportunity agenda.

Training More People for Twenty-First Century Jobs

    The Department's regulatory priorities reflect the Secretary's 
vision for a demand-driven workforce investment system that serves the 
needs of businesses and workers alike. For example:
     ETA seeks to develop and issue a Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (NPRM) that implements the important changes made to the 
public workforce system by the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act 
(WIOA) (Pub. L. 113-128), which was signed by the President on July 22, 
2014, replacing the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA). This NPRM 
will help the Department implement WIOA, empowering the public 
workforce system and its partners to increase employment, retention, 
and earnings of participants, meet the skill requirements of employers, 
and enhance the productivity and competitiveness of the nation.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (RIN: 1205-AB73).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     ETA also proposes to update the National Apprenticeship 
Act of 1937's equal opportunity regulations, which prohibit 
discrimination in registered apprenticeship on the basis of race, 
color, religion, national origin, and sex, and which require that 
program sponsors take affirmative action to provide equal opportunity. 
Most notably, the proposed rule would update equal opportunity 
standards to include age (40 and older) and disability among the list 
of protected bases. It would also strengthen the affirmative action 
provisions by detailing mandatory actions that sponsors must take, and 
by requiring affirmative action for individuals with disabilities.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Equal Employment Opportunity in Apprenticeship Amendment of 
Regulations (RIN: 1205-AB59).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ensuring Access to Health Care, Retirement, and Workers' Compensation 
Benefits

    The Department is pursuing a regulatory program that is designed to 
safeguard the retirement security of participants and beneficiaries by 
protecting their rights and benefits under pension plans and by 
encouraging, fostering, and promoting openness, transparency, and 
communication with respect to the management and operations of such 
plans. Examples include:
     EBSA's rulemaking to help assure workers' retirement 
security by reducing harmful conflicts of interest in the retirement 
savings marketplace so that the millions of plan sponsors, workers, and 
retirees get the impartial advice they have a right to expect when they 
rely on an adviser to help them invest their retirement savings. The 
regulation would clarify the circumstances under which a person will be 
considered a ``fiduciary'' when providing investment advice related to 
retirement plans, individual retirement accounts, and other employee 
benefit plans, and to participants, beneficiaries, and owners of such 
plans and accounts.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Conflict of Interest Rule: Investment Advice (RIN: 1210-
AB32).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     EBSA continues to pursue initiatives to encourage the 
offering of lifetime annuities or similar lifetime benefit distribution 
options for participants and beneficiaries of defined contribution 
plans. EBSA is developing a proposal relating to the presentation of a 
participant's accrued benefits (account balance) as a lifetime income 
stream of payments.\4\ EBSA is also developing proposed amendments to a 
safe harbor regulation that will provide plan fiduciaries with more 
certainty that they have discharged their obligations under section 
404(a)(1)(B) of ERISA in selecting an annuity plan provider and 
contract for benefit distributions from an individual account 
retirement plan.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Pension Benefit Statement (RIN 1210-AB20).
    \5\ Selection of Annuity Providers--Safe Harbor for Individual 
Account Plans (RIN: 1201-AB58).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EBSA's regulatory program also includes initiatives involving 
Annual Funding Notices \6\ and Standards for Brokerage Windows.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ (RIN: 1210-AB18).
    \7\ (RIN: 1210-AB59).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, 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.

[[Page 76574]]

    The Department also pursues regulations to ensure that Federal 
workers' compensation benefits programs are fairly administered:
     OWCP plans to propose several modifications and 
clarifications to the regulations implementing the Black Lung Benefits 
Act, including a rule that addresses claimants' and coal mine 
operators' responsibility to disclose medical evidence developed in 
connection with a claim for benefits. In addition, the proposed 
regulation would make several clarifications regarding reimbursement 
rates for medical treatment, the modification procedure, evidence-
submission limits, and compensation payments.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Black Lung Benefits Act: Medical Evidence and Benefit 
Payments (RIN: 1240-AA10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Safeguarding Fair Pay for All Americans

    The Department's regulatory agenda prioritizes ensuring that all 
Americans receive a fair day's pay for a fair day's work, and are not 
discriminated against with respect to hiring, employment, or benefits 
on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, or gender identity. 
For example, WHD recently published a Final Rule to implement Executive 
Order 13658, which the President signed in February 2014 to ensure that 
certain Federal contractors pay a minimum wage of at least $10.10 per 
hour beginning on January 1, 2015. Other notable proposals include:
     WHD plans to publish an NPRM proposing revisions to the 
Fair Labor Standards Act's (FLSA's) overtime exemptions as directed by 
a March 2014 Presidential Memorandum. The FLSA generally requires 
covered employers to pay their employees at least the Federal minimum 
wage for all hours worked, and one-and-one-half times their regular 
rate of pay for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek 
(``overtime''). However, there are a number of exemptions from the 
FLSA's minimum wage and overtime requirements, including an exemption 
for bona fide executive, administrative, or professional employees. The 
President's Memorandum directed the Secretary to modernize and 
streamline the existing overtime regulations for these ``white collar'' 
employees to ensure that hardworking middle-class workers are not 
denied overtime protections that Congress intended.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Defining and Delimiting the Exemptions for Executive, 
Administrative, Professional, Outside Sales, and Computer Employees 
(RIN: 1235-AA11).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     WHD also plans to publish a Final Rule revising the 
definition of ``spouse'' in the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) in 
light of the United States Supreme Court's decision in United States v. 
Windsor. This Department previously issued an NPRM proposing that 
eligible employees in legal same-sex marriages may take unpaid, job-
protected leave to care for their spouse or family member, regardless 
of whether their state of residence recognizes their same-sex 
marriage.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, as amended (RIN: 
1235-AA09).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     OFCCP's rulemaking implementing Executive Order 13672, 
signed by the President in July 2014 to amend Executive Order 11246, 
ensures that Federal contractors do not engage in hiring or employment 
discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. The 
Executive Order required the Department to prepare regulations within 
90 days of the date of the Order to insert ``sexual orientation, gender 
identity'' into identified paragraphs of section 2 of Executive Order 
11246.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Implementation of Executive Order 13672 Prohibiting 
Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity by 
Contractors and Subcontractors (RIN: 1250-AA07).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     OFCCP plans to issue a Final Rule pursuant to a 
Presidential Memorandum directing the Department to require Federal 
contractors and subcontractors to submit summary data on the 
compensation paid to their employees. The use of this sort of ``Equal 
Pay Report'' is one component of a larger strategy to address the 
reality that, despite five decades of extraordinary legal and social 
progress, working women still earn only 78 cents for every dollar that 
working men earn, and the amount is even less for African American 
women and Latinas. The new rule will enable OFCCP to direct its 
enforcement resources toward Federal contractors whose summary data 
indicate potential pay disparities, while reducing the likelihood of 
reviewing companies that are in compliance with anti-discrimination 
laws.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Requirement to Report Summary Data on Employee Compensation 
(RIN: 1250-AA03).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OFCCP also continues to pursue an initiative on Construction 
Contractor Affirmative Action Requirements.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ (RIN: 1250-AA01).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Giving Workers a Voice in Their Workplaces

    The Department's regulatory program also promotes policies that 
give workers a voice in their workplaces, including by ensuring that 
workers have information that is critical to their effective 
participation in the workplace. Two key examples include:
     OFCCP plans to issue a Final Rule implementing Executive 
Order 13665, which the President signed on April 8, 2014, prohibiting 
discrimination by Federal contractors and subcontractors against 
certain of their employees for disclosing compensation information. 
This Executive Order was intended to address policies inhibiting 
workers' ability to advocate for themselves about their pay and 
prohibiting employee conversations about compensation. Such policies 
can serve as a significant barrier to Federal enforcement of the laws 
against compensation discrimination.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Prohibitions Against Pay Secrecy Policies and Actions (RIN: 
1250-AA06).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     OLMS plans to publish a Final Rule following an NPRM that 
proposed regulations to better implement the public disclosure 
objectives of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA) 
in situations where an employer engages a consultant in order to 
persuade employees concerning their rights to organize and bargain 
collectively. Workers are better able to make an informed choice about 
representation when they have the necessary information about 
arrangements that have been made by their employer to persuade them 
whether or not to form, join, or assist a union. While the LMRDA 
requires employers to file reports of any agreement or arrangement with 
a consultant to persuade employees concerning their rights to organize 
and collectively bargain, the statute provides an exception for 
consultants giving or agreeing to give ``advice'' to the employer. The 
Department's NPRM reconsidered the current policy concerning the scope 
of the ``advice'' exception.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Persuader Agreements: Employer and Labor Relations 
Consultant Reporting Under the LMRDA (RIN: 1245-AA03).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Protecting the Safety and Health of Workers

    The Department's regulatory agenda prioritizes efforts to protect 
the safety and health of workers so they do not have to risk their 
lives for a paycheck. These efforts encompass protecting workers in all 
workplaces, including above- and below-ground coal and metal/nonmetal 
mines, in addition to efforts to ensure that benefits programs are 
available to workers and their families when they are injured on the 
job. Notable examples of these efforts include:
     OSHA continues to pursue regulations aimed at curbing lung 
cancer, silicosis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and kidney 
disease in America's workers by lowering worker exposure to crystalline 
silica, which kills hundreds and sickens thousands more each year. OSHA

[[Page 76575]]

estimates that the proposed rule would ultimately save nearly 700 lives 
and prevent 1,600 new cases of silicosis annually. After publishing a 
proposed rule in September 2013, OSHA received over 1,700 comments from 
the public on the proposed rule, and over 200 stakeholders provided 
testimony during public hearings on the proposal. In the coming months, 
the agency will review and consider the evidence in the rulemaking 
record. Based upon this review, OSHA will determine an appropriate 
course of action with regard to workplace exposure to respirable 
crystalline silica.\16\ As a part of the Secretary's strategy for 
securing safe and healthy work environments, MSHA will utilize 
information provided by OSHA to undertake regulatory action related to 
silica exposure in mines.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Occupational Exposure to Crystalline Silica (RIN: 1218-
AB70).
    \17\ Respirable Crystalline Silica Standard (RIN: 1219-AB36).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     OSHA is considering the need for regulatory action to 
address the risk to workers exposed to infectious diseases in 
healthcare and other related high-risk environments. Especially given 
recent events necessitating the careful treatment of individuals with 
life-threatening infectious diseases, OSHA is concerned about the risk 
posed to healthcare workers with the movement of healthcare delivery 
from the traditional hospital setting into more diverse and smaller 
workplace settings. The Agency initiated the Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) Panel process in the spring of 
2014.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Infectious Diseases (RIN: 1218-AC46).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     OSHA is developing a Final Rule exploring a requirement 
for employers to electronically submit data required by agency 
regulations governing the Recording and Reporting of Occupational 
Injuries. An updated and modernized reporting system would enable a 
more efficient and timely collection of data and would improve the 
accuracy and availability of relevant records and statistics, in 
addition to leveraging data already maintained electronically by many 
large employers.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Improve Tracking of Workplace Injuries and Illnesses (RIN: 
1218-AC49).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     MSHA plans to issue a Final Rule that would build upon a 
proposed rule to address the danger that miners face when working near 
continuous mining machines in underground coal mines. From 1984 through 
2014, there have been 35 fatalities resulting from pinning, crushing or 
striking accidents involving continuous mining machines--the types of 
accidents that proximity detection technology can prevent. The proposed 
rule would reduce the potential for such hazards.\20\ MSHA also plans 
to publish a proposed rule that would require underground mine 
operators to equip certain mobile machines with proximity detection 
systems.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Proximity Detection Systems for Continuous Mining Machines 
in Underground Coal Mines (RIN: 1219-AB65).
    \21\ Proximity Detection Systems for Mobile Machines in 
Underground Mines (RIN: 1219-AB78).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OSHA's regulatory program also includes initiatives involving 
Injury and Illness Prevention Programs,\22\ Occupational Exposure to 
Beryllium,\23\ Preventing Backover Injuries and Fatalities,\24\ and 
various Whistleblower regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ (RIN: 1218-AC48).
    \23\ (RIN: 1218-AB76).
    \24\ (RIN: 1218-AC51).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regulatory Review and Burden Reduction

    On January 18, 2011, the President issued Executive Order (E.O.) 
13563 entitled ``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review.'' The E.O. 
aims to strike the right balance between protecting the health, 
welfare, safety, and the environment for all Americans--a goal at the 
core of the Labor Department's mission--while fostering economic 
growth, job creation, and competitiveness. The Department's Fall 2014 
Regulatory Agenda also aims to achieve more efficient and less 
burdensome regulations through a retrospective review of the Labor 
Department regulations.
    In August 2011, as part of a governmentwide response to E.O. 13563, 
the Department published its ``Plan for Retrospective Analysis of 
Existing Rules.'' This plan, and each subsequent update, can be found 
at www.dol.gov/regulations/. The Department's Fall 2014 Agenda includes 
12 retrospective review projects, which are listed below pursuant to 
section 6 of E.O. 13563. More information about completed rulemakings 
no longer included in the plan can be found on Reginfo.gov.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  Whether it is expected to
       Agency           Regulatory Identifier       Title of rulemaking        significantly reduce burdens on
                                 No.                                                   small businesses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EBSA................  1210-AB47...............  Amendment of Abandoned Plan  Yes.
                                                 Program.
EBSA................  1210-AB63...............  21st Century Initiative to   No.
                                                 Modernize the Form 5500
                                                 Series and Implementing
                                                 and Related Regulations.
ETA.................  1205-AB59...............  Equal Employment             To Be Determined.
                                                 Opportunity in
                                                 Apprenticeship and
                                                 Training, Amendment of
                                                 Regulations.
ETA.................  1205-AB62...............  Implementation of Total      No.
                                                 Unemployment Rate Extended
                                                 Benefits Trigger and
                                                 Rounding Rule.
MSHA................  1219-AB72...............  Criteria and Procedures for  To Be Determined.
                                                 Proposed Assessment of
                                                 Civil Penalties (Part 100).
OFCCP...............  1250-AA05...............  Sex Discrimination           To Be Determined.
                                                 Guidelines.
OSHA................  1218-AC34...............  Bloodborne Pathogens.......  No.
OSHA................  1218-AC67...............  Standard Improvement         Yes.
                                                 Project_Phase IV (SIP IV).
OSHA................  1218-AC74...............  Review/Lookback of OSHA      To Be Determined.
                                                 Chemical Standards.
OSHA................  1218-AC81...............  Cranes and Derricks in       To Be Determined.
                                                 Construction: Amendments.
OSHA................  1218-AC82...............  Process Safety Management    To Be Determined.
                                                 and Flammable Liquids.
OSHA................  1218-AC49...............  Improve Tracking of          To Be Determined.
                                                 Workplace Injuries and
                                                 Illnesses.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



[[Page 76576]]

DOL--EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING ADMINISTRATION (ETA)

Proposed Rule Stage

96.  Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act

    Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 
undetermined.
    Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
    Legal Authority: sec 503(f) of the Workforce Innovation and 
Opportunity Act (Pub. L. 113-128)
    CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
    Legal Deadline: NPRM, Statutory, January 18, 2015, Public Law 113-
128.
    Final, Statutory, January 18, 2016.
    Abstract: On July 22, 2014, the President signed the Workforce 
Innovation Opportunity Act (WIOA) (Pub. L. 113-128). WIOA repeals the 
Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA). (29 U.S.C. 2801 et seq.) The 
Department of Labor must develop and issue a Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (NPRM) that proposes to implement the changes WIOA makes to 
the public workforce system in regulations. Through the NPRM, the 
Department will propose ways to carry out the purposes of WIOA to 
provide workforce investment activities, through State and local 
workforce development systems, that increase employment, retention, and 
earnings of participants, meet the skill requirements of employers, and 
enhance the productivity and competitiveness of the Nation.
    Statement of Need: On July 22, 2014, the President signed the 
Workforce Innovation Opportunity Act (WIOA) (Pub. L. 113-128) into law. 
WIOA repeals the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA) (29 U.S.C. 2801 
et seq.) As a result, the WIA regulations no longer reflect current law 
and we must change. Therefore, the Department of Labor seeks to develop 
and issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that proposes to 
implement the WIOA.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The Workforce Innovation Opportunity Act 
(WIOA) (Pub. L. 113-128), signed by the President on July 22, 2014. 
Section 503(f) of WIOA requires that the Department issue a Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) and then Final Rule that implements the 
changes WIOA makes to the public workforce system in regulations.
    Alternatives: Since Congress statutorily directed the Department of 
Labor to issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) and Final Rule 
that implements the changes WIOA makes to the public workforce system 
there is no alternative.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Undetermined.
    Risks: Undetermined.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   01/00/15
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, 
Organizations.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State, Tribal.
    Federalism: This action may have federalism implications as defined 
in EO 13132.
    Agency Contact: Portia Wu, Assistant Secretary for Employment and 
Training, Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, 
200 Constitution Avenue NW., FP Building, Washington, DC 20210, Phone: 
202 639-2700.
    RIN: 1205-AB73

DOL--MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION (MSHA)

Proposed Rule Stage

97. Respirable Crystalline Silica

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 30 U.S.C. 811
    CFR Citation: 30 CFR 58.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: Current standards limit exposures to quartz (crystalline 
silica) in respirable dust. The metal and nonmetal mining industry 
standard is based on the 1973 American Conference of Governmental 
Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) Threshold Limit Values formula: 10 mg/m3 
divided by the percentage of quartz plus 2. Overexposure to crystalline 
silica can result in some miners developing silicosis, an irreversible 
but preventable lung disease, which ultimately may be fatal. The 
formula is designed to limit exposures to 0.1 mg/m3 (100 ug/m3) of 
silica. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 
(NIOSH) recommends a 50 ug/m3 exposure limit for respirable crystalline 
silica. MSHA will publish a proposed rule to address miners' exposure 
to respirable crystalline silica.
    Statement of Need: MSHA standards are outdated; current regulations 
may not protect workers from developing silicosis. Evidence indicates 
that miners continue to develop silicosis. MSHA's proposed regulatory 
action exemplifies the Agency's commitment to protecting the most 
vulnerable populations while assuring broad-based compliance. MSHA will 
regulate based on sound science to eliminate or reduce the hazards with 
the broadest and most serious consequences. MSHA intends to use OSHA's 
work on the health effects and risk assessment, adapting it as 
necessary for the mining industry.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Promulgation of this standard is authorized 
by section 101 of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977.
    Alternatives: This rulemaking would improve health protection from 
that afforded by the existing standards. MSHA will consider alternative 
methods of addressing miners' exposures based on the capabilities of 
the sampling and analytical methods.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: MSHA will prepare estimates of the 
anticipated costs and benefits associated with the proposed rule.
    Risks: For over 70 years, toxicology information and 
epidemiological studies have shown that exposure to respirable 
crystalline silica presents potential health risks to miners. These 
potential adverse health effects include simple silicosis and 
progressive massive fibrosis (lung scarring). Evidence indicates that 
exposure to silica may cause cancer. MSHA believes that the health 
evidence forms a reasonable basis for reducing miners' exposures to 
respirable crystalline silica.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   10/00/15
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

DOL--MSHA

98. Criteria and Procedures for Proposed Assessment of Civil Penalties

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 30 U.S.C. 815; 30 U.S.C. 820; 30 U.S.C. 957

[[Page 76577]]

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   07/31/14  79 FR 44494
NPRM Comment Period End.............   09/29/14  .......................
NPRM Comment Period Extended........   09/16/14  79 FR 55408
NPRM Comment Period Extended End....   12/03/14  .......................
NPRM Notice of Public Hearings,        11/07/14  79 FR 66345
 Close of Comment Period.
NPRM Notice of Public Hearings,        01/09/15  .......................
 Close of Comment Period End.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

DOL--MSHA

99. Proximity Detection Systems for Mobile Machines in Underground 
Mines

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Request for Information.............   02/01/10  75 FR 5009
RFI Comment Period Ended............   04/02/10  .......................
NPRM................................   01/00/15  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    URL for More Information: www.msha.gov/regsinfo.htm.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Sheila McConnell, Acting Director, Office of 
Standards,

[[Page 76578]]

Regulations, and Variances, Department of Labor, Mine Safety and Health 
Administration, 1100 Wilson Boulevard, Room 2350, Arlington, VA 22209, 
Phone: 202 693-9440, Fax: 202 693-9441, Email: 
[email protected].
    Related RIN: Related to 1219-AB65
    RIN: 1219-AB78

DOL--MSHA

Final Rule Stage

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

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

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

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

DOL--OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION (OSHA)

Prerule Stage

101. Infectious Diseases

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

[[Page 76579]]

    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Request for Information (RFI).......   05/06/10  75 FR 24835
RFI Comment Period End..............   08/04/10  .......................
Analyze Comments....................   12/30/10  .......................
Stakeholder Meetings................   07/29/11  .......................
Initiate SBREFA.....................   06/04/14  .......................
Complete SBREFA.....................   12/00/14  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions.
    Government Levels Affected: Local, State.
    Federalism: Undetermined.
    Agency Contact: William Perry, Director, Directorate of Standards 
and Guidance, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N-3718, Washington, 
DC 20210, Phone: 202 693-1950, Fax: 202 693-1678, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 1218-AC46

DOL--OSHA

Proposed Rule Stage

102. Occupational Exposure to Crystalline Silica

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Unfunded Mandates: This action may affect the private sector under 
Pub. L. 104-4.
    Legal Authority: 29 U.S.C. 655(b); 29 U.S.C. 657
    CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910; 29 CFR 1915; 29 CFR 1917; 29 CFR 1918; 
29 CFR 1926.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: Crystalline silica is a significant component of the 
earth's crust, and many workers in a wide range of industries are 
exposed to it, usually in the form of respirable quartz or, less 
frequently, cristobalite. Chronic silicosis is a uniquely occupational 
disease resulting from exposure of employees over long periods of time 
(10 years or more). Exposure to high levels of respirable crystalline 
silica causes acute or accelerated forms of silicosis that are 
ultimately fatal. The current OSHA permissible exposure limit (PEL) for 
general industry is based on a formula proposed by the American 
Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) in 1968 (PEL = 
10mg/cubic meter/(% silica + 2), as respirable dust). The current PEL 
for construction and shipyards (derived from ACGIH's 1970 Threshold 
Limit Value) is based on particle counting technology, which is 
considered obsolete. NIOSH and ACGIH recommend 50[mu]g/m3 and 25[mu]g/
m3 exposure limits, respectively, for respirable crystalline silica.
    Both industry and worker groups have recognized that a 
comprehensive standard for crystalline silica is needed to provide for 
exposure monitoring, medical surveillance, and worker training. ASTM 
International has published recommended standards for addressing the 
hazards of crystalline silica. The Building Construction Trades 
Department of the AFL-CIO has also developed a recommended 
comprehensive program standard. These standards include provisions for 
methods of compliance, exposure monitoring, training, and medical 
surveillance.
    The NPRM was published on September 12, 2013. OSHA received over 
1,700 comments from the public on the proposed rule, and over 200 
stakeholders provided testimony during public hearings on the proposal. 
In the coming months, the agency will review and consider the evidence 
in the rulemaking record. Based upon this review, OSHA will determine 
an appropriate course of action with regard to workplace exposure to 
respirable crystalline silica.
    Statement of Need: Workers are exposed to crystalline silica dust 
in general industry, construction, and maritime industries. Industries 
that could be particularly affected by a standard for crystalline 
silica include: Foundries, industries that have abrasive blasting 
operations, paint manufacture, glass and concrete product manufacture, 
brick making, china and pottery manufacture, manufacture of plumbing 
fixtures, and many construction activities including highway repair, 
masonry, concrete work, rock drilling, and tuckpointing. The 
seriousness of the health hazards associated with silica exposure is 
demonstrated by the fatalities and disabling illnesses that continue to 
occur. From 2006 to 2010 silicosis was identified on 617 death 
certificates as an underlying or contributing cause of death. It is 
likely that many more cases have occurred where silicosis went 
undetected. In addition, the International Agency for Research on 
Cancer has designated crystalline silica as carcinogenic to humans, and 
the National Toxicology Program has concluded that respirable 
crystalline silica is a known human carcinogen. Exposure to crystalline 
silica has also been associated with an increased risk of developing 
tuberculosis and other nonmalignant respiratory diseases, as well as 
renal and autoimmune diseases. Exposure studies and OSHA enforcement 
data indicate that some workers continue to be exposed to levels of 
crystalline silica far in excess of current exposure limits. Congress 
has included compensation of silicosis victims on Federal nuclear 
testing sites in the Energy Employees' Occupational Illness 
Compensation Program Act of 2000. There is a particular need for the 
Agency to modernize its exposure limits for construction and shipyard 
workers.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The legal basis for the proposed rule is a 
preliminary determination that workers are exposed to a significant 
risk of silicosis and other serious disease, and that rulemaking is 
needed to substantially reduce the risk. In addition, the proposed rule 
will recognize that the PELs for construction and maritime are 
outdated, and need to be revised to reflect current sampling and 
analytical technologies.
    Alternatives: Over the past several years, the Agency has attempted 
to address this problem through a variety of non-regulatory approaches, 
including initiation of a Special Emphasis Program on silica in October 
1997, sponsorship with NIOSH and MSHA of the National Conference to 
Eliminate Silicosis, and dissemination of guidance information on its 
Web site.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The scope of the proposed rulemaking 
and estimates of the costs and benefits are still under development.
    Risks: A detailed risk analysis is under way.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Completed SBREFA Report.............   12/19/03  .......................
Initiated Peer Review of Health        05/22/09  .......................
 Effects and Risk Assessment.
Completed Peer Review...............   01/24/10  .......................
NPRM................................   09/12/13  78 FR 56274
NPRM Comment Period Extended; Notice   10/31/13  78 FR 65242
 of Intention to Appear at Pub
 Hearing; Scheduling Pub Hearing.
NPRM Comment Period Extended........   01/29/14  79 FR 4641

[[Page 76580]]

 
Informal Public Hearing.............   03/18/14  .......................
Post Hearing Briefs Ends............   08/18/14  .......................
Analyze Comments....................   06/00/15  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State, Tribal.
    Federalism: This action may have federalism implications as defined 
in E.O. 13132.
    Agency Contact: William Perry, Director, Directorate of Standards 
and Guidance, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N-3718, Washington, 
DC 20210, Phone: 202 693-1950, Fax: 202 693-1678, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 1218-AB70

DOL--OSHA

Final Rule Stage

103. Improve Tracking of Workplace Injuries and Illnesses

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stakeholder Meetings................   05/25/10  75 FR 24505
Comment Period End..................   06/18/10  .......................
NPRM................................   11/08/13  78 FR 67253
Notice of Public Meeting............   11/15/13  78 FR 68782
Public Meeting......................   01/09/13  .......................
NPRM Comment Period Reopened........   08/14/14  79 FR 47605
NPRM Comment Period End.............   10/14/14  .......................
Final Rule..........................   08/00/15  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Francis Yebesi, Acting Director, Directorate of 
Evaluation and Analysis, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and 
Health Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., FP Bld, Rm N-3641, 
Washington, DC 20210, Phone: 202 693-2400, Fax: 202 693-1641, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 1218-AC49
BILLING CODE 4510-04-P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (DOT)

Introduction: Department Overview and Summary of Regulatory Priorities

    The Department of Transportation (DOT) consists of 9 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 writes regulations to 
carry out a variety of statutes ranging from the Americans With 
Disabilities Act to the Uniform Time Act. Finally, DOT develops and 
implements a wide range of regulations that govern internal DOT 
programs such as acquisitions and grants, access for the disabled, 
environmental protection, energy conservation, information technology, 
occupational safety and health, property asset management, seismic 
safety, and the use of aircraft and vehicles.

The Department's Regulatory Priorities

    The Department's regulatory priorities respond to the challenges 
and opportunities we face. Our mission generally is as follows:
    The national objectives of general welfare, economic growth and 
stability, and the security of the United States require the 
development of transportation policies and programs that contribute to 
providing fast, safe, efficient, and convenient transportation at the 
lowest cost consistent with those and other national objectives, 
including the efficient use and conservation of the resources of the 
United States.
    To help us achieve our mission, we have five 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.''
     Quality of Life: Foster 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.

[[Page 76581]]

     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 17 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 
Logging Devices 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's Regulatory Philosophy and Initiatives
    The Department has adopted a regulatory philosophy that applies to 
all its rulemaking activities. This philosophy is articulated as 
follows: DOT regulations must be clear, simple, timely, fair, 
reasonable, and necessary. They will be issued only after an 
appropriate opportunity for public comment, which must provide an equal 
chance for all affected interests to participate, and after appropriate 
consultation with other governmental entities. The Department will 
fully consider the comments received. It will assess the risks 
addressed by the rules and their costs and benefits, including the 
cumulative effects. The Department will consider appropriate 
alternatives, including nonregulatory approaches. It will also make 
every effort to ensure that regulation does not impose unreasonable 
mandates.
    The Department stresses the importance of conducting high-quality 
rulemakings in a timely manner and reducing the number of old 
rulemakings. To implement this, the Department has required the 
following actions: (1) Regular meetings of senior DOT officials to 
ensure effective policy leadership and timely decisions, (2) effective 
tracking and coordination of rulemakings, (3) regular reporting, (4) 
early briefings of interested officials, (5) regular training of staff, 
and (6) adequate allocations of resources. The Department has achieved 
significant success because of this effort. It allows the Department to 
use its resources more effectively and efficiently.
    The Department's regulatory policies and procedures provide a 
comprehensive internal management and review process for new and 
existing regulations and ensure that the Secretary and other 
appropriate appointed officials review and concur in all significant 
DOT rules. DOT continually seeks to improve its regulatory process. A 
few examples include: The Department's development of regulatory 
process and related training courses for its employees; 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 (http://www.dot.gov/regulations); and the continued 
exploration and use of Internet blogs and other Web 2.0 technology to 
increase and enhance public participation in its rulemaking process.
    In addition, the Department continues to engage in a wide variety 
of activities to help cement the partnerships between its agencies and 
its customers that will produce good results for transportation 
programs and safety. The Department's agencies also have established a 
number of continuing partnership mechanisms in the form of rulemaking 
advisory committees.

The Department's Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations

    In accordance with Executive Order (E.O.) 13563 (Improving 
Regulation and Regulatory Review), the Department actively engaged in a 
special retrospective review of our existing rules to determine whether 
they need to be revised or revoked. This review was in addition to 
those reviews in accordance with section 610 of the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act, 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. If a retrospective review action has been completed it will no 
longer appear on the list below. However, more information can be found 
about these completed rulemakings on the Unified Agenda publications at 
Reginfo.gov in the Completed Actions section for that agency. These 
rulemakings can also be found on Regulations.gov. The final agency 
retrospective review plan can be found at http://www.dot.gov/regulations.

              Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Significantly reduces
             RIN              Rulemaking title       costs on small
                                                       businesses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 2105-AE29................  Transportation
                               Services for
                               Individuals
                               with
                               Disabilities:
                               Over-the-Road
                               Buses (RRR).

[[Page 76582]]

 
2. 2120-AJ90................  Effective Tether
                               System (Tether
                               Rule) (RRR).
3. 2120-AJ94................  Enhanced Flight
                               Vision System
                               (EFVS) (RRR).
4. 2120-AK24................  Fuel Tank and
                               System
                               Lightning
                               Protection
                               (RRR).
5. 2120-AK28................  Aviation
                               Training
                               Devices; Pilot
                               Certification,
                               Training, and
                               Pilot Schools;
                               Other
                               Provisions
                               (RRR).
6. 2120-AK32................  Acceptance
                               Criteria for
                               Portable Oxygen
                               Concentrators
                               Used Onboard
                               Aircraft (RRR).
7. 2120-AK34................  Flammability
                               Requirements
                               for Transport
                               Category
                               Airplanes (RRR).
8. 2120-AK40................  Elimination of
                               the Air Traffic
                               Control Tower
                               Operator
                               Certificate for
                               Controllers Who
                               Hold a Federal
                               Aviation
                               Administration
                               Credential With
                               a Tower Rating
                               (RRR).
9. 2120-AK44................  Reciprocal
                               Waivers of
                               Claims for Non-
                               Party Customer
                               Beneficiaries,
                               Signature of
                               Waivers of
                               Claims by
                               Commercial
                               Space
                               Transportation
                               Customers. And
                               Waiver of
                               Claims and
                               Assumption of
                               Responsibility
                               for Permitted
                               Activities with
                               No Customer
                               (RRR).
10. 2125-AF62...............  Acquisition of
                               Right-of-Way
                               (RRR) (MAP-21).
11. 2125-AF65...............  Buy America
                               (RRR).
12. 2126-AB46...............  Inspection,
                               Repair, and
                               Maintenance;
                               Driver-Vehicle
                               Inspection
                               Report (RRR).
13. 2126-AB47...............  Electronic
                               Signatures and
                               Documents (E-
                               Signatures)
                               (RRR).
14. 2126-AB49...............  Elimination of
                               Redundant
                               Maintenance
                               Rule (RRR).
15. 2127-AK98...............  Pedestrian
                               Safety Global
                               Technical
                               Regulation
                               (RRR).
16. 2127-AL03...............  Part 571 FMVSS
                               No. 205,
                               Glazing
                               Materials, GTR
                               (RRR).
17. 2127-AL05...............  Amend FMVSS No.                         Y
                               210 to
                               Incorporate the
                               Use of a New
                               Force
                               Application
                               Device (RRR).
18. 2127-AL17...............  49 CFR Part 595,
                               Subpart C, Make
                               Inoperative
                               Exemptions,
                               Vehicle
                               Modifications
                               to Accommodate
                               People With
                               Disabilities,
                               from FMVSS No.
                               226 (RRR).
19. 2127-AL20...............  Upgrade of LATCH
                               Usability
                               Requirements
                               (MAP-21) (RRR).
20. 2127-AL24...............  Rapid Tire
                               Deflation Test
                               in FMVSS No.
                               110 (RRR).
21. 2127-AL41...............  FMVSS No.
                               571.108 License
                               Plate Mounting
                               Angle (RRR).
22. 2127-AL58...............  Upgrade of Rear
                               Impact Guard
                               Requirements
                               for Trailers
                               and
                               Semitrailers
                               (RRR).
23. 2130-AC32...............  Positive Train                          Y
                               Control
                               Systems: De
                               Minimis
                               Exception, Yard
                               Movements, En
                               Route Failures;
                               Miscellaneous
                               Grade Crossing/
                               Signal and
                               Train Control
                               Amendments
                               (RRR).
24. 2130-AC40...............  Qualification
                               and
                               Certification
                               of Locomotive
                               Engineers;
                               Miscellaneous
                               Revisions (RRR).
25. 2130-AC41...............  Hours of Service
                               Recordkeeping;
                               Electronic
                               Recordkeeping
                               Amendments
                               (RRR).
26. 2130-AC43...............  Safety Glazing
                               Standards;
                               Miscellaneous
                               Revisions (RRR).
27. 2130-AC44...............  Revisions to
                               Signal System
                               Reporting
                               Requirements
                               (RRR).
28. 2137-AE38...............  Hazardous
                               Materials:
                               Compatibility
                               with the
                               Regulations of
                               the
                               International
                               Atomic Energy
                               Agency (IAEA)
                               (RRR).
29. 2137-AE62...............  Hazardous
                               Materials:
                               Approval and
                               Communication
                               Requirements
                               for the Safe
                               Transportation
                               of Air Bag
                               Inflators, Air
                               Bag Modules,
                               and Seat-Belt
                               Pretensioners
                               (RRR).
30. 2137-AE72...............  Pipeline Safety:                        Y
                               Gas
                               Transmission
                               (RRR).
31. 2137-AE80...............  Hazardous                               Y
                               Materials:
                               Miscellaneous
                               Pressure Vessel
                               Requirements
                               (DOT Spec
                               Cylinders)
                               (RRR).
32. 2137-AE81...............  Hazardous                               Y
                               Materials:
                               Reverse
                               Logistics (RRR).
33. 2137-AE85...............  Pipeline Safety:
                               Periodic
                               Updates of
                               Regulatory
                               References to
                               Technical
                               Standards and
                               Miscellaneous
                               Amendments
                               (RRR).
34. 2137-AE86...............  Hazardous
                               Materials:
                               Requirements
                               for the Safe
                               Transportation
                               of Bulk
                               Explosives
                               (RRR).
35. 2137-AE94...............  Pipeline Safety:                        Y
                               Operator
                               Qualification,
                               Cost Recovery,
                               Accident and
                               Incident
                               Notification,
                               and Other
                               Changes (RRR).
36. 2137-AF04...............  Hazardous
                               Materials:
                               Miscellaneous
                               Amendments
                               (RRR).
37. 2137-AF05...............  Hazardous
                               Materials:
                               Harmonization
                               with
                               International
                               Standards (RRR).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

International Regulatory Cooperation

    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

[[Page 76583]]

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.
    NHTSA is actively engaged in international regulatory cooperative 
efforts on both a multilateral and a bilateral basis, exchanging 
information on best practices and otherwise seeking to leverage its 
resources for addressing vehicle issues in the U.S. As noted in 
Executive Order 13609: ``(i)n meeting shared challenges involving 
health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues, 
international regulatory cooperation can identify approaches that are 
at least as protective as those that are or would be adopted in the 
absence of such cooperation'' and ``can also reduce, eliminate, or 
prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements.''
    As the representative, for vehicle safety matters, of the United 
States, one of 33 contracting parties to 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 currently 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.
    In recognition of the large cross-border market in motor vehicles 
and motor vehicle equipment, NHTSA is working bilaterally with 
Transport Canada under the Motor Vehicles Working Group of the U.S.-
Canada Regulatory Cooperation Council (RCC) to facilitate 
implementation of the initial RCC Joint Action Plan. Under this Plan, 
NHTSA and Transport Canada are working on the development of 
international standards on quieter vehicles, electric vehicle safety, 
and hydrogen and fuel cell vehicles.
    Building on the initial Joint Action Plan, the U.S. and Canada 
issued a Joint Forward Plan on August 29, 2014. The Forward Plan 
provides that, over the next six months, regulators will develop 
Regulatory Partnership Statements (RPSs) outlining the framework for 
how cooperative activities will be managed between agencies. In that 
same period, regulators will also develop and complete detailed work 
plans to begin to address the commitments in the Forward Plan. To 
facilitate future cooperation, the RCC will work over the next year on 
cross-cutting issues in areas such as: ``sharing information with 
foreign governments, joint funding of new initiatives and our 
respective rulemaking processes.''
    To broaden and deepen its cooperative efforts with the European 
Union, NHTSA is participating in ongoing negotiations regarding the 
Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership which is ``aimed at 
providing greater compatibility and transparency in trade and 
investment regulation, while maintaining high levels of health, safety, 
and environmental protection.'' NHTSA is seeking to build on existing 
levels of safety and lay the groundwork for future cooperation in 
addressing emerging safety issues and technologies.
    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, http://www.dot.gov/regulations, under 
the heading ``Reports on Rulemakings and Enforcement.'' (The reports 
can be found under headings for ``EU,'' ``NAFTA'' (Canada and Mexico) 
and ``Foreign.'') A list of our significant rulemakings that are 
expected to have international effects follows; the identifying RIN 
provided below can be used to find summary and other information about 
the rulemakings in the Department's Regulatory Agenda published along 
with this Plan:

         DOT Significant Rulemakings With International Impacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        RIN                           Rulemaking title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2105-AD90.........................................  Stowage and
                                                     Assistive Devices.
2105-AD91.........................................  Accessibility of
                                                     Airports.
2105-AE06.........................................  E-Cigarette.
2120-AJ60.........................................  Small Unmanned
                                                     Aircraft.
2120-AJ69.........................................  Prohibition Against
                                                     Certain Flights
                                                     Within the
                                                     Territory and
                                                     Airspace of
                                                     Afghanistan.
2120-AJ89.........................................  Slot Management and
                                                     Transparency.
2120-AK09.........................................  Drug & Alcohol
                                                     Testing for Repair
                                                     Stations.
2126-AA34.........................................  Mexico-Domiciled
                                                     Motor Carriers.
2126-AA35.........................................  Safety Monitoring
                                                     System and
                                                     Compliance
                                                     Initiative for
                                                     Mexico-Domiciled
                                                     Motor Carriers
                                                     Operating in the
                                                     United States.
2124-AA70.........................................  Limitations on the
                                                     Issuance of
                                                     Commercial Driver
                                                     Licenses with a
                                                     Hazardous Materials
                                                     Endorsement.
2126-AB56.........................................  MAP-21 Enhancements
                                                     and Other Updates
                                                     to the Unified
                                                     Registration
                                                     System.
2127-AK76.........................................  Tire Fuel Efficiency
                                                     Part 2.
2127-AK93.........................................  Quieter Vehicles
                                                     Sound Alert.
2127-AK95.........................................  Side Impact Test
                                                     Procedure for CRS.
2133-AB74.........................................  Cargo Preference.

[[Page 76584]]

 
2137-AE91.........................................  Enhanced Rail Tank
                                                     Car Standards.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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's Regulatory Process
    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 
http://www.dot.gov/regulations, as well as through a list-serve. By 
doing this, the Department is providing valuable information concerning 
our rulemaking activity and is providing information necessary for the 
public to evaluate the Department's progress in meeting its commitment 
to completing quality rulemakings in a timely manner.
    The Department continues to place great emphasis on the need to 
complete high-quality rulemakings by involving senior departmental 
officials in regular meetings to resolve issues expeditiously.

Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST)

    The Office of the Secretary (OST) oversees the regulatory process 
for the Department. OST implements the Department's regulatory policies 
and procedures and is responsible for ensuring the involvement of top 
management in regulatory decisionmaking. Through the General Counsel's 
office, OST is also responsible for ensuring that the Department 
complies with the Administrative Procedure Act, Executive Order 12866 
(Regulatory Planning and Review), 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, the Americans with Disabilities 
Act, 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 2015, 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:
     Accessible In-Flight Entertainment
     Airline Pricing Transparency and Other Consumer Protection 
Issues
     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 
quality of life for the people and communities who use transportation 
systems subject to the Department's policies. It will also continue to 
oversee the Department's rulemaking actions to implement the ``Moving 
Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act'' (MAP-21).

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

    The Federal Aviation Administration is charged with safely and 
efficiently operating and maintaining the most complex aviation system 
in the world. Destination 2025, an FAA initiative that captures the 
agency's vision of transforming the Nation's aviation system by 2025, 
has proven to be an effective tool for pushing the agency to think 
about longer-term aspirations; FAA has established a vision that 
defines the agency's priorities for the next five years. The changing 
technological and industry environment compels us to transform the 
agency. And the challenging fiscal environment we face only increases 
the need to prioritize our goals.
    We have identified four major strategic initiatives where we will 
focus our efforts: (1) Risk-based Decision Making--Build on safety 
management principles to proactively address emerging safety risk by 
using consistent, data-informed approaches to make smarter, system-
level, risk-based decisions; (2) NAS Initiative--Lay the foundation for 
the National Airspace System of the future by achieving prioritized 
NextGen benefits, enabling the safe and efficient integration of new 
user entrants including Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) and Commercial 
Space flights, and deliver more efficient, streamlined air traffic 
management services; (3) Global Leadership--Improve safety, air traffic 
efficiency, and environmental sustainability across the globe through 
an integrated, data-driven approach that shapes global standards, 
enhances collaboration and harmonization, and better targets FAA 
resources and efforts; and (4) Workforce of the Future--Prepare FAA's 
human capital for the future, by identifying, recruiting, and training 
a workforce with the leadership, technical, and functional skills to 
ensure the U.S. has the world's safest and most productive aviation 
sector.
    FAA activities that may lead to rulemaking in Fiscal Year 2015 
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

[[Page 76585]]

Aviation Safety Team projects related to controlled flight into 
terrain, loss of control of an aircraft, uncontained engine failures, 
runway incursions, weather, pilot decision making, and cabin safety. 
Some of these projects may result in rulemaking and guidance materials.
     Respond to the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 
(the Act) which directed the FAA to initiate a rulemaking proceeding to 
issue guidelines and regulations relating to ADS-B In technology and 
recommendations from an Aviation Rulemaking Committee on ADS-B-In 
capabilities in consideration of the FAA's evolving thinking on how to 
provide an integrated suite of communication, navigation, and 
surveillance (CNS) capabilities to achieve full NextGen performance.
     Respond to the Act which also recommended we complete the 
rulemaking for small Unmanned Aircraft Systems, and consider how to 
fully integrate UAS operations in the NAS, which will require future 
rulemaking.
     Respond to the Airline Safety and Federal Aviation 
Administration Extension Act of 2010 (H.R. 5900) which requires the FAA 
to 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 decision-making tools that can be used 
to plan, organize, direct, and control activities in a manner that 
enhances safety.
     Respond to the Small Airplane Revitalization Act of 2013 
(H.R. 1848) which requires the FAA adopt the 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 businesses. 
Standardization should help the U.S. aerospace industry remain 
internationally competitive. The FAA continues to publish regulations 
based on internal analysis, public comment, and recommendations of 
Aviation Rulemaking Committees that are the result of cooperative 
rulemaking between the U.S. and other countries.
     In response to Executive Order 13610 ``Identifying and 
Reducing Regulatory Burdens,'' we continue to find ways to make our 
regulatory program more effective or less burdensome; provide 
quantifiable monetary savings or quantifiable reductions in paperwork 
burdens, and modify and streamline regulations in light of changed 
circumstances. One example is our response to a petition for exemption 
from the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association and Experimental 
Aircraft Association (AOPA-EAA) in which we will address through 
rulemaking to consider medical self-certification for certain 
noncommercial operations in lieu of airman medical certification.
    FAA top regulatory priorities for Fiscal Year 2015 include:
     Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft 
Systems (2120-AJ60) (Pub. L. 112-95 (Feb. 14, 2012))
     Pilot Records Database (2120-AK31) (Pub. L. 111-216 (Aug. 
1, 2010))
     Drug and Alcohol Testing of Certain Maintenance Provider 
Employees Located Outside of the United States (2120-AK09) (Pub. L. 
112-95 (Feb. 14, 2012))
     Congestion Management for LaGuardia Airport, John F. 
Kennedy International Airport, and Newark Liberty International Airport 
(2120-AJ89)
     Safety Management System for Certificate Holders Operating 
Under 14 CFR part 121 (2120-AJ86) (Pub. L. 111-216, sec 215 (Aug. 1, 
2010))
    The Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems 
rulemaking would:
     Adopt specific rules for the operation of small unmanned 
aircraft systems in the national airspace system; and
     Address the classification of small unmanned aircraft, 
certification of their pilots and visual observers, registration, 
approval of operations, and operational limits.
    The Pilot Records Database rulemaking would:
     Implement a pilot records database into which the FAA, air 
carriers, and other persons that employ pilots would enter records; and
     Require air carriers operating under 14 CFR parts 121 and 
135 access the pilot records database electronically and evaluate the 
available data for each individual pilot candidate before allowing that 
individual to serve as a required pilot flightcrew member.
    The Drug and Alcohol Testing of Certain Maintenance Provider 
Employees Located Outside of the United States rulemaking would:
     Require certain air carriers to ensure that all employees 
of certificated repair stations, and certain other maintenance 
organizations that are located outside the United States, who perform 
safety-sensitive maintenance functions on aircraft operated by those 
air carriers, are subject to a drug and alcohol testing program; and
     Require the drug and alcohol testing program be determined 
acceptable by the FAA Administrator, and be consistent with the 
applicable laws of the country in which the repair station is located.
    The Congestion Management rulemaking for LaGuardia Airport, John F. 
Kennedy International Airport, and Newark Liberty International Airport 
would:
     Replace the orders limiting scheduled operations at John 
F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK), limiting scheduled operations 
at Newark Liberty International Airport (EWR), and limiting scheduled 
and unscheduled operations at LaGuardia Airport (LGA); and
     Provide a longer-term and comprehensive approach to slot 
management at JFK, EWR, and LGA.

[[Page 76586]]

    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;
     Establish a general framework from which a certificate 
holder can build its SMS; and Conform to International Civil Aviation 
Organization Annexes and adopt several National Transportation Safety 
Board recommendations.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)

    The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) carries out the Federal 
highway program in partnership with State and local agencies to meet 
the Nation's transportation needs. The FHWA's mission is to improve 
continually the quality and performance of our Nation's highway system 
and its intermodal connectors.
    Consistent with this mission, the FHWA will continue:
     With ongoing regulatory initiatives in support of its 
surface transportation programs;
     To implement legislation in the most cost-effective 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.
     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 2015, 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).

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)

    The mission of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 
(FMCSA) is to reduce crashes, injuries, and fatalities involving 
commercial trucks and buses. A strong regulatory program is a 
cornerstone of FMCSA's compliance and enforcement efforts to advance 
this safety mission. FMCSA develops new and more effective safety 
regulations based on three core priorities: Raising the safety 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 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 2015 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 on our Nation's highways by 
improving FMCSA's ability to provide safety oversight of motor carriers 
and commercial drivers.
    In FY 2015, FMCSA plans to issue a final rule 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 2015, 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 2015, FMCSA plans to issue a final rule on the 
Commercial Driver's License Drug and Alcohol Clearinghouse (RIN 2126-
AB18). The rule would establish a clearinghouse requiring 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.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

    The statutory responsibilities of the National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration (NHTSA) relating to motor vehicles include 
reducing the number of, and mitigating the effects of, motor vehicle 
crashes and related fatalities and injuries; providing safety 
performance information to aid prospective purchasers of vehicles, 
child restraints, and tires; and improving automotive fuel efficiency. 
NHTSA pursues policies that encourage the development of nonregulatory 
approaches when feasible in meeting its statutory mandates. It issues 
new standards and regulations or amendments to existing standards and 
regulations when appropriate. It ensures that regulatory alternatives 
reflect a careful assessment of the problem and a comprehensive 
analysis of the benefits, costs, and other impacts associated with

[[Page 76587]]

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 2015, including combination 
truck tractors, large buses, and motorcoaches. The agency will continue 
work towards considering 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 as revised in 2012, and requirements of MAP-21. NHTSA will 
also issue a final rule to promulgate a new FMVSS for electronic 
stability control systems for motor coaches and truck tractors. This 
final rule is mandated by the MAP-21 Act. Together, these rulemaking 
actions will address multiple open recommendations issued by the 
National Transportation Safety Board related to motorcoach safety. 
NHTSA, in conjunction with the Environmental Protection Agency, will 
publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in Fiscal Year 2015 to 
address phase two of fuel efficiency standards for medium- and heavy-
duty on-highway vehicles and work trucks for model years beyond 2018. 
This NPRM will be responsive to requirements of the Energy Independence 
and Security Act of 2007 as well as the President's Climate Action 
Plan.
    In Fiscal Year 2015, NHTSA plans to issue 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. NHTSA will also continue 
work toward a NPRM on vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communications. V2V 
communications is currently perceived to become a foundational aspect 
of vehicle automation.
    In addition to numerous programs that focus on the safe performance 
of motor vehicles, the Agency is engaged in a variety of programs to 
improve driver and occupant behavior. These programs emphasize the 
human aspects of motor vehicle safety and recognize the important role 
of the States in this common pursuit. NHTSA has identified two high-
priority areas: Safety belt use and impaired driving. To address these 
issue areas, the Agency is focusing especially on three strategies--
conducting highly visible, well-publicized enforcement; supporting 
prosecutors who handle impaired driving cases and expanding the use of 
DWI/Drug Courts, which hold offenders accountable for receiving and 
completing treatment for alcohol abuse and dependency; and adopting 
alcohol screening and brief intervention by medical and health care 
professionals. Other behavioral efforts encourage child safety-seat 
use; combat excessive speed and aggressive driving; improve motorcycle, 
bicycle, and pedestrian safety; and provide consumer information to the 
public.

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)

    FRA's current regulatory program reflects a number of pending 
proceedings to satisfy mandates resulting from the Rail Safety 
Improvement Act of 2008 (RSIA08), and the Passenger Rail Investment and 
Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA), as well as actions under its general 
safety rulemaking authority and actions supporting a high-performing 
passenger rail network. RSIA08 alone has required 21 rulemaking 
actions, 16 of which have been completed. 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, while working to 
complete as many mandated rulemakings as quickly as possible.
    Through the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC), FRA is 
working to complete RSIA08 actions, including developing requirements 
related to the creation and implementation of railroad risk reduction 
and system safety programs, and an RSAC working group has developed 
recommendations for the fatigue management provisions related to both 
proceedings. FRA is also in the process of producing two regulatory 
actions related to the transportation of crude oil and ethanol by rail, 
focusing on the securement of equipment and appropriate crew size 
requirements when transporting such commodities. FRA's crew size 
activity will also address other freight and passenger operations to 
ensure FRA will have appropriate oversight if a railroad chooses to 
alter its standard method of operation. In addition, FRA continues to 
prepare a final rule amending its regulations related to roadway 
workers and is developing other RSAC-supported actions that advance 
high-performing passenger rail such as proposed rules on standards for 
alternative compliance with FRA's Passenger Equipment Safety Standards.

Federal Transit Administration (FTA)

    FTA helps communities support public transportation by making 
grants of Federal funding for transit vehicles, construction of transit 
facilities, and planning and operation of transit and other transit-
related purposes. FTA regulatory activity implements the laws that 
apply to recipients' uses of Federal funding and the terms and 
conditions of FTA grant awards. FTA policy regarding regulations is to:
     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. 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). In addition FTA is finalizing its Emergency Relief rule, which 
implements FTA's new authority to assist transit agencies responding to 
major disasters.

Maritime Administration (MARAD)

    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 water transportation 
services for American shippers and

[[Page 76588]]

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 2015 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.

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)

    The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) 
has responsibility for rulemaking under two programs. Through the 
Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety, PHMSA 
administers regulatory programs under Federal hazardous materials 
transportation law and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as 
amended by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. Through the Associate 
Administrator for Pipeline Safety, PHMSA administers regulatory 
programs under the Federal pipeline safety laws and the Federal Water 
Pollution Control Act, as amended by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990.
    The Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 
2011 included a number of rulemaking studies and mandates and 
additional enforcement authorities that continue to impact PHMSA's 
regulatory activities in Fiscal Year 2015.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/pv_obj_cache/pv_obj_id_7FD46010F0497123865B976479CFF3952E990200/filename/Pipeline%20Reauthorization%20Bill%202011.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    MAP-21 reauthorized the hazardous materials safety program and 
required several regulatory actions by PHMSA. MAP-21 placed 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. A rulemaking was required within two years by MAP-21 to set out 
procedures and criteria for evaluating applications for special permits 
and approvals. In addition, MAP-21 required 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 improving safety related to 
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 reducing 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 evaluate, 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. Expansion in 
United States energy production has led to significant challenges in 
the transportation system. Expansion in oil production has led to 
increasing volumes of product transported to refineries. With a growing 
domestic supply, rail transportation, in particular, has emerged as an 
alternative to transportation by pipeline or vessel. The growing 
reliance on trains to transport large volumes of flammable liquids 
raises risks that have been highlighted by the recent instances of 
trains carrying crude oil that have derailed. PHMSA and FRA issued a 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (79 FR 45016) designed to lessen the 
frequency and consequences of train accidents/incidents (train 
accidents) involving certain trains transporting a large volume of 
flammable liquids. In addition, PHMSA and FRA issued an Advanced Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking (79 FR 45079) seeking comment on potential 
revisions to its regulations that would expand the applicability of 
comprehensive oil spill response plans (OSRPs) for crude oil trains. 
PHMSA will continue to usher these rules to completion and PHMSA may 
consider further regulatory changes to enhance rail safety through 
enhanced operational requirements; improvements in tank car standards; 
and revisions of the general requirements for rail transport.
    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.

[[Page 76589]]



                                 Quantifiable Costs and Benefits of Rulemakings on the 2014 to 2015 DOT Regulatory Plan
                                [This chart does not account for non-quantifiable benefits, which are often substantial]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                           Quantifiable costs discounted       Quantifiable benefits
          Agency/RIN Number                      Title                     Stage                 2013 $ (millions)         discounted 2013 $ (millions)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAA
    2120-AJ60.......................  Small Unmanned Aircraft     NPRM 01/15............  TBD...........................  TBD
                                       Systems.
    2120-AJ86.......................  SMS for part 121..........  FR 11/14..............  $135.1........................  $142.8
    2120-AJ89.......................  NY Congestion Management..  NPRM 11/14............  48.2..........................  67.8
    2120-AK09.......................  Drug and Alcohol Testing..  ANPRM: Analyzing        TBD...........................  TBD
                                                                   Comments 02/15.
    2120-AK31.......................  Pilot Records Database....  NPRM 10/15............  TBD...........................  TBD
        Total for FAA...............  ..........................  ......................  183.3.........................  210.6
FHWA
    2125-AF53.......................  Performance Management 2..  NPRM 11/14............  TBD...........................  TBD
    2125-AF54.......................  Performance Management 3..  NPRM 03/15............  TBD...........................  TBD
        Total for FHWA..............  ..........................  ......................  TBD...........................  TBD
FMCSA
    2126-AB11.......................  Carrier Safety Fitness      NPRM 04/15............  15............................  249
                                       Determination.
    2126-AB18.......................  Commercial Driver's         FR 10/15..............  186...........................  187
                                       License Drug and Alcohol
                                       Clearinghouse.
    2126-AB20.......................  Electronic On-Board         FR 09/15..............  1,578.........................  2,033
                                       Recorders and Hours of
                                       Service Supporting
                                       Documents.
        Total for FMCSA.............  ..........................  ......................  1,745.........................  2,361
NHTSA
    2127-AK93.......................  Quieter Vehicles Sound      FR 11/15..............  24.1..........................  154.3
                                       Alert.
    2127-AK97.......................  Electronic Stability        FR 01/15..............  119.6.........................  282.6-445.6
                                       Control Systems for Heavy
                                       Vehicles.
    2127-AL52.......................  Fuel Efficiency Standards   NPRM 03/15............  TBD...........................  TBD
                                       for Medium- and Heavy-
                                       Duty Vehicles and Work
                                       Trucks: Phase 2.
        Total for NHTSA.............  ..........................  ......................  143.7.........................  436.9-599.9
FTA
    2132-AB19.......................  State Safety Oversight      NPRM 01/15............  TBD...........................  TBD
                                       (MAP-21).
        Total for FTA...............  ..........................  ......................  TBD...........................  TBD
PHMSA
    2137-AE66.......................  Pipeline Safety: Safety of  NPRM 01/15............  TBD...........................  TBD
                                       On-Shore Liquid Hazardous
                                       Pipelines.
    2137-AE72.......................  Pipeline Safety: Gas        NPRM 01/15............  TBD...........................  TBD
                                       Transmission (RRR).
    2137-AE91.......................  Hazardous Materials:        Final Rule 03/15......  2,083 to 5,820................  400 to 4,386
                                       Enhanced Tank Car
                                       Standards and Operational
                                       Controls for High-Hazard
                                       Flammable Trains.
        Total for PHMSA.............  ..........................  ......................  2,083 to 5,820................  400 to 4,386
        TOTAL FOR DOT...............  ..........................  ......................  4,155-7,892...................  3,408.5-7,394.5
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: Costs and benefits of rulemakings may be forecast over varying periods. Although the forecast periods will be the same for any given rulemaking,
  comparisons between proceedings should be made cautiously.
Costs and benefits are generally discounted at a 7 percent discount rate over the period analyzed.

    The Department of Transportation generally assumes that there are 
economic benefits to avoiding a fatality of $9.2 million. That economic 
value is included as part of the benefits estimates shown in the chart. 
As noted above, we have not included the non-quantifiable benefits.

DOT--FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION (FAA)

Proposed Rule Stage

104. + Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems 
(SUAS)

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 44701; Pub. L. 112-95
    CFR Citation: 14 CFR 91.
    Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, August 14, 2014, Public Law 112-
95, section 332(b) requires issuance of final rule 18 months after 
integration plan is submitted to Congress. Integration plan due Feb. 
14, 2013.
    Abstract: This rulemaking would adopt specific rules for the 
operation of small unmanned aircraft systems (sUAS) in the National 
Airspace System. These changes would address the classification of 
small unmanned aircraft, certification of their pilots and visual 
observers, registration, approval of operations, and operational limits 
in order to increase the safety and efficiency of the national airspace 
system.
    Statement of Need: The FAA is proposing to amend its regulations to

[[Page 76590]]

adopt specific rules for the operation of small unmanned aircraft 
systems (sUAS) in the National Airspace System (NAS). These changes 
would address the classification of sUAS, certification of sUAS pilots 
and visual observers, registration of sUAS, approval of sUAS 
operations, and sUAS operational limits. The NPRM also proposes 
regulations for all sUAS, including operating standards for model 
aircraft and low performance (e.g., toy) operations, to increase the 
safety and efficiency of the NAS. The FAA and sUAS community lack 
sufficient formal safety data regarding unmanned operations to support 
granting traditional, routine access to the NAS. This proposed rule 
would result in the regular collection of safety data from the user 
community and help the FAA develop new regulations and expand sUAS 
access to the NAS.
    Summary of Legal Basis: This rulemaking is required by the FAA 
Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, Public Law 112-95, sec. 332(b). 
The FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in Title 
49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of 
the FAA Administrator, including the authority to issue, rescind, and 
revise regulations. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more 
detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is 
promulgated under the authority described in Title 49 U.S. Code 
Transportation. Pursuant to Subtitle I, Chapter 1, Sections 
106(f)(2)(iii) and (3)(A), the Administrator is authorized to 
promulgate regulations, rules, orders, circulars, bulletins, and other 
publications of the Administrator, and to issue, rescind and revise 
such regulations as are necessary to carry out those functions. 
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Chapter 447 Safety Regulation. 
Pursuant to section 44701 (a)(5), the FAA is charged with promoting 
safe flight of civil aircraft by, among other things, prescribing 
regulations the FAA finds necessary for safety in air commerce and 
national security.
    Alternatives: This rulemaking is required by the FAA Modernization 
and Reform Act of 2012, Public Law 112-95, sec. 332(b). The FAA's 
authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the 
U.S. Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA 
Administrator, including the authority to issue, rescind, and revise 
regulations. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail 
the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated 
under the authority described in Title 49 U.S. Code Transportation. 
Pursuant to Subtitle I, Chapter 1, Sections 106(f)(2)(iii) and (3)(A), 
the Administrator is authorized to promulgate regulations, rules, 
orders, circulars, bulletins, and other publications of the 
Administrator, and to issue, rescind and revise such regulations as are 
necessary to carry out those functions. Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart 
III, Chapter 447 Safety Regulation. Pursuant to section 44701 (a)(5), 
the FAA is charged with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft by, 
among other things, prescribing regulations the FAA finds necessary for 
safety in air commerce and national security.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Costs and benefits for this 
rulemaking are to be determined.
    Risks: Commercial operations currently have no legal means to 
conduct operations. Due to the time and cost of traditional processes 
and without new regulations, commercial operations will not be able to 
operate until the necessary standards are developed by the UAS 
community.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   01/00/15
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Lance Nuckolls, Certification and General Aviation 
Operations, Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation 
Administration, 800 Independence Ave., SW, Washington, DC 20591, Phone: 
202-267-8212, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2120-AJ60

DOT--FAA

105. + Slot Management and Transparency for Laguardia Airport, John F. 
Kennedy International Airport, and Newark Liberty International Airport

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 40101, 40103, and 40105; 49 U.S.C. 
41712; 15 U.S.C. 21
    CFR Citation: 14 CFR 93.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This rulemaking would replace the current temporary 
orders limiting scheduled operations at LaGuardia Airport (LGA), John 
F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK), and Newark Liberty 
International Airport (EWR) with a more permanent rule to address the 
issues of congestion and delay at the New York area[acute]s three major 
commercial airports, while also promoting fair access and competition. 
The rulemaking would help ensure that congestion and delays are managed 
by limiting scheduled and unscheduled operations. The rulemaking would 
also establish a secondary market for U.S. and foreign air carriers to 
buy, sell, trade, and lease slots amongst each other at each of the 
three airports. This would allow carriers serving or seeking to serve 
the New York area airports to exchange slots as their business models 
and strategic goals require.
    Statement of Need: This rulemaking would replace the current 
temporary orders limiting scheduled operations at LaGuardia Airport, 
John F. Kennedy International Airport, and Newark Liberty International 
Airport with a more permanent rule to address the issues of congestion 
and delay at the New York area's three major commercial airports, while 
also promoting fair access and competition. The rulemaking would help 
ensure that congestion and delays are managed by limiting scheduled and 
unscheduled operations. The rulemaking would also establish a secondary 
market for U.S. and foreign air carriers to buy, sell, trade, and lease 
slots amongst each other at each of the three airports. This would 
allow carriers serving or seeking to serve the New York area airports 
to exchange slots as their business models and strategic goals require.
    Summary of Legal Basis: This rulemaking is promulgated under the 
authority described in subtitle VII, part A, subpart I, sections 40101, 
40103, 40105, and 41712. The Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) is 
the head of the DOT and has broad oversight of significant FAA 
decisions. See 49 U.S.C. 102 and 106. In addition, under 49 U.S.C. 
41712, the Secretary has the authority to investigate and prohibit 
unfair and deceptive practices, and unfair methods of competition in 
air transportation, or the sale of air transportation. The FAA has 
broad authority under 49 U.S.C. 40103 to regulate the use of the 
navigable airspace of the United States. This section authorizes the 
FAA to develop plans and policy for the use of navigable airspace, and 
to assign the use the FAA deems necessary for safe and efficient 
utilization. It further directs the FAA to prescribe air traffic rules 
and regulations governing the efficient utilization of

[[Page 76591]]

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.
    Alternatives: The FAA considered two alternatives. The first 
alternative was to simply extend the existing orders. This alternative 
was rejected because the FAA wanted to increase competition by making 
slots available to more operators. The FAA believes these operators are 
likely to be small entities. The second alternative was to remove the 
existing orders. This alternative results in unacceptable delay costs 
from the increase in operations.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The FAA estimates the quantitative 
costs to be $48.2 million and the quantitative benefits are estimated 
at $67.8 million, with the benefits exceeding the costs. This is a 
preliminary estimate that is subject to change based on further review 
and analysis.
    Risks: There are no risks for this rulemaking.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   11/00/14
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

DOT--FAA

106. + Drug and Alcohol Testing of Certain Maintenance Provider 
Employees Located Outside of the United States

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 14 CFR; 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 49 U.S.C. 40113; 49 
U.S.C. 44701; 49 U.S.C. 44702; 49 U.S.C. 44707; 49 U.S.C. 44709; 49 
U.S.C. 44717
    CFR Citation: 14 CFR 145.
    Legal Deadline: NPRM, Statutory, February 14, 2013, NPRM.
    Abstract: This rulemaking is required by the FAA Modernization and 
Reauthorization Act of 2012. It would require controlled substance 
testing of some employees working in repair stations located outside 
the United States. The intended effect is to increase participation by 
companies outside of the United States in testing of employees who 
perform safety critical functions and testing standards similar to 
those used in the repair stations located in the United States. This 
action is necessary to increase the level of safety of the flying 
public.
    Statement of Need: As a project identified under congressional 
mandate, the intended effect of this rulemaking would be to promote 
drug and alcohol testing standardization within the global aviation 
community in an effort to reach an increased level of safety for the 
flying public around the world.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 
2012 provides the legal basis for this rulemaking. In February 2012 the 
U.S. Congress passed the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. 
Section 308(d)(2) of the Act requires that the FAA promulgate a 
proposed rule that requires all part 145 repair station employees 
responsible for safety-sensitive maintenance functions on part 121 
commercial air carriers aircraft to be subject to an alcohol and 
controlled substances testing program determined acceptable by the 
Administrator and consistent with the applicable laws of the country in 
which the repair station is located.
    Alternatives: Our alternatives would be to work with other aviation 
leaders (e.g. International Civil Aviation Organization--ICAO) and 
develop a collective initiative to foster a drug and alcohol-free 
worldwide environment. The FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, 
does articulate the idea that the Secretaries of State and 
Transportation work with ICAO and establish international standards to 
test for drug and alcohol use of employees performing safety-sensitive 
maintenance functions on commercial air carrier aircraft.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Our alternatives would be to work 
with other aviation leaders (e.g. International Civil Aviation 
Organization--ICAO) and develop a collective initiative to foster a 
drug and alcohol-free worldwide environment. The FAA Modernization and 
Reform Act of 2012, does articulate the idea that the Secretaries of 
State and Transportation work with ICAO and establish international 
standards to test for drug and alcohol use of employees performing 
safety-sensitive maintenance functions on commercial air carrier 
aircraft.
    Risks: International implications are the risks.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM...............................   03/17/14  79 FR 14621
Comment Period Extended.............   05/01/14  79 FR 24631
ANPRM Comment Period End............   05/16/14
Comment Period End..................   07/17/14
Analyzing Comments..................   02/00/15
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    International Impacts: This regulatory action will be likely to 
have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise be of 
international interest.
    URL For More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL For Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Vicky Dunne, Department of Transportation, Federal 
Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Ave, SW, Washington, DC 
20591, Phone: 202 267-8522, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2120-AK09

DOT--FAA

107. + Pilot Records Database (HR 5900)

    Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 
undetermined.
    Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 49 U.S.C. 1155; 49 U.S.C. 40103; 
49 U.S.C. 40113; 49 U.S.C. 40119; 49 U.S.C. 40120; 49 U.S.C. 41706; 49 
U.S.C. 44101; 49 U.S.C. 44111; 49 U.S.C. 44701 to 44705; 49 U.S.C. 
44709 to 44713; 49 U.S.C. 44715 to 44717; 49 U.S.C. 44722;

[[Page 76592]]

49 U.S.C. 45101 to 45105; 49 U.S.C. 46105; 49 U.S.C. 46306; 49 U.S.C. 
46315; 49 U.S.C. 46316; 49 U.S.C. 46504; 49 U.S.C. 46507; 49 U.S.C. 
47122; 49 U.S.C. 47508; 49 U.S.C. 47528 to 47531
    CFR Citation: 14 CFR 118; 14 CFR 121; 14 CFR 125; 14 CFR 135; 14 
CFR 91.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This rulemaking would implement a Pilot Records Database 
as required by Public Law 111-216 (Aug. 1, 2010). Section 203 amends 
the Pilot Records Improvement Act (PRIA) by requiring the FAA to create 
a pilot records database that contains various types of pilot records. 
These records would be provided by the FAA, air carriers, and other 
persons who employ pilots. The FAA must maintain these records until it 
receives notice that a pilot is deceased. Air carriers would use this 
database to perform a record check on a pilot prior to making a hiring 
decision.
    Statement of Need: This rule implements a Pilot Records Database as 
required by Public Law 111-216. Section 203 of Public Law 111-216 
amends the Pilot Records Improvement Act (PRIA) by requiring the FAA to 
create a pilot records database that contains various types of pilot 
records. These records would be provided by the FAA, air carriers, and 
other persons who employ pilots. The FAA must maintain these records 
until it receives notice that a pilot is deceased. Air carriers would 
use this database to perform a record check on a pilot prior to making 
a hiring decision.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The legal basis for this rule is section 
203 of the Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Extension 
Act of 2010, Public Law 111-216, 124 Statute 2348 (2010).
    Alternatives: The ARC proposed a phased implementation as an 
alternative to PRDs statutory requirement to enter all historical 
records dating from August 1, 2005. Instead, within 60 days after the 
PRD launch date, air carriers and other persons would provide only the 
names, certificate numbers, and dates of birth of employees dating from 
the PRD launch date back to August 1, 2005. This information would be 
used to identify a pilot applicant's previous employer(s). The hiring 
air carrier would then make a paper PRIA request to those previous 
employers to obtain any records from before the launch date of PRD.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The Rulemaking Team believes that 
three methods of data entry would allow larger air carriers to take 
advantage of technology, thereby reducing costs, while allowing smaller 
air carriers the flexibility to enter data manually without the need 
for an information technology department and sophisticated computer 
knowledge.
    Risks: Any risk mitigation technique used to counter this 
additional security threat would significantly add to the time and cost 
required for the FAA to properly manage the air carrier user accounts 
and likely delay air carrier access to the PRD data. Several options 
were explored that would simultaneously provide appropriate security 
controls to protect unauthorized access to sensitive data while not 
impeding the air carriers from ready access to the PRD data.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   10/00/15  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Additional Information: Costs and benefits are not yet determined.
    URL For More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL For Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Bryan Brown, Department of Transportation, Federal 
Aviation Administration, 6424 S Denning Ave., Oklahoma City, OK 73169, 
Phone: 405 954-4513, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2120-AK31

DOT--FAA

Final Rule Stage

108. + Safety Management Systems for Certificate Holders

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 49 U.S.C. 40113; 49 U.S.C. 
40119; 49 U.S.C. 41706; 49 U.S.C. 44101; 49 U.S.C. 44701; 49 U.S.C. 
44702; 49 U.S.C. 44705; 49 U.S.C. 44709 to 44711; 49 U.S.C. 44713; 49 
U.S.C. 44716; 49 U.S.C. 44717; 49 U.S.C. 44722; 49 U.S.C. 46105; Pub. 
L. 111-216, sec 215
    CFR Citation: 14 CFR 121; 14 CFR 5.
    Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, July 30, 2012, Final Rule. NPRM, 
Statutory, October 29, 2010, NPRM. 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 the FAA shall consider at a minimum each of the 
following as part of the SMS rulemaking: (1) an Aviation Safety Action 
Program (ASAP); (2) a Flight Operations Quality Assurance Program 
(FOQA); (3) a Line Operations Safety Audit (LOSA); and (4) an Advance 
Qualifications Program.
    Abstract: This rulemaking would require each certificate holder 
operating under 14 CFR part 121 to develop and implement a safety 
management system (SMS) to improve the safety of its aviation related 
activities. A safety management system is a comprehensive, process-
oriented approach to managing safety throughout an organization. An SMS 
includes an organization-wide safety policy; formal methods for 
identifying hazards, controlling, and continually assessing risk and 
safety performance; and promotion of a safety culture. SMS stresses not 
only compliance with technical standards but increased emphasis on the 
overall safety performance of the organization. This rulemaking is 
required under Public Law 111-216, section 215.
    Statement of Need: This final rule requires each air carrier 
operating under 14 CFR part 121 to develop and implement a safety 
management system (SMS) to improve the safety of its aviation-related 
activities. SMS is a comprehensive, process-oriented approach to 
managing safety throughout an organization. SMS includes an 
organization-wide safety policy; formal methods for identifying 
hazards; controlling, and continually assessing risk and safety 
performance; and promotion of a safety culture. SMS stresses not only 
compliance with technical standards but also increased emphasis on the 
overall safety performance of the organization.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) 
authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in title 49 of the 
United States Code. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority 
described in 49 U.S.C. 44701(a)(5), which requires the Administrator to 
promulgate regulations and minimum standards for other practices, 
methods, and procedures necessary for safety in air commerce and 
national security. In addition, the Airline Safety and Federal Aviation 
Administration Extension Act of 2010 (the Act), Public Law 111-216, 
section 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).
    Alternatives: To relieve the burden of this rule on small entities, 
the FAA considered extending the timeframe for development of SMS 
implementation

[[Page 76593]]

plans. However, the FAA ultimately concluded that 1 year for the 
development and approval of implementation plans is appropriate. In 
making this determination, the FAA considered longer and shorter terms. 
However, it settled on 1 year based on information from the SMS Pilot 
Project, which showed that an average of 1 year was sufficient to 
develop and approve an implementation plan. As part of its analysis, 
the FAA noted that pilot project participants ultimately had differing 
levels of SMS implementation. However, because all pilot project 
participants had initially developed (and received FAA validation on) 
an implementation plan that provided for full SMS implementation, the 
FAA was able to use this data to estimate how long it would take a 
certificate holder to develop such a plan, and get the plan approved by 
the FAA.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The FAA estimates the quantitative 
costs to be $135.1 million, and the quantitative benefits to be $142.8 
million, with benefits exceeding costs.
    Risks: While the commercial air carrier accident rate in the United 
States has decreased substantially over the past 10 years, the FAA has 
identified a recent trend involving hazards that were revealed during 
accident investigations. The FAA's Office of Accident Investigation and 
Prevention identified 128 accidents involving part 121 air carriers 
from fiscal year (FY) 2001 through FY 2010 for which identified causal 
factors could have been mitigated if air carriers had implemented an 
SMS to identify hazards in their operations and developed methods to 
control the risk. This type of approach allows air carriers to 
anticipate and mitigate the likely causes of potential accidents. This 
is a significant improvement over current reactive safety action 
emphasis, which focuses on discovering and mitigating the cause of an 
accident only after that accident has occurred. In order to bring about 
this change in accident mitigation, as well as the other reasons 
discussed throughout this document, the FAA is requiring part 121 air 
carriers to develop and implement an SMS. SMS is a comprehensive, 
process-oriented approach to managing safety throughout an 
organization, and stresses not only compliance with technical 
standards, but increased emphasis on the overall safety performance of 
the organization. The potential reduction of risks would be averted 
causalities, aircraft damage, and accident investigation costs by 
identifying safety issues and spotting trends before they result in a 
near-miss, incident, or accident.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   11/05/10  75 FR 68224
NPRM Comment Period Extended........   01/31/11  76 FR 5296
NPRM Comment Period End.............   02/03/11  .......................
Comment Period Extended.............   03/07/11
Final Rule..........................   11/00/14
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal.
    URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Scott VanBuren, Office of Accident Investigation 
and Prevention, Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation 
Administration, 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, Phone: 
202 494-8417, Email: [email protected].
    Related RIN: Split from 2120-AJ15
    RIN: 2120-AJ86

DOT--FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION (FHWA)

Proposed Rule Stage

109. + National Goals and Performance Management Measures (MAP-21)

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: sec 1203 Pub. L. 112-141; 49 CFR 1.85
    CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
    Legal Deadline: NPRM, Statutory, April 1, 2014, NPRM.
    Section 1203 of MAP-21 requires the Secretary to promulgate a 
rulemaking within 18 months after the date of enactment.
    Abstract: This rulemaking would create 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. 
This rulemaking would also establish the process to be used by States 
to set performance targets that reflect their performance measures. The 
FHWA anticipates issuing up to three rulemakings in this area. This 
rulemaking, number two, will cover the bridges and pavement.
    Statement of Need: The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st 
Century Act (MAP-21) transforms the Federal-aid highway program by 
establishing new requirements for performance management to ensure the 
most efficient investment of Federal transportation funds. Performance 
management refocuses attention on national transportation goals, 
increases the accountability and transparency of the Federal-aid 
highway program, and improves project decisionmaking through 
performance-based planning and programming. This rulemaking is the 
second of 3 that would propose the establishment of performance 
measures for State DOTs and MPOs to use to carry out Federal-aid 
highway programs and to assess performance in each of the 12 areas 
mandated by MAP-21. This rulemaking would establish performance 
measures for State DOTs to use to carry out the National Highway 
Performance Program (NHPP) and to assess: condition of pavements on the 
National Highways System (NHS) (excluding the Interstate System), 
condition of pavements on the Interstate System, and condition of 
bridges on the NHS. This rulemaking would also propose the definitions 
that will be applicable to the new 23 CFR 490; the process to be used 
by State DOTs and MPOs to establish performance targets that reflect 
the measures proposed in this rulemaking; a methodology to be used to 
assess State DOTs' compliance with the target achievement provision 
specified under 23 U.S.C. 119(e)(7); and the process to be followed by 
State DOTs to report on progress towards the achievement of pavement 
and bridge condition-related performance targets.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Section 1203 of MAP-21 requires the 
Secretary of Transportation to establish performance measures and 
standards through a rulemaking to assess performance in 12 areas.
    Alternatives: N/A.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Not yet determined.
    Risks: N/A.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   11/00/14
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, State.
    URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Francine Shaw-Whitson, Department of 
Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue 
SE., Washington,

[[Page 76594]]

DC 20590, Phone: 202-366-8028, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2125-AF53

DOT--FHWA

110. + National Goals and Performance Management Measures (MAP-21)

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: sec 1203, Pub. L. 112-141; 49 FR 1.85
    CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
    Legal Deadline: NPRM, Statutory, April 1, 2014, NPRM.
    Section 1203 of MAP-21 requires the Secretary to promulgate a 
rulemaking within 18 months after the date of enactment.
    Abstract: This rulemaking would create 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. 
This rulemaking would also establish the process to be used by States 
to set performance targets that reflect their performance measures. The 
FHWA anticipates issuing up to three rulemakings in this area. This 
rulemaking covers Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) and 
Freight issues.
    Statement of Need: The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st 
Century Act (MAP-21) transforms the Federal-aid highway program by 
establishing new requirements for performance management to ensure the 
most efficient investment of Federal transportation funds. Performance 
management refocuses attention on national transportation goals, 
increases the accountability and transparency of the Federal-aid 
highway program, and improves project decisionmaking through 
performance-based planning and programming. This rulemaking is the 
third of 3 that would propose the establishment of performance measures 
for State DOTs and MPOs to use to carry out Federal-aid highway 
programs and to assess performance in each of the 12 areas mandated by 
MAP-21. This rulemaking would establish performance measures for State 
DOTs to use in the areas of Congestion Reduction, Congestion Mitigation 
and Air quality improvement program (CMAQ), Freight, and Performance of 
the Interstate/Non-Interstate National Highway System.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Section 1203 of MAP-21 requires the 
Secretary of Transportation to establish performance measures and 
standards through a rulemaking to assess performance in 12 areas.
    Alternatives: N/A.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Not yet determined.
    Risks: N/A.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   03/00/15
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, State.
    URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Francine Shaw-Whitson, Department of 
Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue 
SE., Washington, DC 20590, Phone: 202-366-8028, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2125-AF54

DOT--FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION (FMCSA)

Proposed Rule Stage

111. + Carrier Safety Fitness Determination

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Legal Authority: sec 4009 of TEA-21
    CFR Citation: 49 CFR 385.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: FMCSA proposes to amend the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Regulations (FMCSRs) to adopt revised methodologies that would result 
in a safety fitness determination (SFD). The proposed methodologies 
would determine when a motor carrier is not fit to operate commercial 
motor vehicles (CMVs) in or affecting interstate commerce based on (1) 
the carrier's performance in relation to five of the Agency's 
Behavioral Analysis and Safety Improvement Categories (BASICs); (2) an 
investigation; or (3) a combination of on-road safety data and 
investigation information. The intended effect of this action is to 
reduce crashes caused by CMV drivers and motor carriers, resulting in 
death, injuries, and property damage on U.S. highways, by more 
effectively using FMCSA data and resources to identify unfit motor 
carriers, and to remove them from the Nation's roadways.
    Statement of Need: Because of the time and expense associated with 
the on-site compliance review, only a small fraction of carriers 
(approximately 12,000) receive a safety fitness determination each 
year. Since the current safety fitness determination process is based 
exclusively on the results of an on-site compliance review, the great 
majority of carriers subject to FMCSA jurisdiction do not receive a 
timely determination of their safety fitness. The proposed methodology 
for determining motor carrier safety fitness should correct the 
deficiencies of the current process. In correcting these deficiencies, 
FMCSA has made a concerted effort to develop a ``transparent'' method 
for the Safety Fitness Determination (SFD) that would allow each motor 
carrier to understand fully how FMCSA established that carrier's 
specific SFD.
    Summary of Legal Basis: This rule is based primarily on the 
authority of 49 U.S.C. 31144, which directs the Secretary of 
Transportation to ``determine whether an owner or operator is fit to 
operate a commercial motor vehicle'' and to ``maintain by regulation a 
procedure for determining the safety fitness of an owner or operator.'' 
This statute was first enacted as part of the Motor Carrier Safety Act 
of 1984, section 215, Public Law 98-554, 98 Stat. 2844 (Oct. 30, 1984). 
The proposed rule also relies on the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 31133, 
which gives the Secretary ``broad administrative powers to assist in 
the implementation'' of the provisions of the Motor Carrier Safety Act 
now found in chapter 311 of title 49, U.S.C. These powers include, 
among others, authority to conduct inspections and investigations, 
compile statistics, require production of records and property, 
prescribe recordkeeping and reporting requirements, and to perform 
other acts considered appropriate. These powers are used to obtain the 
data used by the Safety Management System and by the proposed new 
methodology for safety fitness determinations. Under 49 CFR 1.73(g), 
the Secretary has delegated the authority to carry out the functions in 
subchapters I, III, and IV of chapter 311, title 49, U.S.C., to the 
FMCSA Administrator. Sections 31133 and 31144 are part of subchapter 
III of chapter 311.
    Alternatives: The Agency has been considering several alternatives.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The Agency is continuing to review 
the estimated costs and benefits of the proposed rule.
    Risks: A risk of incorrectly identifying a compliant carrier as 
non-compliant--and consequently subjecting the carrier to unnecessary 
expenses--has been analyzed and has been found to be

[[Page 76595]]

negligible under the process being proposed.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   04/00/15
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Organizations.
    Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
    URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: David Miller, Regulatory Development Division, 
Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, 
Phone: 202 366-5370, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2126-AB11

DOT--FMCSA

112. + Electronic Logging Devices and Hours of Service Supporting 
Documents (MAP-21)

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Unfunded Mandates: This action may affect the private sector under 
Pub. L. 104-4.
    Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 31502; 31136(a); Pub. L. 103.311; 49 
U.S.C. 31137(a)
    CFR Citation: 49 CFR 350; 49 CFR 385; 49 CFR 396; 49 CFR 395
    Legal Deadline: NPRM, Judicial, January 31, 2011, Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking.
    NPRM, Statutory, October 1, 2013, MAP-21 requires FMCSA to issue a 
final rule by October 1, 2013, a deadline that FMCSA will not be able 
to meet, due to the need for notice and comment on these proposals.
    Abstract: This rulemaking would 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.
    Statement of Need: This rulemaking action would improve commercial 
motor vehicle (CMV) safety and reduce the overall paperwork burden for 
both motor carriers and drivers by increasing the use of ELDs within 
the motor carrier industry, which would in turn improve compliance with 
the applicable Hours of Service (HOS) rules. Specifically, this rule 
would (1) Require new technical specifications for ELDs that address 
statutory requirements; (2) mandate ELDs for drivers currently using 
record of duty status; (3) clarify supporting document requirements so 
that motor carriers and drivers can comply efficiently with HOS 
regulations, and so that motor carriers can make the best use of ELDs 
and related support systems as their primary means of recording HOS 
information and ensure HOS compliance; and (4) adopt procedural and 
technical provisions aimed at ensuring that ELDs are not used to harass 
vehicle operators. The Agency published a Supplemental Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking (SNPRM) on March 28, 2014, and the comment period 
ended on June 26, 2014.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Section 113 of the Hazardous Materials 
Transportation Authorization Act of 1994, Public Law 103-311, 108 Stat. 
1673, 16776-1677, August 26, 1994, (HMTAA) requires the Secretary to 
prescribe regulations to improve compliance by CMV drivers and motor 
carriers with HOS requirements and the effectiveness and efficiency of 
Federal and State enforcement officers reviewing such compliance. 
Specifically, the Act addresses requirements for supporting documents. 
Section 32301(b) of the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Enhancement 
Act, enacted as part of MAP-21 (Public Law 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.
    Alternatives: FMCSA is considering several alternatives to the 
proposal, including alternate populations.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: FMCSA estimates costs of $1.6B and 
benefits of $2.0B for the rule, discounted at 7% in 2013 dollars.
    Risks: FMCSA has not yet fully assessed the risks that might be 
associated with this activity.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   02/01/11  76 FR 5537
NPRM Comment Period End.............   02/28/11  .......................
NPRM Comment Period Extended........   03/10/11  76 FR 13121
NPRM Comment Period Extended End....   05/23/11  .......................
SNPRM...............................   03/28/14  79 FR 17656
SNPRM Comment Period End............   05/27/14  .......................
SNPRM Analyzing Comments............   03/00/15  .......................
Final Rule..........................   09/00/15  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    International Impacts: This regulatory action will be likely to 
have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise be of 
international interest.
    Additional Information: The Agency previously published an NPRM on 
this subject under RIN 2126-AA76, ``Hours of Service of Drivers; 
Supporting Documents'' (63 FR 19457, Apr. 20, 1998) and an SNPRM, 
``Hours of Service of Drivers: Supporting Documents'' (69 FR 63997, 
Nov. 3, 2004). The Agency withdrew the SNPRM on October 25, 2007, 72 FR 
60614. The previous proceeding can be found in docket No. FMCSA-1998-
3706.
    URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Deborah M. Freund, Senior Transportation 
Specialist, Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, 
Phone: 202 366-5370, Email: [email protected].
    Related RIN: Related to 2126-AA89, Related to 2126-AA76
    RIN: 2126-AB20

DOT--FMCSA

Final Rule Stage

113. + Commercial Driver's License Drug and Alcohol Clearinghouse (MAP-
21)

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
    Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 31306
    CFR Citation: 49 CFR 382.
    Legal Deadline: Other, Statutory, October 1, 2014, Clearinghouse 
required to be established by 10/01/2014.
    Abstract: This rulemaking would create a central database for 
verified positive controlled substances and alcohol test results for 
commercial driver[acute]s license (CDL) holders and refusals by such 
drivers to submit to

[[Page 76596]]

testing. This rulemaking would require employers of CDL holders and 
service agents to report positive test results and refusals to test 
into the Clearinghouse. Prospective employers, acting on an application 
for a CDL driver position with the applicant[acute]s written consent to 
access the Clearinghouse, would query the Clearinghouse to determine if 
any specific information about the driver applicant is in the 
Clearinghouse before allowing the applicant to be hired and to drive 
CMVs. This rulemaking is intended to increase highway safety by 
ensuring CDL holders, who have tested positive or have refused to 
submit to testing, have completed the U.S. DOT[acute]s return-to-duty 
process before driving CMVs in interstate or intrastate commerce. It is 
also intended to ensure that employers are meeting their drug and 
alcohol testing responsibilities. Additionally, provisions in this 
rulemaking would also be responsive to requirements of the Moving Ahead 
for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) Act. MAP-21 requires creation 
of the Clearinghouse by 10/1/14.
    Statement of Need: This rulemaking would improve the safety of the 
Nation's highways by ensuring that employers know when drivers test 
positive for drugs and/or alcohol, and are not qualified to drive. It 
would also ensure that drivers who have tested positive and have not 
completed the return-to-duty process are not driving, and ensure that 
all employers are meeting their drug and alcohol testing 
responsibilities.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Section 32402 of the Moving Ahead for 
Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21)) (Pub. L. 112-141, 126 Stat. 
405) directs the Secretary of Transportation to establish a national 
clearinghouse for controlled substance and alcohol test results of 
commercial motor vehicle operators. In addition, FMCSA has general 
authority to promulgate safety standards, including those governing 
drivers' use of drugs or alcohol while operating a CMV. The Motor 
Carrier Safety Act of 1984 Public Law 98-554 (the 1984 Act) provides 
authority to regulate drivers, motor carriers, and vehicle equipment, 
and requires the Secretary of Transportation to prescribe minimum 
safety standards for CMVs. These standards include: (1) That CMVs are 
maintained, equipped loaded, and operated safely; (2) the 
responsibilities imposed on CMV operators do not impair their ability 
to operate the vehicles safely; (3) the physical condition of CMV 
operators is adequate to enable them to operate the vehicles safely; 
and (4) CMV operation does not have a deleterious effect on the 
physical condition of the operators 49 U.S.C. 31136(a).
    Alternatives: To be determined.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The Agency estimates $187 million in 
annual benefits from increased crash reduction from the rule. This is 
against an estimated $155 million in total annual costs for employers 
to complete the annual and pre-employment queries and to designate C/
TPAs, for SAPs to input information from drivers undergoing the return-
to-duty process, for various entities to report and notify positive 
tests and to register and become familiar with the rule, for drivers to 
consent to release of records, and for FMCSA to maintain and operate 
the Clearinghouse, and for drivers to go through the return-to-duty 
process. Total net benefits of the rule thus are $32 million annually.
    Risks: There is a risk of not knowing when a driver has not 
completed the return-to-duty process and enabling job-hopping within 
the industry.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   02/20/14  79 FR 9703
NPRM Comment Period End.............   04/21/14  .......................
NPRM Comment Period Extended........   04/22/14  79 FR 22467
NPRM Comment Period Extended End....   05/21/14  .......................
Final Rule..........................   09/00/15  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State, Tribal.
    Federalism: This action may have federalism implications as defined 
in E.O. 13132.
    Additional Information: MAP-21 included provisions for a Drug and 
Alcohol Test Clearinghouse that affect this rulemaking.
    URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL For Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Juan Moya, Department of Transportation, Federal 
Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 
Washington, DC 20590, Phone: 202 366-4844, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2126-AB18

DOT--NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION (NHTSA)

Proposed Rule Stage

114. +Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium-and Heavy-Duty Vehicles and 
Work Trucks: Phase 2

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(2); 49 CFR 1.95
    CFR Citation: 49 CFR 523; 49 CFR 534; 49 CFR 534.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This rulemaking would address fuel efficiency standards 
for medium- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicles and work trucks for 
model years beyond 2018. This rulemaking would respond to requirements 
of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA), title 1, 
subtitle A, sections 102 and 108, as they amend 49 U.S.C. 32902, which 
was signed into law December 19, 2007. The statute requires that NHTSA 
establish a medium- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicle and work truck 
fuel efficiency improvement program that achieves the maximum feasible 
improvement, including standards that are appropriate, cost-effective, 
and technologically feasible. The law requires that the new standards 
provide at least 4 full model years of regulatory lead-time and 3 full 
model years of regulatory stability (i.e., the standards must remain in 
effect for 3 years before they may be amended). This action would 
follow the first ever Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel 
Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles 
(Phase 1) (76 FR 57106, September 15, 2011). In June 2013, the 
President's Climate Action Plan called for the Department of 
Transportation to develop fuel efficiency standards and the 
Environmental Protection Agency to develop greenhouse gas emission 
standards in joint rulemaking within the President's second term. In 
February 2014, the President directed DOT and EPA to complete the 
second phase of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency 
Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles during his 
second term.
    Statement of Need: Setting fuel consumption standards for 
commercial medium-duty and heavy-duty on-highway vehicles and work 
trucks will reduce fuel consumption, and will thereby improve U.S. 
energy security by reducing dependence on foreign oil, which has been a 
national objective since the first oil price shocks in the 1970s. Net 
petroleum imports now

[[Page 76597]]

account for approximately 60 percent of U.S. petroleum consumption. 
World crude oil production is highly concentrated, exacerbating the 
risks of supply disruptions and price shocks. Tight global oil markets 
led to prices over $100 per barrel in 2008, with gasoline reaching as 
high as $4 per gallon in many parts of the U.S., causing financial 
hardship for many families and businesses. The export of U.S. assets 
for oil imports continues to be an important component of the 
historically unprecedented U.S. trade deficits. Transportation accounts 
for about 72 percent of U.S. petroleum consumption. Medium-duty and 
heavy-duty vehicles account for about 17 percent of transportation oil 
use, which means that they alone account for about 12 percent of all 
U.S. oil consumption.
    Summary of Legal Basis: This rulemaking would respond to 
requirements of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 
(EISA), title 1, subtitle A, sections 102 and 108, as they amend 49 
U.S.C. 32902, which was signed into law December 19, 2007. In June 
2013, the Presidents Climate Action Plan called for the Department of 
Transportation to develop fuel efficiency standards and the 
Environmental Protection Agency to develop greenhouse gas emission 
standards in joint rulemaking within the Presidents second term. In 
February 2014, the President directed DOT and EPA to complete the 
second phase of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency 
Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles during his 
second term.
    Alternatives: In Phase 1, NHTSA evaluated nine alternatives; (1) 
heavy-duty engines, only (2) Class 8 combination tractors and engines 
in Class 8 tractors, (3) heavy-duty engines and Class 7 and 8 tractors, 
(4) heavy-duty engines, Class 7 and 8 tractors, and Class 2b/3 pickup 
trucks and vans, (5) NPRM Preferred Alternative: heavy-duty engines, 
tractors, and Class 2b through 8 vehicles, (6) heavy-duty engines, 
tractors, Class 2b through 8 vehicles and trailers, (7) heavy-duty 
engines, tractors, Class 2b through 8 vehicles, and trailers plus 
advanced hybrid powertrain technology for Class 2b through 8 vocational 
vehicles, pickups and vans, (8) 15 percent less stringent that the NPRM 
Preferred Alternative, covering heavy-duty engines, tractors, and Class 
2b through 8 vehicles, (9) 20 percent more stringent that the NPRM 
Preferred Alternative, covering heavy-duty engines, tractors, and Class 
2b through 8 vehicles.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The costs and benefits associated 
with this rulemaking have not yet been quantified.
    Risks: The agency believes there are no substantial risks to this 
rulemaking.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   03/00/15  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Energy Effects: Statement of Energy Effects planned as required by 
Executive Order 13211.
    URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: James Tamm, Fuel Economy Division Chief, Department 
of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 
New Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20590, Phone: 202-493-0515. Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 2127-AL52

DOT--NHTSA

Final Rule Stage

115. + Sound for Hybrid and Electric Vehicles

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30111; 49 U.S.C. 30115; 49 U.S.C. 30117; 
49 U.S.C. 30166; 49 U.S.C. 322; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95
    CFR Citation: 49 CFR 571; 49 CFR 585.
    Legal Deadline: NPRM, Statutory, July 5, 2012, Initiate rulemaking. 
Final, Statutory, January 3, 2014, Final Rule. Legislation requires the 
Secretary of Transportation to initiate rulemaking by July 2012, and 
issue a final rule not later than January 2014.
    Abstract: This rulemaking would respond to the Pedestrian Safety 
Enhancement Act of 2010, which directs the Secretary of Transportation 
to study and establish a motor vehicle safety standard that provides 
for a means of alerting blind, and other pedestrians of motor vehicle 
operation for hybrid and electric vehicles. The PRIA contains an 
estimate of 2,800 fewer injured pedestrians and pedalcyclists (35 
equivalent lives saved) at a total estimated cost of $23.5 million at 
the 3 percent discount rate, and $22.9 million at the 7 percent 
discount rate, should the requirements of the NPRM be made final.
    Statement of Need: The Pedestrian Safety Enhancement Act of 2010, 
signed into law on January 4, 2011, directs the Secretary to study and 
establish a motor vehicle safety standard that provides for a means of 
alerting blind and other pedestrians of motor vehicle operation. The 
agency's proposed safety standard, issued January 14, 2013, will 
require hybrid and electric passenger cars, light trucks and vans 
(LTVs), medium and heavy duty trucks, buses, low speed vehicles (LSVs), 
and motorcycles to meet specified sound requirements as required by the 
Act. This standard will ensure that blind, visually-impaired, and other 
pedestrians are able to detect and recognize nearby hybrid and electric 
vehicles. The proposal estimated that 2,800 total pedestrians injured 
will be avoided, due to this proposal's representation of 35 equivalent 
lives saved.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Section 30111, title 49 of the U.S.C., 
states that the Secretary shall prescribe motor vehicle safety 
standards.
    Alternatives: The Agency considered and sought public comment on 
alternatives including: (1) Taking no action; (2) requiring alert 
sounds based on recordings of internal combustion engine (ICE) 
vehicles; (3) specifying acoustic requirements for synthetic sounds 
that would closely resemble sounds produced by ICE vehicles; (4) 
setting requirements for alert sounds that possess aspects of both 
sounds produced by ICE vehicles and acoustic elements that contribute 
to detectability; and (5) using psychoacoustic principals to develop 
requirements for alert sounds that would have enhanced detectability, 
but would not necessarily have a reference to sounds produced by ICE 
vehicles.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: In 2010 dollars at a 7 percent 
discount rate, the total costs are estimated to be $24.4 million and 
monetized benefits at $134.1 million, with net benefits estimated at 
$109.7 million.
    Risks: The Agency believes that there are no significant risks 
associated with this rulemaking, and that only beneficial outcomes will 
occur.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   01/14/13  78 FR 2797
NPRM Comment Period End.............   03/15/13  .......................
Final Rule..........................   04/00/15  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    International Impacts: This regulatory action will be likely to 
have

[[Page 76598]]

international trade and investment effects, or otherwise be of 
international interest.
    URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Marisol Medri, Safety Engineer, Department of 
Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, Phone: 202-366-6987, 
Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2127-AK93

DOT--NHTSA

116. +Electronic Stability Control Systems for Heavy Vehicles (MAP-21)

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30111; 49 U.S.C. 30115; 49 U.S.C. 30117; 
49 U.S.C. 30166; 49 U.S.C. 322; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95
    CFR Citation: 49 CFR 571.
    Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, October 1, 2014, Final Rule.
    Abstract: This rulemaking would promulgate a new Federal standard 
that would require stability control systems on truck tractors and 
motorcoaches that address both rollover and loss-of-control crashes, 
after an extensive research program to evaluate the available 
technologies, an evaluation of the costs and benefits, and a review of 
manufacturer[acute]s product plans. Rollover and loss-of-control 
crashes involving heavy vehicles is a serious safety issue that is 
responsible for 304 fatalities and 2,738 injuries annually. They are 
also a major cause of traffic tie-ups, resulting in millions of dollars 
of lost productivity, and excess energy consumption each year. 
Suppliers and truck and motorcoach manufacturers have developed 
stability control technology for heavy vehicles to mitigate these types 
of crashes. Our preliminary estimate produces an effectiveness range of 
37 to 56 percent against single-vehicle tractor-trailer rollover 
crashes and 3 to 14 percent against loss-of-control crashes that result 
from skidding on the road surface. With these effectiveness estimates, 
annually, we estimate 29 to 66 lives would be saved, 517 to 979 MAIS 1 
to 5 injuries would be reduced, and 810 to 1,693 crashes that involved 
property damage only would be eliminated. Additionally, it would save 
$10 to $26 million in property damage and travel delays. Based on the 
technology unit costs and affected vehicles, we estimate technology 
costs would be $55 to 107 million, annually. However, the costs savings 
from reducing travel delay and property damage would produce net 
benefits of $128 to $372 million. This rulemaking is responsive to 
requirements of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-
21) Act.
    Statement of Need: Rollover and loss-of-control crashes involving 
combination truck tractors and large buses is a serious safety issue 
that is responsible for 268 fatalities and 3,000 injuries annually. 
They are also a major cause of traffic tie-ups, resulting in millions 
of dollars of lost productivity, and excess energy consumption each 
year. This action is consistent with our detailed plans for improving 
motorcoach passenger protection, laid out in NHTSA's Approach to 
Motorcoach Safety 2007, and the Department of Transportation 2009 
Motorcoach Action Plan (Docket No. NHTSA-2007-28793), as well as the 
agency's Vehicle Safety and Fuel Economy Rulemaking and Research 
Priority Plan 2011-2013 (Docket No. NHTSA-2009-0108), and is responsive 
to 3 recommendations issued by the National Transportation Safety 
Board.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Section 30111, title 49 of the U.S.C., 
states that the Secretary shall prescribe motor vehicle safety 
standards.
    Alternatives: The Agency considered two regulatory alternatives. 
First, we considered requiring truck tractors and large buses to be 
equipped with roll stability control (RSC) systems. The second 
alternative considered was requiring trailers to be equipped with RSC 
systems. When compared to the proposal, these alternatives provide 
fewer benefits because they are less effective at preventing rollover 
crashes and much less effective at preventing loss-of-control crashes.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: According to the NPRM, the 
anticipated total costs are expected to be $113.6 million for the 
150,000 truck tractors and 2,200 large buses produced in 2012. The 
agency estimates the proposal has the potential to save 49 to 60 
fatalities, 649 to 858 injuries, and 1,807 to 2,329 crashes annually. 
The net cost per equivalent life saved at a 7 percent discount rate is 
estimated to range from $2.0 to $2.6 million, and for a 3 percent 
discount rate is $1.5 to $2.0 million. The net benefits are $155 to 
$222 million at a 7 percent discount rate, and $228 to $310 million at 
a 3 percent discount rate.
    Risks: The Agency believes that there are no significant risks 
associated with this rulemaking, and that only beneficial outcomes will 
occur.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   05/23/12  77 FR 30766
NPRM Comment Period End.............   08/21/12  .......................
Final Rule..........................   01/00/15  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

DOT--FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION (FTA)

Proposed Rule Stage

117. +State Safety Oversight (MAP-21)

    Priority: Other Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Legal Authority: Pub. L. 112 to 141, sec 20021
    CFR Citation: 49 CFR 659.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This rulemaking will set standards for State safety 
oversight of rail transit systems and criteria for award of FTA grant 
funds to help the States develop and carry out their oversight 
programs.
    Statement of Need: The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st 
Century Act (MAP-21, effective Oct. 1, 2012) made substantial changes 
to the program for State safety oversight of rail fixed guideway public 
transportation systems, and created a new program of Federal financial 
assistance to the States for the purpose of conducting their oversight 
of rail transit system safety. This rulemaking will flesh out the 
statutory changes to the program, and set the process for making grants 
of Federal funding to the States.
    Summary of Legal Basis: 49 U.S.C. 5329(e)(9) requires the Secretary 
to issue regulations to carry out the State safety oversight program 
for rail fixed guideway public transportation systems.
    Alternatives: This rulemaking will amend the regulations at 49 CFR 
part

[[Page 76599]]

659 that have been in place since 1995. The single most important 
change this rulemaking entails is the flexible, scalable Safety 
Management Systems (SMS) approach that the U.S. Dept. of Transportation 
is applying to help ensure safety in all modes of transportation-SMS 
can be tailored both to the size, complexity, and mode of operation for 
a transit system, and the State agency that is overseeing the safety of 
a rail transit system.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This rulemaking will not entail any 
significant change to the annualized monetary costs and benefits of the 
State safety oversight rules that have been in place since 1995. The 
costs and benefits will be assessed during the development of the NPRM, 
but it's critical to note that State safety oversight of rail transit 
systems will no longer be an unfunded mandate; for the first time, 
under MAP-21, Federal funding will be available to the States to assist 
them in conducting their oversight, and this rulemaking will set the 
process for making the FTA grants to the States.
    Risks: This rulemaking will not regulate any entities other than 
States that have rail fixed guideway public transportation systems and 
the State safety oversight Agencies that conduct oversight of those 
rail transit systems. The Federal funding for State safety oversight 
will be apportioned by formula, based on the statutory criteria set 
forth in 49 U.S.C. 5329(e)(6)(B)(i), thus, this rulemaking poses no 
risks for the regulated communities other than the risks inherent in 
conducting the oversight of the safety of the rail transit systems for 
which they are responsible.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   01/00/15  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
    Federalism: Undetermined.
    URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Candace Key, Attorney Advisor, Department of 
Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue 
SE., Washington, DC 20590, Phone: 202 366-9178, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 2132-AB19

DOT--PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION (PHMSA)

Proposed Rule Stage

118. +Pipeline Safety: Safety of On-Shore Liquid Hazardous Pipelines

    Priority: Other Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 60101 et seq.
    CFR Citation: 49 CFR 195.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This rulemaking would address effective procedures that 
hazardous liquid operators can use to improve the protection of high 
consequence areas (HCA) and other vulnerable areas along their 
hazardous liquid onshore pipelines. PHMSA is considering whether 
changes are needed to the regulations covering hazardous liquid onshore 
pipelines, whether other areas should be included as 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 
PHMSA should extend regulation to certain pipelines currently exempt 
from regulation. The Agency would also address the public safety and 
environmental aspects of any new requirements, as well as the cost 
implications and regulatory burden.
    Statement of Need: This NPRM responds to NTSB recommendations, a 
GAO recommendation, public safety community input, consideration of 
research and technology advancements and the review of recent incident 
and accident reports. Additionally, the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory 
Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-90), includes several 
provisions and mandates that are relevant to the 49 CFR particularly 
section 195.452. If adopted, the proposals in this NPRM will better 
protect the public, property, and the environment by ensuring that 
additional pipelines are subject to improved regulation, thus 
increasing the detection and remediation of pipeline anomalies.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Congress established the current framework 
for regulating the safety of hazardous liquid pipelines in the 
Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Act (HLPSA) of 1979 (Pub. L. 96 to 
129). Like its predecessor, the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act of 1968 
(Pub. L. 90 to 481), the HLPSA provided the Secretary of Transportation 
(Secretary) with the authority to prescribe minimum Federal safety 
standards for hazardous liquid pipeline facilities. That authority, as 
amended in subsequent reauthorizations, is currently codified in the 
Pipeline Safety Laws (49 U.S.C. 60101 et seq.).
    Alternatives: The various alternatives analyzed included no action 
``status quo'' and individualized alternatives based on the proposed 
amendments.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The cost and benefits of this rule 
are to be determined.
    Risks: The proposed rule will provide increased safety for the 
regulated entities and reduce pipeline safety risks.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM...............................   10/18/10  75 FR 63774
ANPRM Comment Period End............   01/18/11  .......................
ANPRM Comment Period Extended.......   01/04/11  76 FR 303
ANPRM Extended Comment Period End...   02/18/11  .......................
NPRM................................   04/00/15  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: John A Gale, Transportation Regulations Specialist, 
Department of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety 
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, 
Phone: 202-366-0434, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2137-AE66

DOT--PHMSA

119. +Pipeline Safety: Gas Transmission (RRR)

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 60101 et seq.
    CFR Citation: 49 CFR 192
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: In this rulemaking, PHMSA will be revisiting the 
requirements in the Pipeline Safety Regulations, addressing integrity 
management principles for gas transmission pipelines. In particular, 
PHMSA will be reviewing the definition of an HCA (including the concept 
of a potential impact radius), the repair criteria for both HCA and 
non-HCA areas, requiring the use of automatic and remote-controlled 
shut off valves, valve

[[Page 76600]]

spacing, and whether applying the integrity management program 
requirements to additional areas would mitigate the need for class 
location requirements.
    Statement of Need: PHMSA will be reviewing the definition of an HCA 
(including the concept of a potential impact radius), the repair 
criteria for both HCA and non-HCA areas, requiring the use of automatic 
and remote-controlled shut off valves, valve spacing, and whether 
applying the integrity management program requirements to additional 
areas would mitigate the need for class location requirements. This 
rulemaking is in direct response to Congressional mandates in the 2011 
Pipeline Reauthorization Act, specifically; section 4 (e) Gas IM plus 6 
months, section 5(IM), 8 (leak detection), 23 (b)(2) (exceedance of 
MAOP); section 29 (seismicity).
    Summary of Legal Basis: Congress has authorized Federal regulation 
of the transportation of gas by pipeline under the Commerce Clause of 
the U.S. Constitution. Authorization is codified in the Pipeline Safety 
Laws (49 U.S.C.s 60101 et seq.), a series of statutes that are 
administered by the DOT and PHMSA. PHMSA has used that authority to 
promulgate comprehensive minimum safety standards for the 
transportation of gas by pipeline.
    Alternatives: Alternatives analyzed included no change, and 
extension of the compliance deadlines associated with the major cost of 
the requirement area; namely, development and implementation of 
management-of-change processes that apply to all gas transmission 
pipelines beyond that which already applies to beyond IMP- and control 
center-related processes.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: PHMSA does not expect the proposed 
rule to adversely affect the economy or any sector of the economy in 
terms of productivity and employment, the environment, public health, 
safety, or State, local, or tribal government. PHMSA has also 
determined, as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, that the 
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities in the United States. Additionally, PHMSA 
determined that the rule would not impose annual expenditures on State, 
local, or tribal governments in excess of $152 million, and thus does 
not require an Unfunded Mandates Reform Act analysis. However, the rule 
would impose annual expenditure in the private sector in excess of $152 
million.
    Risks: This proposed rule will strengthen current pipeline 
regulations and lower the safety risk of all regulated entities.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM...............................   08/25/11  76 FR 5308
ANPRM Comment Period Extended.......   11/16/11  76 FR 70953
ANPRM Comment Period End............   12/02/11  .......................
End of ANPRM Comment Period Extended   01/20/12  .......................
NPRM................................   01/00/15  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Additional Information: SB-Y IC-N SLT-N.
    URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Cameron H Satterthwaite, Transportation Regulations 
Specialist, Department of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous 
Materials Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 
Washington, DC 20590, Phone: 202 366-8553, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 2137-AE72

DOT--PHMSA

Final Rule Stage

120. +Hazardous Materials: Enhanced Tank Car Standards and Operational 
Controls for High-Hazard Flammable Trains

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Unfunded Mandates: This action may affect the private sector under 
Pub. L. 104-4.
    Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.
    CFR Citation: 49 CFR 171; 49 CFR 172; 49 CFR 173; 49 CFR 174; 49 
CFR 179
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This rulemaking would amend proposes new operational 
requirements for certain trains transporting a large volume of 
flammable materials, provide improvements in tank car standards, and 
revise the generalmaterials improvements in tank car standards and 
revision of the general requirements for offerors to ensure proper 
classification and characterization of mined gases and liquids. These 
new requirements are designed to lessen the consequences of derailments 
involving ethanol crude oil and certain trains transporting a large 
volume of flammable materials. The growing reliance on trains to 
transport large volumes of flammable materials poses a significant risk 
to life property and the environment. These significant risks have been 
highlighted by the recent derailments of trains carrying crude oil in 
Casselton, North Dakota; Aliceville, Alabama; and Lac-M[eacute]gantic, 
Quebec Canada. The proposed changes also address National 
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) recommendations on accurate 
classification, enhanced tank cars, rail routing, oversight, and 
adequate response capabilities.
    Statement of Need: This rulemaking is a crucial step by DOT 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. These same groups also question the 
survivability of general service tank cars built to the current 
regulatory requirements. To this end, PHMSA will consider regulatory 
amendments to enhance the standards for tank cars, most notably, 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.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The authority of 49 U.S.C. 5103(b), which 
authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to ``prescribe regulations 
for the safe transportation, including security, of hazardous materials 
in intrastate, interstate, and foreign commerce.''
    Alternatives: PHMSA and FRA are committed to a comprehensive 
approach to addressing the risk and consequences of derailments 
involving hazardous materials by addressing not only survivability of 
rail car designs, but the operational practices of rail carriers. 
Obtaining information and comments in an NPRM provided the greatest 
opportunity for public participation in the development of regulatory 
amendments, and promote greater exchange of information and 
perspectives among the various stakeholders to promote future 
regulatory action on these issues.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The NPRM requested comments on both 
the path forward and the economic impacts. We are evaluating comments 
prior to developing the final rule, and once the final rule is drafted 
the costs and benefits will be detailed.

[[Page 76601]]

    Risks: DOT conducted research on long-standing safety concerns 
regarding the survivability of the DOT Specification 111 tank cars 
designed to current HMR requirements, and used for the transportation 
of flammable liquids. The research found that special consideration is 
necessary for the transportation of flammable liquids in DOT 
Specification 111 tank cars, especially when a train is configured as a 
unit train. Through the research, DOT identified and ranked several 
enhancements to the current specifications that would increase tank car 
survivability. The highest-ranked options are low cost and the most 
effective at preventing loss of containment and catastrophic failure of 
a DOT Specification 111 tank car during a derailment.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM...............................   09/06/13  78 FR 54849
ANPRM Comment Period End............   11/05/13  .......................
ANPRM Comment Period Extended.......   11/05/13  78 FR 66326
ANPRM Comment Period Extended End...   12/05/13  .......................
NPRM................................   08/01/14  79 FR 45015
NPRM Comment Period End.............   09/30/14  .......................
Final Rule..........................   03/00/15  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Additional Information: HM-251; SB-Y, IC-Y, SLT-N; This rulemaking 
will provide the greatest opportunity for public participation in the 
development of regulatory amendments, and promote greater exchange of 
information and perspectives among the various stakeholders. The 
rulemaking will lead to more focused and well-developed amendments that 
reflect the views of all regulated entities. Comments received to the 
NPRM were used in our evaluation and development of future regulatory 
action on these issues.
    URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Ben Supko, Transportation Regulations Specialist, 
Department of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety 
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, 
Phone: 202-366-8553, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2137-AE91
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Statement of Regulatory Priorities

    The primary missions of the Department of the Treasury are:
     To promote prosperous and stable American and world 
economies, including promoting domestic economic growth and maintaining 
our Nation's leadership in global economic issues, supervising national 
banks and thrift institutions, and helping to bring residents of 
distressed communities into the economic mainstream.
     To manage the Government's finances by protecting the 
revenue and collecting the correct amount of revenue under the Internal 
Revenue Code, overseeing customs revenue functions, financing the 
Federal Government and managing its fiscal operations, and producing 
our Nation's coins and currency.
     To safeguard the U.S. and international financial systems 
from those who would use these systems for illegal purposes or to 
compromise U.S. national security interests, while keeping them free 
and open to legitimate users.
    Consistent with these missions, most regulations of the Department 
and its constituent bureaus are promulgated to interpret and implement 
the laws as enacted by the Congress and signed by the President. It is 
the policy of the Department to comply with applicable requirements to 
issue a notice of proposed rulemaking and carefully consider public 
comments before adopting a final rule. Also, 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.
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
    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) Collect the taxes on alcohol, tobacco, firearms and ammunition;
    (2) Protect the consumer by ensuring the integrity of alcohol 
products; and
    (3) Prevent unfair and unlawful market activity for alcohol and 
tobacco products.
    In the last several years, TTB has recognized the changes in the 
industries it regulates, as well as the modernized enforcement tools 
available to it. As a consequence, TTB has focused on revising its 
regulations to ensure that it accomplishes its mission in a way that 
facilitates industry growth, while at the same time protecting the 
revenue and consumers of alcohol beverages. This modernization effort 
has resulted in the updating of Parts 9 (American Viticultural Areas) 
and 19 (Distilled Spirits Plants) of Title 27 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations. In addition to its beverage alcohol regulations, TTB 
published in fiscal year (FY) 2013, 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 latter three rules 
all published in June 2013.
    In fiscal year 2014, TTB published a direct final rule amending its 
regulations in 27 CFR part 73 regarding the electronic submission of 
forms and other documents. To streamline the application process 
through TTB's secure, web-based applications (Permits Online, COLAs 
Online, and Formulas Online) and to enable current and prospective 
industry members to submit all required application forms 
electronically, TTB amended part 73 to provide for the electronic 
submission to TTB of forms requiring third-party signatures, such as 
bond forms and powers of attorney. Copies of such forms, bearing all 
required signatures and seals, may now be submitted electronically, 
along with a certification that the copy is an exact copy of the 
original, provided the submitter maintains the original along with 
other records and makes it available or submits it to TTB upon request. 
TTB further amended part 73 to provide that any requirement in the TTB 
regulations to submit a document to another agency may be met by the 
electronic submission of the document to the other agency, as long as 
the other agency provides for, and authorizes, the

[[Page 76602]]

electronic submission of such document.
    In that same final rule, TTB amended its regulations in 27 CFR part 
19 governing the records that distilled spirits plant (DSP) proprietors 
must keep of finished products, by removing the requirement that DSP 
proprietors keep a daily summary record of the kind of distilled 
spirits bottled or packaged. Finally, TTB amended its regulations in 27 
CFR parts 26 and 27 regarding closures that must be affixed to 
containers of imported distilled spirits products or of such products 
brought into the United States from Puerto Rico or the Virgin Islands. 
The amendments remove a requirement that a part of the closure remain 
attached to the container when opened, thereby aligning the regulations 
for such products with those applicable to domestic distilled spirits 
products. In summary, the amendments made by this final rule have 
lessened the regulatory burden on industry members by, among other 
changes: (1) providing for the electronic submission of documents 
requiring third-party signatures or corporate seals and of documents 
that the TTB regulations require be submitted to other agencies; (2) 
removing a recordkeeping requirement in 27 CFR 19.601 for DSP 
proprietors; and (3) removing a regulatory requirement related to the 
types of closures that must be used on certain distilled spirits 
containers.
    In FY 2015, TTB will continue its multi-year Regulations 
Modernization effort by finalizing its Specially Denatured and 
Completely Denatured Alcohol regulations and prioritizing projects that 
will update its Labeling Requirements regulations, Import and Export 
regulations, Nonbeverage Products regulations, and Distilled Spirits 
Plant Reporting Requirements.
    This fiscal year TTB plans to give priority to the following 
regulatory matters:
    Revisions to Specially Denatured and Completely Denatured Alcohol 
Regulations. TTB proposed changes to regulations for specially 
denatured alcohol (SDA) and completely denatured alcohol (CDA) that 
would result in cost savings for both TTB and regulated industry 
members. These amendments are necessary because they provide a 
reduction in regulatory burden while posing no risk to the revenue.
    Under the authority of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as 
amended (IRC), TTB regulates denatured alcohol that is unfit for 
beverage use, which may be removed from a regulated distilled spirits 
plant free of tax. SDA and CDA are widely used in the American fuel, 
medical, and manufacturing sectors. The industrial alcohol industry far 
exceeds the beverage alcohol industry in size and scope, and it is a 
rapidly growing industry in the United States. Some concerns have been 
raised that the current regulations may create significant roadblocks 
for industry members in getting products to the marketplace quickly and 
efficiently. To help alleviate these concerns, TTB plans to issue a 
final rule that will reclassify certain SDA formulas as CDA and issue 
new general-use formulas for articles made with SDA. As a result of 
these changes, industry members would need to seek formula approval 
from TTB less frequently, and, in turn, TTB could decrease the 
resources it dedicates to formula review.
    TTB estimates that these changes will result in an 80 percent 
reduction in the formula approval submissions currently required from 
industry members and will reduce total annual paperwork burden hours on 
affected industry members from 2,415 to 517 hours. The reduction in 
formula submissions will enable TTB to redirect its resources to 
address backlogs that exist in other areas of TTB's mission activities, 
such as analyses of compliance samples for industrial/fuel alcohol to 
protect the revenue and working with industry to test and approve new 
and more environmentally friendly denaturants. Additionally, the 
reclassification of certain SDA formulas to CDA formulas will not 
jeopardize the revenue because it is more difficult to separate potable 
alcohol from CDA than it is from SDA, and because CDA has an offensive 
taste and is less likely to be used for beverage purposes. Similarly, 
authorizing new general-use formulas will not jeopardize the revenue 
because it will be difficult to remove potable alcohol from articles 
made with the specific SDA formulations. Other changes made by this 
final rule will remove unnecessary regulatory burdens and update the 
regulations to align them with current industry practice.
    Revisions to the Labeling Requirements (Parts 4 (Wine), 5 
(Distilled Spirits), and 7 (Malt Beverages)). The Federal Alcohol 
Administration Act requires that alcohol beverages introduced in 
interstate commerce have a label issued and approved under regulations 
prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury. In accordance with the 
mandate of Executive Order 13563 of January 18, 2011, regarding 
improving regulation and regulatory review, TTB has conducted an 
analysis of its regulations to identify any that might be outmoded, 
ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome, and to modify, 
streamline, expand, or repeal them in accordance with what has been 
learned. As a result of its review, TTB has near-term plans to revise 
the regulations concerning the approval of labels for wine, distilled 
spirits, and malt beverages, to reduce the cost to TTB of reviewing and 
approving an ever-increasing number of applications for label approval 
(well over 130,000 per year). The regulations are being reviewed to 
assess their relevance in the 21st century. Revisions will provide 
clarity to industry to improve voluntary compliance. Currently, the 
review and approval process requires a staff of at least 13 people for 
the pre-approval of labels, in addition to management review. The goal 
of these regulatory changes, to be developed with industry input, is to 
accelerate the approval process, which will result in the regulated 
industries being able to bring products to market without undue delay.
    Selected Revisions to Export and Import Regulations Related to the 
International Trade Data System. TTB is currently preparing for the 
implementation of the International Trade Data System (ITDS) and, 
specifically, the transition to an all-electronic import and export 
environment. The ITDS, as described in section 405 of the Security and 
Accountability for Every Port Act of 2006 (the ``SAFE Port Act'') 
(Public Law 109-347), is an electronic information exchange capability, 
or ``single window,'' through which businesses will transmit data 
required by participating agencies for the importation or exportation 
of cargo. To enhance Federal coordination associated with the 
development of the ITDS and put in place specific deadlines for 
implementation, President Obama, on February 19, 2014, signed an 
Executive Order (EO) on Streamlining the Export/Import Process for 
America's Businesses. In line with section 3(e) of the EO, TTB was 
required to develop an implementation timeline for ITDS implementation. 
Regulatory review for transition to the all-electronic environment is 
part of that process.
    TTB has completed its review of the regulatory requirements and 
identified those that it intends to update to account for the new all-
electronic environment. TTB has not only focused on identifying 
requirements in order to align them with the new environment (such as 
amending requirements that reference submission of paper documents at 
entry), but also is reviewing existing requirements and processes to 
determine where modifications could better take

[[Page 76603]]

advantage of the all-electronic capability while reducing burden. TTB 
is planning to publish rulemaking on its import and export regulations 
in FY15, for example, this rulemaking will address the collection of 
TTB F 5100.31 (Application for and Certification/Exemption of Label/
Bottle Approval) and foreign certificate data in the ITDS environment.
    In recent years, TTB has identified selected sections of its export 
regulations (27 CFR part 28) that should be amended to assist industry 
members in complying with the regulations. Current regulations require 
industry members to obtain documents and follow procedures that are 
outdated and not entirely consistent with current industry practices 
regarding exportation. As part of its effort to accommodate 
implementation of ITDS, TTB's proposed regulatory revisions will also 
provide industry members with clear and updated procedures for removal 
of alcohol for exportation without having to pay excise taxes (under 
the IRC, beverage alcohol may be removed for exportation without 
payment of tax), thus increasing their willingness and ability to 
export their products. Increasing American exports benefits the 
American economy and is consistent with Treasury and Administration 
priorities.
    Revision of the Part 17 Regulations, ``Drawback on Taxpaid 
Distilled Spirits Used in Manufacturing Nonbeverage Products,'' to 
Allow Self-Certification of Nonbeverage Product Formulas. TTB is 
considering revisions to the regulations in 27 CFR part 17 governing 
nonbeverage products made with taxpaid distilled spirits. These 
nonbeverage products include foods, medicines, and flavors. This 
proposal offers a new method of formula certification by incorporating 
quantitative standards into the regulations and establishing new 
voluntary procedures that would further streamline the formula review 
process for products that meet the standards. These proposals pose no 
risk to the revenue because TTB will continue to review the formulas; 
however, TTB will not take action on certified formula submissions 
unless the formulas require correction. This proposal would nearly 
eliminate the need for TTB to formally approve all nonbeverage product 
formulas by proposing to allow for self-certification of such formulas. 
The changes would result in significant cost savings for an important 
industry, which currently must obtain formula approval from TTB, and 
some savings for TTB, which must review and take action to approve or 
disapprove each formula.
    Revisions to Distilled Spirits Plant Reporting Requirements. In FY 
2012, TTB published an NPRM proposing to revise regulations in 27 CFR 
part 19 to replace the current four report forms used by distilled 
spirits plants to report their operations on a monthly basis with two 
new report forms that would be submitted on a monthly basis. (Plants 
that file taxes on a quarterly basis would submit the new reports on a 
quarterly basis.) This project, which was included in the President's 
FY 2012 budget for TTB as a cost-saving item, will address numerous 
concerns and desires for improved reporting by the affected distilled 
spirits industry and result in cost savings to the industry and TTB by 
significantly reducing the number of monthly plant operations reports 
that must be completed and filed by industry members and processed by 
TTB. TTB preliminarily estimates that this project will result in an 
annual savings of approximately 23,218 paperwork burden hours (or 11.6 
staff years) for industry members and 629 processing hours (or 0.3 
staff years) and $12,442 per year for TTB in contractor time. In 
addition, TTB estimates that this project will result in additional 
savings in staff time (approximately 3 staff years) equaling $300,000 
annually based on the more efficient and effective processing of 
reports and the use of report data to reconcile industry member tax 
accounts. Based on comments received in response to the NPRM, TTB plans 
to revise the proposal and re-notice the issue.
Bureau of the Fiscal Service
    The Bureau of the Fiscal Service (Fiscal Service) administers 
regulations pertaining to the Government's financial activities, 
including: (1) Implementing Treasury's borrowing authority, including 
regulating the sale and issue of Treasury securities, (2) Administering 
Government revenue and debt collection, (3) Administering 
Governmentwide accounting programs, (4) Managing certain Federal 
investments, (5) Disbursing the majority of Government electronic and 
check payments, (6) Assisting Federal agencies in reducing the number 
of improper payments, and (7) Providing administrative and operational 
support to Federal agencies through franchise shared services.
    During fiscal year 2015, the Fiscal Service will accord priority to 
the following regulatory projects:
    Amendment to Large Position Reporting Requirements. On behalf of 
Treasury (Financial Markets), the Fiscal Service plans to amend the 
Government Securities Act regulations (17 CFR chapter IV) to modify the 
large position reporting rules to improve the information reported so 
that Treasury can better understand supply and demand dynamics in 
certain Treasury securities.
    Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Publishing Delinquent Debtor 
Information. The Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-
134, 110 Stat. 1321 (DCIA) authorizes Federal agencies to publish or 
otherwise publicly disseminate information regarding the identity of 
persons owing delinquent nontax debts to the United States for the 
purpose of collecting the debts, provided certain criteria are met. 
Treasury proposes to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking seeking 
comments on a proposed rule that would establish the procedures Federal 
agencies must follow before promulgating their own rules to publish 
information about delinquent debtors and the standards for determining 
when use of this debt collection remedy is appropriate.
Community Development Financial Institutions Fund
    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 et seq.). The mission of the 
CDFI Fund is to increase economic opportunity and promote community 
development investments for underserved populations and in distressed 
communities in the United States. The CDFI Fund currently administers 
the following programs: The Community Development Financial 
Institutions (CDFI) Program, the Bank Enterprise Award (BEA) Program, 
the Native American CDFI Assistance (NACA) Program, and the New Markets 
Tax Credit (NMTC) Program, the Financial Education and Counseling Pilot 
Program (FEC), the Capital Magnet Fund (CMF), and the CDFI Bond 
Guarantee Program (BGP).
    In FY 2015, the CDFI Fund will publish updated regulations for its 
BEA Program and CDFI Program to incorporate the requirements of the 
Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit 
Requirements for Federal Awards (2 CFR part 200). In December 2013, the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) published a final rule that 
provides a government-wide framework for grants management, with the 
goal of combining several OMB guidance circulars, reducing 
administrative burden for award Recipients, and

[[Page 76604]]

reducing the risk of waste, fraud and abuse of Federal financial 
assistance. The Uniform Federal Award Requirements codifies financial, 
administrative, procurement, and program management standards that 
Federal award agencies must follow. Each Federal agency is anticipated 
to codify these requirements by the end of calendar year 2014.
Customs Revenue Functions
    The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (the Act) provides that the 
Secretary of the Treasury retains sole legal authority over the customs 
revenue functions. The Act also authorizes the Secretary of the 
Treasury to delegate any of the retained authority over customs revenue 
functions to the Secretary of Homeland Security. By Treasury Department 
Order No. 100-16, the Secretary of the Treasury delegated to the 
Secretary of Homeland Security authority to prescribe regulations 
pertaining to the customs revenue functions subject to certain 
exceptions. This Order further provided that the Secretary of the 
Treasury retained the sole authority to approve such regulations.
    During the past fiscal year, among the customs-revenue function 
regulations issued were the United States--Colombia Trade Promotion 
Agreement final rule, the United States--Panama Trade Promotion 
Agreement final rule, and the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) 
and Generalized System of Preferences and Trade Benefits under AGOA 
final rule. On October 1, 2013, U.S. Customs and Border Protection 
(CBP) published the United States--Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement 
final rule (78 FR 60191) that adopted interim amendments (77 FR 59064) 
of September 26, 2012, to the CBP regulations which implemented the 
preferential tariff treatment and other customs-related provisions of 
the United States--Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation 
Act. On May 21, 2014, CBP issued the United States--Panama Trade 
Promotion Agreement final rule (79 FR 29077) that adopted interim 
amendments (78 FR 63052) of October 23, 2013, to the CBP regulations, 
which implemented the preferential tariff treatment and other customs-
related provisions of the United States-Panama Trade Promotion 
Agreement Implementation Act that took effect on October 31, 2012. In 
addition, CBP issued the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) and 
Generalized System of Preferences and Trade Benefits under AGOA final 
rule (79 FR 30356) on May 27, 2014, that adopted the interim amendments 
(65 FR 59668 and 68 FR 13820) of October 5, 2000, and March 21, 2003, 
respectively, to the CBP regulations.
    On December 18, 2013, Treasury and CBP published a final rule 
titled Members of a Family for Purposes of Filing a CBP Family 
Declaration (78 FR 76529) that amended the regulations by expanding the 
definition of the term, ``members of a family residing in one 
household,'' to allow more U.S. returning residents traveling as a 
family upon their arrival in the United States to be eligible to group 
their duty exemptions and file a single customs declaration for 
articles acquired abroad.
    This past fiscal year, consistent with the goals of Executive 
Orders 12866 and 13563, Treasury and CBP proposed changes to 
Documentation Related to Goods Imported From U.S. Insular Possessions 
on January 14, 2014 (79 FR 2395), to eliminate the requirement that a 
customs officer at the port of export verify and sign CBP Form 3229, 
Certificate of Origin for U.S. Insular Possessions, and to require 
instead that the importer present this form, upon CBP's request, rather 
than submit it with each entry as the current regulations require. The 
changes proposed would streamline the entry process by making it more 
efficient as it would reduce the overall administrative burden on both 
the trade and CBP. If the importer does not maintain CBP Form 3229 in 
its possession, the importer may be subject to a recordkeeping penalty. 
CBP plans to finalize this rule during fiscal year 2015.
    During fiscal year 2015, CBP and Treasury also plan to give 
priority to the following regulatory matters involving the customs 
revenue functions:
    In-Bond Process. Consistent with the practice of continuing to move 
forward with Customs Modernization provisions of the North American 
Free Trade Implementation Act to improve its regulatory procedures, 
Treasury and CBP plan to finalize this fiscal year the proposal to 
change the in-bond process by issuing final regulations to amend the 
in-bond regulations that were proposed on February 22, 2012 (77 FR 
10622). The proposed changes, including the automation of the in-bond 
process, would modernize, simplify, and facilitate the in-bond process 
while enhancing CBP's ability to regulate and track in-bond merchandise 
to ensure that in-bond merchandise is properly entered or exported.
    Free Trade Agreements. Treasury and CBP also plan to issue final 
regulations this fiscal year to implement the preferential trade 
benefit provisions of the United States-Singapore Free Trade Agreement 
Implementation Act. Treasury and CBP also expect to issue interim 
regulations implementing the preferential trade benefit provisions of 
the United States-Australia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act.
    Customs and Border Protection's Bond Program. Treasury and CBP plan 
to publish a final rule amending the regulations to reflect the 
centralization of the continuous bond program at CBP's Revenue 
Division. The changes proposed would support CBP's bond program by 
ensuring an efficient and uniform approach to the approval, 
maintenance, and periodic review of continuous bonds, as well as 
accommodating the use of information technology and modern business 
practices.
    Disclosure of Information for Certain Intellectual Property Rights 
Enforced at the Border. Treasury and CBP plan to finalize interim 
amendments to the CBP regulations which provides a pre-seizure notice 
procedure for disclosing information appearing on the imported 
merchandise and/or its retail packing suspected of bearing a 
counterfeit mark to an intellectual property right holder for the 
limited purpose of obtaining the right holder's assistance in 
determining whether the mark is counterfeit or not.
Internal Revenue Service
    The Internal Revenue Service (IRS), working with the Office of Tax 
Policy, promulgates regulations that interpret and implement the 
Internal Revenue Code and related tax statutes. The purpose of these 
regulations is to carry out the tax policy determined by Congress in a 
fair, impartial, and reasonable manner, taking into account the intent 
of Congress, the realities of relevant transactions, the need for the 
Government to administer the rules and monitor compliance, and the 
overall integrity of the Federal tax system. The goal is to make the 
regulations practical and as clear and simple as possible.
    During fiscal year 2015, the IRS will accord priority to the 
following regulatory projects:
    Tax-Related Affordable Care Act Provisions. On March 23, 2010, the 
President signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 
(Pub. L. 111-148) and on March 30, 2010, the President signed the 
Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-152) 
(referred to collectively as the Affordable Care Act (ACA)). The ACA's 
reform of the health insurance system affects individuals, families, 
employers, health care providers, and health insurance providers. The 
ACA provides authority for Treasury and the IRS to issue regulations 
and other guidance to

[[Page 76605]]

implement tax provisions in the ACA, some of which are already 
effective and some of which will become effective over the next several 
years. Since enactment of the ACA, Treasury and the IRS have issued a 
series of temporary, proposed, and final regulations implementing over 
a dozen provisions of the ACA, including the premium tax credit under 
section 36B, the small-business health coverage tax credit under 
section 45R, new requirements for charitable hospitals under section 
501(r), limits on tax preferences for remuneration provided by certain 
health insurance providers under section 162(m)(6), the employer shared 
responsibility provisions under section 4980H, the individual shared 
responsibility provisions under section 5000A, insurer and employer 
reporting under sections 6055 and 6056, and several revenue-raising 
provisions, including fees on branded prescription drugs under section 
9008 of the ACA, fees on health insurance providers under section 9010 
of the ACA, the tax on indoor tanning services under 5000B, the net 
investment income tax under section 1411, and the additional Medicare 
tax under sections 3101 and 3102.
    In fiscal year 2015, Treasury and the IRS will continue to provide 
guidance to implement tax provisions of the ACA, including:
     Final regulations related to numerous aspects of the 
premium tax credit under section 36B, including the determination of 
minimum value of eligible-employer-sponsored plans;
     Final regulations on application for recognition of tax 
exemption as a qualified nonprofit health insurer under section 
501(c)(29);
     Final regulations on new requirements for charitable 
hospitals under section 501(r);
     Final regulations regarding issues related to the net 
investment income tax under section 1411; and
     Final regulations concerning minimum essential coverage 
and other rules regarding the individual shared responsibility 
provision under section 5000A.
    Interest on Deferred Tax Liability for Contingent Payment 
Installment Sales. Section 453 of the Internal Revenue Code generally 
allows taxpayers to report the gain from a sale of property in the 
taxable year or years in which payments are received, rather than in 
the year of sale. Section 453A of the Code imposes an interest charge 
on the tax liability that is deferred as a result of reporting the gain 
when payments are received. The interest charge generally applies to 
installment obligations that arise from a sale of property using the 
installment method if the sales price of the property exceeds $150,000, 
and the face amount of all such installment obligations held by a 
taxpayer that arose during, and are outstanding as of the close of, a 
taxable year exceeds $5,000,000. The interest charge provided in 
section 453A cannot be determined under the terms of the statute if an 
installment obligation provides for contingent payments. Accordingly, 
in section 453A(c)(6), Congress authorized the Secretary of the 
Treasury to issue regulations providing for the application of section 
453A in the case of installment sales with contingent payments. 
Treasury and the IRS intend to issue proposed regulations that, when 
finalized, will provide guidance and reduce uncertainty regarding the 
application of section 453A to contingent payments.
    Rules for Home Construction Contracts. In general, section 460(a) 
requires taxpayers to use the percentage-of-completion method (PCM) to 
account for taxable income from any long-term contract. Under the PCM, 
income is generally reported in installments as work is performed, and 
expenses are generally deducted in the taxable year incurred. However, 
taxpayers with contracts that meet the definition of a ``home 
construction contract,'' under section 460(e)(4), are not required to 
use the PCM for those contracts and may, instead, use an exempt method. 
Exempt methods include the completed contract method (CCM) and the 
accrual method. Under the CCM, for example, a taxpayer generally takes 
into account the entire gross contract price and all incurred allocable 
contract costs in the taxable year the taxpayer completes the contract. 
Treasury and the IRS believe that amended rules are needed to reduce 
uncertainty and controversy, including litigation, regarding when a 
contract qualifies as a ``home construction contract'' and when the 
income and allocable deductions are taken into account under the CCM. 
On August 4, 2008, Treasury and the IRS published proposed regulations 
on the types of contracts that are eligible for the home construction 
contract exemption. The preamble to those regulations stated that 
Treasury and the IRS expected to propose additional rules specific to 
home construction contracts accounted for using the CCM. After 
considering comments received and the need for additional and clearer 
rules to reduce ongoing uncertainty and controversy, Treasury and the 
IRS have determined that it would be beneficial to taxpayers to present 
all of the proposed changes to the current regulations in a single 
document. Treasury and the IRS plan to withdraw the 2008 proposed 
regulations and replace them with new, more comprehensive proposed 
regulations.
    Research Expenditures. Section 41 of the Internal Revenue Code 
provides a credit against taxable income for certain expenses paid or 
incurred in conducting research activities. To assist in resolving 
areas of controversy and uncertainty with respect to research expenses, 
Treasury and the IRS plan to issue regulations with respect to the 
definition and credit eligibility of expenditures for internal use 
software, the election of the alternative simplified credit, and the 
allocation of the credit among members of a controlled group.
    Estate Tax Portability of Decedent's Unused Exclusion Amount. The 
Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation 
Act of 2010 (TRA of 2010) amended sections 2010 and 2505 of the 
Internal Revenue Code to provide an estate of a decedent survived by a 
spouse the opportunity to transfer, or port, unused applicable 
exclusion amount to and for the benefit of the surviving spouse. 
Although the portability provisions of TRA of 2010 were originally 
scheduled to expire on December 31, 2012, the American Taxpayer Relief 
Act of 2012 made the portability provisions permanent. Treasury and the 
IRS plan to issue final regulations on or before June 15, 2015, to 
replace sunsetting temporary regulations. The final regulations will 
provide rules for electing portability, determining the unused 
exclusion amount available from the estate of the first-to-die spouse 
to the surviving spouse, and applying the ported unused exclusion 
amount to the surviving spouse's subsequent transfers.
    Arbitrage Investment Restrictions on Tax-Exempt Bonds. The 
arbitrage investment restrictions on tax-exempt bonds under section 148 
generally limit issuers from investing bond proceeds in higher-yielding 
investments. On September 16, 2013, Treasury and the IRS published 
proposed regulations (78 FR 56842) to address selected current issues 
involving the arbitrage investment restrictions, including guidance on 
the issue price definition used in the computation of bond yield, 
working capital financings, grants, investment valuation, 
modifications, terminations of qualified hedging transactions, and 
selected other issues. Treasury and the IRS plan to provide additional 
guidance on the arbitrage investment restrictions, including guidance 
on the issue price definition used in the computation of bond yield.

[[Page 76606]]

    Guidance on the Definition of Political Subdivision for Tax-Exempt, 
Tax-Credit, and Direct-Pay Bonds. A political subdivision may be a 
valid issuer of tax-exempt, tax-credit, and direct-pay bonds. Concerns 
have been raised about what is required for an entity to be a political 
subdivision. Treasury and the IRS plan to provide additional guidance 
under section 103 for determining when an entity is a political 
subdivision.
    Contingent Notional Principal Contract Regulations. Notice 2001-44 
(2001-2 CB 77) outlined four possible approaches for recognizing 
nonperiodic payments made or received on a notional principal contract 
(NPC) when the contract includes a nonperiodic payment that is 
contingent in fact or in amount. The Notice solicited further comments 
and information on the treatment of such payments. After considering 
the comments received in response to Notice 2001-44, Treasury and the 
IRS published proposed regulations (69 FR 8886) (the 2004 proposed 
regulations) that would amend section 1.446-3 and provide additional 
rules regarding the timing and character of income, deduction, gain, or 
loss with respect to such nonperiodic payments, including termination 
payments. On December 7, 2007, Treasury and IRS released Notice 2008-2 
requesting comments and information with respect to transactions 
frequently referred to as prepaid forward contracts. Treasury and the 
IRS plan to re-propose regulations to address issues relating to the 
timing and character of nonperiodic contingent payments on NPCs, 
including termination payments and payments on prepaid forward 
contracts.
    Tax Treatment of Distressed Debt. A number of tax issues relating 
to the amount, character, and timing of income, expense, gain, or loss 
on distressed debt remain unresolved. In addition, the tax treatment of 
distressed debt, including distressed debt that has been modified, may 
affect the qualification of certain entities for tax purposes or result 
in additional taxes on the investors in such entities, such as 
regulated investment companies, real estate investment trusts (REITs), 
and real estate mortgage investment conduits (REMICs). During fiscal 
year 2014, Treasury and the IRS addressed some of these issues through 
published guidance, including guidance on an entity's qualification as 
a REIT in the context of transactions involving distressed mortgage 
loans. Treasury and the IRS plan to address more of these issues in 
published guidance.
    Definition of Real Property and Qualifying Income for REIT 
Purposes. A taxpayer must satisfy certain asset and income requirements 
to qualify as a REIT under section 856. REITs have sought to invest in 
various types of assets that are not directly addressed by the current 
regulations or other published guidance. On May 14, 2014, Treasury and 
the IRS published proposed regulations (79 FR 27508) to update and 
clarify the definition of real property for REIT qualification 
purposes, including guidance addressing whether a component of a larger 
item is tested on its own or only as part of the larger item, the scope 
of the asset to be tested, and whether certain intangible assets 
qualify as real property. Treasury and the IRS plan to finalize the 
proposed regulations in the fiscal year. Treasury and the IRS also plan 
to provide guidance clarifying the definition of income for purposes of 
section 856.
    Corporate Spin-offs and Split-offs. Section 355 and related 
provisions of the Internal Revenue Code allow for the tax-free 
distribution of stock or securities of a controlled corporation if 
certain requirements are met. For example, the distributing corporation 
must distribute a controlling interest in the controlled corporation, 
and both the distributing and controlled corporations must be engaged 
in the active conduct of a trade or business immediately after the 
distribution. The Treasury Department and the IRS intend to provide 
guidance on the qualification of a distribution for tax-free treatment 
under section 355, including (1) final regulations that address when a 
corporation is treated as engaged in an active trade or business, and 
(2) final regulations that define predecessor or successor corporation 
for purposes of the exception to tax-free treatment under section 
355(e). The Treasury Department and the IRS also intend to provide 
guidance relating to the tax treatment of other transactions undertaken 
as part of a plan that includes a distribution of stock or securities 
of a controlled corporation, such as changes to the voting power of the 
controlled corporation's stock in anticipation of the distribution, the 
issuance of debt of the distributing corporation and retirement of such 
debt using stock or securities of the controlled corporation, and the 
transfer of cash or property between a distributing or controlled 
corporation and its shareholder(s) in connection with the distribution.
    Disguised Sale and Allocation of Liabilities. A contribution of 
property by a partner to a partnership may be recharacterized as a sale 
under section 707(a)(2)(B) if the partnership distributes to the 
contributing partner cash or other property that is, in substance, 
consideration for the contribution. The allocation of partnership 
liabilities to the partners under section 752 may impact the 
determination of whether a disguised sale has occurred and whether gain 
is otherwise recognized upon a distribution. Treasury and the IRS 
issued proposed regulations to address certain issues that arise in the 
disguised sale context and other issues regarding the partners' shares 
of partnership liabilities. Treasury and the IRS are considering 
comments on the proposed regulations and expect to issue regulations in 
fiscal year 2015.
    Certain Partnership Distributions Treated as Sales or Exchanges. In 
1954, Congress enacted section 751 to prevent the use of a partnership 
to convert potential ordinary income into capital gain. In 1956, 
Treasury and the IRS issued regulations implementing section 751. The 
current regulations, however, do not always achieve the purpose of the 
statute. In 2006, Treasury and the IRS published Notice 2006-14 (2006-1 
CB 498) to propose and solicit alternative approaches to section 751 
that better achieve the purpose of the statute while providing greater 
simplicity. Treasury and the IRS are currently working on proposed 
regulations following up on Notice 2006-14. These regulations will 
provide guidance on determining a partner's interest in a partnership's 
section 751 property and how a partnership recognizes income required 
by section 751.
    Penalties and Limitation Periods. Congress amended several penalty 
provisions in the Internal Revenue Code in the past several years. 
Treasury and the IRS intend to publish a number of guidance projects in 
fiscal year 2015 addressing these penalty provisions. Specifically, 
Treasury and the IRS intend to publish final regulations under section 
6708 regarding the penalty for failure to make available upon request a 
list of advisees that is required to be maintained under section 6112. 
The proposed regulations were published on March 8, 2013. Treasury and 
the IRS also intend to publish proposed regulations under sections 
6662, 6662A, and 6664 to provide further guidance on the circumstances 
under which a taxpayer could be subject to the accuracy related penalty 
on underpayments or reportable transaction understatements and the 
reasonable cause exception. Further, Treasury and the IRS intend to 
publish (1) final regulations under section 6501(c)(10) regarding the 
extension of

[[Page 76607]]

the period of limitations to assess any tax with respect to a listed 
transaction that was not disclosed as required under section 6011, and 
(2) proposed regulations under section 6707A addressing statutory 
changes to the method of computing the penalty for failure to disclose 
reportable transactions.
    Inversion Transactions. On September 22, 2014, Treasury and the IRS 
issued Notice 2014-52, addressing the application of sections 7874 and 
367 to inversions, as well as certain tax avoidance transactions that 
are undertaken after an inversion transaction. In this fiscal year, 
Treasury and the IRS expect to issue regulations implementing the rules 
described in Notice 2014-52. Also in this fiscal year, Treasury and the 
IRS expect to issue additional guidance to further limit inversion 
transactions that are contrary to the purposes of section 7874 and the 
benefits of post-inversion tax avoidance transactions. In addition, 
under the terms of the statute, section 7874 will not apply to an 
inversion if the post-transaction group has substantial business 
activities in the country in which the foreign acquiring corporation is 
organized when compared to the total business activities of the group. 
On June 7, 2012, Treasury and the IRS issued temporary regulations 
regarding the determination of whether a group satisfies the 
substantial business activities test. During fiscal year 2015, Treasury 
and the IRS intend to finalize these regulations.
    Information Reporting for Foreign Accounts of U.S. Persons. In 
March 2010, chapter 4 (sections 1471 to 1474) was added to subtitle A 
of the Internal Revenue Code as part of the Hiring Incentives to 
Restore Employment Act (HIRE Act) (Pub. L. 111-147). Chapter 4 was 
enacted to address concerns with offshore tax evasion by U.S. citizens 
and residents and generally requires foreign financial institutions 
(FFIs) to enter into an agreement (FFI Agreement) with the IRS to 
report information regarding financial accounts of U.S. persons and 
certain foreign entities with significant U.S. ownership. An FFI that 
does not enter into an FFI Agreement, or that is not otherwise deemed 
compliant with FATCA, generally will be subject to a withholding tax on 
the gross amount of certain payments from U.S. sources. The Treasury 
Department and the IRS have issued proposed, temporary, and final 
regulations under chapter 4; and proposed and temporary regulations 
under chapters 3 and 61, and section 3406, to coordinate with those 
chapter 4 regulations; as well as implementing revenue procedures and 
other guidance. The Treasury Department and the IRS expect to issue 
further guidance with respect to FATCA and related provisions in this 
fiscal year.
    Withholding on Certain Dividend Equivalent Payments on Certain 
Equity Derivatives. The HIRE Act also added section 871(l) to the Code 
(now section 871(m)), which designates certain substitute dividend 
payments in security lending and sale-repurchase transactions and 
dividend-referenced payments made under certain notional principal 
contracts as U.S.-source dividends for Federal tax purposes. In 
response to this legislation, on May 20, 2010, the IRS issued Notice 
2010-46, addressing the requirements for determining the proper 
withholding in connection with substitute dividends paid in foreign-to-
foreign security lending and sale-repurchase transactions. On January 
23, 2012, Treasury and the IRS issued temporary and proposed 
regulations addressing cases in which dividend equivalents will be 
found to arise in connection with notional principal contracts and 
other financial derivatives. On December 5, 2013, Treasury and the IRS 
released final regulations relating to the 2012 temporary and proposed 
regulations. At the same time, Treasury and the IRS issued new proposed 
regulations based on comments received with respect to the 2012 
proposed regulations. Treasury and the IRS expect to finalize these 
regulations in this fiscal year.
    International Tax Provisions of the Education Jobs and Medicaid 
Assistance Act. On August 10, 2010, the Education Jobs and Medicaid 
Assistance Act of 2010 (EJMAA) (Pub. L. 111-226) was signed into law. 
The law includes a significant package of international tax provisions, 
including limitations on the availability of foreign tax credits in 
certain cases in which U.S. tax law and foreign tax law provide 
different rules for recognizing income and gain, and in cases in which 
income items treated as foreign source under certain tax treaties would 
otherwise be sourced in the United States. The legislation also limits 
the ability of multinationals to reduce their U.S. tax burdens by using 
a provision intended to prevent corporations from avoiding U.S. income 
tax on repatriated corporate earnings. Other new provisions under this 
legislation limit the ability of multinational corporations to use 
acquisitions of related party stock to avoid U.S. tax on what would 
otherwise be taxable distributions of dividends. The statute also 
includes a new provision intended to tighten the rules under which 
interest expense is allocated between U.S.- and foreign-source income 
within multinational groups of related corporations when a foreign 
corporation has significant amounts of U.S.-source income that is 
effectively connected with a U.S. business. Treasury and the IRS 
published temporary and proposed regulations addressing foreign tax 
credits under section 909 in 2012, published temporary and proposed 
regulations in 2012 and final regulations in 2014 updating the interest 
allocation regulations to conform to the 2010 amendments to section 
864(e)(5)(A), and issued two notices providing guidance under section 
901(m) in 2014. Treasury and the IRS expect to issue additional 
guidance on EJMAA in this fiscal year, including additional guidance 
under section 901(m), final regulations under section 909, and 
temporary and proposed regulations under section 304(b)(5)(B).
    Transfers of Intangibles to Foreign Corporations. Section 367(d) of 
the Internal Revenue Code requires, except as provided in regulations, 
a U.S. person who transfers intangible property to a foreign 
corporation in an exchange described in section 351 or section 361 of 
the Code to treat the transfer as a sale for payments which are 
contingent upon the productivity, use, or disposition of such property, 
and to take into account amounts which reasonably reflect the amounts 
which would have been received annually in the form of such payments 
over the useful life of such property, or at the time of the 
disposition of the property. The amounts so taken into account must be 
commensurate with the income attributable to the intangible. Under 
existing temporary regulations issued in 1986, section 367(d) is made 
inapplicable to the transfer of ``foreign goodwill or going concern 
value,'' as defined in the regulations. The existing regulations 
provide general guidance regarding the application of section 367(d), 
although controversy regarding the application of section 367(d) to 
certain transfers led the Treasury and the IRS to publish Notice 2012-
39 on July 13, 2012. Treasury and the IRS intend to issue additional 
guidance in this fiscal year to reduce uncertainty and controversy in 
this area.
    Section 501(c) guidance. After reviewing over 150,000 comments 
submitted on the proposed regulations under section 501(c)(4) published 
in fiscal year 2014, Treasury and the IRS plan to issue revised 
proposed regulations that provide guidance under section 501(c) 
relating to limitations on political campaign activities of certain 
tax-exempt organizations.

[[Page 76608]]

    Guidance responding to the SEC's money market reform rule. On July 
23, 2014, the SEC adopted a final rule to reduce the systemic risk that 
money market funds present to the national economy. Later that day, IRS 
and the Treasury Department issued simplifying guidance designed to 
ameliorate the tax compliance difficulties that the SEC rule would 
otherwise pose to certain money market funds and their shareholders. In 
fiscal year 2015, the Treasury Department and the IRS intend to 
finalize the portion of this simplifying guidance that is only 
proposed.
    Guidance Relating to Publicly Traded Partnerships. Section 7704 of 
the Internal Revenue Code provides that a partnership whose interests 
are traded on either an established securities market or on a secondary 
market (a ``publicly traded partnership'') is generally treated as a 
corporation for Federal tax purposes. However, section 7704(c) permits 
publicly traded partnerships to be treated as partnerships for Federal 
tax purposes if 90 percent or more of partnership income consists of 
``qualifying income.'' Section 7704(d) provides that income is 
generally qualifying income if it is passive income or is derived from 
exploration, development, mining or production, processing, refining, 
transportation, or marketing of a mineral or natural resource. 
Legislative history accompanying section 7704(d) provides little 
insight into the intended scope of this natural resource exception, and 
no administrative guidance has been issued. As technologies and 
commercial practices in the natural resource industries have evolved, 
uncertainty has arisen about the proper interpretation of the natural 
resource exception. Treasury and the IRS intend to issue guidance in 
this fiscal year to reduce uncertainty in this area.
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network
    As chief administrator of the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), the Financial 
Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) is responsible for developing and 
implementing regulations that are the core of the Department's anti-
money laundering and counter-terrorism financing efforts. FinCEN's 
responsibilities and objectives are linked to, and flow from, that 
role. In fulfilling this role, FinCEN seeks to enhance U.S. national 
security by making the financial system increasingly resistant to abuse 
by money launderers, terrorists and their financial supporters, and 
other perpetrators of crime.
    The Secretary of the Treasury, through FinCEN, is authorized by the 
BSA to issue regulations requiring financial institutions to file 
reports and keep records that are determined to have a high degree of 
usefulness in criminal, tax, or regulatory matters or in the conduct of 
intelligence or counter-intelligence activities to protect against 
international terrorism. The BSA also authorizes requiring designated 
financial institutions to establish anti-money laundering programs and 
compliance procedures. To implement and realize its mission, FinCEN has 
established regulatory objectives and priorities to safeguard the 
financial system from the abuses of financial crime, including 
terrorist financing, money laundering, and other illicit activity. 
These objectives and priorities include: (1) issuing, interpreting, and 
enforcing compliance with regulations implementing the BSA; (2) 
supporting, working with, and as appropriate, overseeing compliance 
examination functions delegated to other Federal regulators; (3) 
managing the collection, processing, storage, and dissemination of data 
related to the BSA; (4) maintaining a government-wide access service to 
that same data and for network users with overlapping interests; (5) 
conducting analysis in support of policymakers, law enforcement, 
regulatory and intelligence agencies, and the financial sector; and (6) 
coordinating with and collaborating on anti-terrorism and anti-money 
laundering initiatives with domestic law enforcement and intelligence 
agencies, as well as foreign financial intelligence units.
    During fiscal year 2014, FinCEN issued the following regulatory 
actions:
    Amendments to the Definitions of Funds Transfer and Transmittal of 
Funds in the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) Regulations. On December 5, 2013, 
FinCEN issued a Final Rule jointly with the Board of Governors of the 
Federal Reserve System amending the regulatory definitions of ``funds 
transfer'' and ``transmittal of funds'' under the regulations 
implementing the BSA. The changes maintain the existing scope to the 
definitions and were necessary in light of changes to the Electronic 
Fund Transfer Act that would have resulted in certain currently covered 
transactions being excluded from BSA requirements.
    Anti-Money Laundering Program and Suspicious Activity Reporting 
(SAR) Requirements for Housing Government-Sponsored Enterprises. On 
February 25, 2014, FinCEN issued a Final Rule defining certain housing 
government-sponsored enterprises as financial institutions for the 
purpose of requiring them to establish anti-money laundering programs 
and report suspicious activity to FinCEN pursuant to the BSA.
    Imposition of Special Measure against FBME Bank Ltd., formerly 
known as Federal Bank of the Middle East, Ltd., as a Financial 
Institution of Primary Money Laundering Concern. On July 22, 2014, 
FinCEN issued a finding that FBME Bank Ltd. (FBME) is a financial 
institution operating outside of the United States that is of primary 
money laundering concern under section 311 of the USA PATRIOT Act. On 
July 22, 2014, FinCEN issued an NPRM to impose the fifth special 
measure against the institution. The fifth special measure prohibits or 
conditions the opening or maintaining of correspondent or payable-
through accounts for the designated institution by U.S. financial 
institutions. In conjunction with the NPRM, FinCEN issued an order 
imposing certain recordkeeping and reporting obligations on covered 
financial institutions and principal money transmitters with respect to 
transactions involving FBME.
    Customer Due Diligence Requirements. On August 4, 2014, FinCEN 
issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to solicit public comment 
on proposed rules under the BSA to clarify and strengthen customer due 
diligence requirements for banks, brokers or dealers in securities, 
mutual funds, and futures commission merchants and introducing brokers 
in commodities. The proposed rules contain explicit customer due 
diligence requirements and include a new regulatory requirement to 
identify beneficial owners of legal entity customers, subject to 
certain exemptions.
    Administrative Rulings and Written Guidance. FinCEN published 13 
administrative rulings and written guidance pieces, and provided 45 
responses to written inquiries/correspondence interpreting the BSA and 
providing clarity to regulated industries.
    FinCEN's regulatory priorities for fiscal year 2015 include 
finalizing any initiatives mentioned above that are not finalized by 
fiscal year end, as well as the following in-process and potential 
projects:
    Amendment to the BSA Regulations--Definition of Monetary 
Instrument. On October 17, 2011, FinCEN published an NPRM regarding 
international transport of prepaid access devices because of the 
potential to substitute prepaid access for cash and other monetary 
instruments as a means to smuggle the proceeds of illegal activity into 
and out of the United States. FinCEN continues to consider the issue 
based on comments

[[Page 76609]]

received and developments in the prepaid industry. FinCEN intends to 
issue a supplemental NPRM to provide additional information for 
consideration and comment by the public.
    Anti-Money Laundering Program and SAR Requirements for Investment 
Advisers. FinCEN has drafted an NPRM that would prescribe minimum 
standards for anti-money laundering programs to be established by 
certain investment advisers and to require such investment advisers to 
report suspicious activity to FinCEN. FinCEN has been working closely 
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on issues related to the 
draft NPRM.
    Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts. FinCEN has drafted 
an NPRM to address requests from filers for clarification of certain 
requirements regarding the Report of Foreign Bank and Financial 
Accounts (FBAR) including requirements with respect to employees, who 
have signature authority over, but no financial interest in, the 
foreign financial accounts of their employers.
    Cross Border Electronic Transmittal of Funds. On September 27, 
2010, FinCEN issued an NPRM in conjunction with the feasibility study 
prepared pursuant to the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention 
Act of 2004 concerning the issue of obtaining information about certain 
cross-border funds transfers and transmittals of funds. As FinCEN has 
continued to work on developing the system to receive, store, and use 
this data, FinCEN has drafted a Supplemental NPRM to update the 
previously published proposed rule and provide additional information 
to those banks and money transmitters that will become subject to the 
rule.
    Anti-Money Laundering Program Requirements for Banks Lacking a 
Federal Functional Regulator. FinCEN has drafted an NPRM to remove the 
anti-money laundering (AML) program exemption for banks that lack a 
Federal functional regulator, including, but not limited to, private 
banks, non-federally insured credit unions, and certain trust 
companies. The proposed rule prescribes minimum standards for AML 
programs and would ensure that all banks, regardless of whether they 
are subject to Federal regulation and oversight, are required to 
establish and implement AML programs.
    Amendments to the Definitions of Broker or Dealer in Securities. 
FinCEN has drafted an NPRM that proposes amendments to the regulatory 
definitions of broker or dealer in securities under the BSA 
regulations. The proposed changes would expand the current scope of the 
definitions to include funding portals and would require them to 
implement policies and procedures reasonably designed to achieve 
compliance with all of the BSA requirements that are currently 
applicable to brokers or dealers in securities.
    Amendment to the Bank Secrecy Act Regulations--Registration, 
Recordkeeping, and Reporting of Money Services Businesses. FinCEN is 
considering issuing an NPRM to amend the requirements for money 
services businesses with respect to registering with FinCEN and with 
respect to the information reported during the registration process.
    Changes to the Travel and Recordkeeping Requirements for Funds 
Transfers and Transmittals of Funds. FinCEN is considering changes to 
require that more information be collected and maintained by financial 
institutions on funds transfers and transmittals of funds and to lower 
the threshold to $1,000 from $3,000, which would bring the United 
States into greater compliance with several criteria in the Financial 
Action Task Force (FATF) standards for cross-border wire transfers.
    Other Requirements. FinCEN also will continue to issue proposed and 
final rules pursuant to section 311 of the USA PATRIOT Act, as 
appropriate. Finally, FinCEN expects that it may propose various 
technical and other regulatory amendments in conjunction with its 
ongoing, comprehensive review of existing regulations to enhance 
regulatory efficiency, and as a result of the efforts of an interagency 
task force currently focusing on improvements to the U.S. regulatory 
framework for anti-money laundering.
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
    The primary mission of the Office of the Comptroller of the 
Currency (OCC) is to charter, regulate, and supervise all national 
banks and Federal Savings Associations (FSAs). The agency also 
supervises the Federal branches and agencies of foreign banks. The 
OCC's goal in supervising the financial institutions subject to its 
jurisdiction is to ensure that they operate in a safe and sound manner 
and in compliance with laws requiring fair treatment of their customers 
and fair access to credit and financial products.
    Significant rules issued during fiscal year 2014 include:
    Regulatory Capital Rules--Basel III (12 CFR parts 3, 5, 6, 165, 
167). The OCC and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System 
(FRB) issued a final rule that revises the risk-based and leverage 
capital requirements for banking organizations. (The Federal Deposit 
Insurance Corporation (FDIC) separately issued an interim final rule 
that is substantively the same as the final rule issued by the OCC and 
the FRB.) The final rule consolidates three separate proposed rules 
that were published jointly by the OCC, FRB and FDIC (the banking 
agencies) on August 30, 2012, 77 FR 52792, 52888, 52978, into one final 
rule. The final rule implements a revised definition of regulatory 
capital, a new common equity tier 1 minimum capital requirement, a 
higher minimum tier 1 capital requirement, and, for banking 
organizations subject to the advanced approaches risk-based capital 
rules, a supplementary leverage ratio that incorporates a broader set 
of exposures in the denominator. The final rule incorporates new 
requirements into the banking agencies' prompt corrective action 
framework and establishes limits on a banking organization's capital 
distributions and certain discretionary bonus payments if the banking 
organization does not hold a specified amount of common equity tier 1 
capital in addition to the amount necessary to meet its minimum risk-
based capital requirements. The final rule amends the methodologies for 
determining risk-weighted assets for all banking organizations and 
introduces disclosure requirements that would apply to top-tier banking 
organizations domiciled in the United States with $50 billion or more 
in total assets. The final rule also adopts changes required by the 
Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (Pub. 
L. 111-203) (the Dodd-Frank Act) to implement more stringent capital 
and leverage requirements and to replace regulatory references to 
credit ratings with new creditworthiness measures. The final rule was 
published on October 11, 2013, 78 FR 62018.
    Enhanced Supplementary Leverage Ratio (12 CFR part 3). The banking 
agencies issued a final rule to strengthen the leverage ratio standards 
for large, interconnected U.S. banking organizations. The rule applies 
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 
(IDI) subsidiary of these BHCs. In the Basel III final rule, the 
banking agencies established a minimum supplementary leverage ratio of 
3 percent (supplementary leverage ratio), consistent with the minimum

[[Page 76610]]

leverage ratio adopted by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, 
for banking organizations subject to the advanced approaches risk-based 
capital rules. In this final rule, the banking agencies establish a 
``well capitalized'' threshold of 6 percent for the supplementary 
leverage ratio for any IDI that is a subsidiary of a covered BHC, under 
the agencies' prompt corrective action framework. The final rule was 
issued on May 1, 2014, 79 FR 24528.
    Supplementary Leverage Ratio (12 CFR part 3). The banking agencies 
issued a final rule to revise the denominator of the supplementary 
leverage ratio (total leverage exposure) that the agencies adopted in 
July 2013 as part of comprehensive revisions to the agencies' 
regulatory capital rules (2013 capital rule). The rule revises the 
treatment of on- and off-balance sheet exposures for purposes of 
determining total leverage exposure, and more closely aligning the 
agencies' rules on the calculation of total leverage exposure with 
international leverage ratio standards. The proposed rule was issued on 
May 1, 2014, 79 FR 24596. The final rule was issued on September 26, 
2014, 79 FR 57725.
    Integration of National Bank and Federal Savings Association 
Regulations: Licensing Rules (12 CFR parts 4, 5, 7, 14, 32, 34, 100, 
116, 143, 144, 145, 146, 150, 152, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 174, 192, 
193). The OCC issued a proposed rule to integrate its rules relating to 
policies and procedures for corporate activities and transactions 
involving national banks and FSAs. The proposed rule also revises some 
of these rules in order to eliminate unnecessary requirements, 
consistent with safety and soundness, and to make other technical and 
conforming changes. The proposal also included amendments to update OCC 
rules for agency organization and function. The proposed rule was 
issued on June 10, 2014, 79 FR 33260.
    Assessment of Fees (12 CFR part 8). The OCC issued a final rule to 
increase assessments for national banks and FSAs with assets of more 
than $40 billion. The increase ranges between 0.32 percent and 
approximately 14 percent, depending on the total assets of the 
institution as reflected in its June 30, 2014, Consolidated Report of 
Condition and Income. The average increase in assessments for affected 
banks and FSAs will be 12 percent. The final rule will not increase 
assessments for banks or FSAs with $40 billion or less in total assets. 
The OCC will implement the increase in assessments by issuing an 
amended Notice of Office of the Comptroller of the Currency Fees and 
Assessments, which will become effective as of the semiannual 
assessment due on September 30, 2014. In conjunction with the increase 
in assessments, the final rule updates the OCC's assessment rule to 
conform with section 318 of the Dodd-Frank Act, which reaffirmed the 
authority of the Comptroller of the Currency to set the amount of, and 
methodology for, assessments. The proposed rule was issued on April 28, 
2014, 79 FR 23297. The final rule was issued on July 9, 2014 (79 FR 
38769).
    Flood Insurance (12 CFR parts 22 and 172). The banking agencies, 
Farm Credit Administration (FCA), and the National Credit Union 
Administration (NCUA) proposed revisions to their regulations regarding 
loans in areas having special flood hazards to implement provisions of 
the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012 (Biggert-Waters) 
and the OCC issued a proposed rule to integrate its flood insurance 
regulations for national banks, 12 CFR part 22, and FSAs, 12 CFR part 
172. The proposed rule was issued on October 30, 2013, 78 FR 65108.
    OCC Guidelines Establishing Heightened Standards for Certain Large 
Insured National Banks, Insured Federal Savings Associations, and 
Insured Federal Branches; Integration of Regulations (12 CFR part 30). 
The OCC issued a final rule adopting new Guidelines as an appendix to 
its safety and soundness standards regulations that establish minimum 
standards for the design and implementation of a risk governance 
framework for large insured national banks, insured FSAs, and insured 
Federal branches of foreign banks with average total consolidated 
assets of $50 billion or more and minimum standards for a board of 
directors in overseeing the framework's design and implementation. The 
standards contained in the Guidelines are enforceable by the terms of a 
Federal statute that authorizes the OCC to prescribe operational and 
managerial standards for national banks and FSAs. The proposed rule was 
issued on January 27, 2014, 79 FR 4282. The final rule was issued on 
September 11, 2014, 79 FR 54518.
    Appraisals for Higher-Risk Mortgages (12 CFR parts 34, 164). The 
banking agencies, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), 
Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), and the NCUA, issued a final 
rule on February 13, 2013, 78 FR 10368, to amend Regulation Z and its 
official interpretation. The rule revised Regulation Z to implement a 
new Truth in Lending Act (TILA) provision requiring appraisals for any 
``higher-risk mortgage'' that was added to TILA as part of the Dodd-
Frank Act. For mortgages with an annual percentage rate that exceeds 
market-based prime mortgage rate benchmarks by a specified percentage, 
the rule generally requires creditors to obtain an appraisal or 
appraisals meeting certain specified standards, provide applicants with 
a notification regarding the use of the appraisals, and give applicants 
a copy of the written appraisals used. The agencies issued a 
supplemental rule that would exempt from the requirements of the final 
rule: (i) transactions secured by existing manufactured homes and not 
land; (ii) certain streamlined refinancings; and (iii) transactions of 
$25,000 or less. The supplemental final rule was issued on December 26, 
2013, 78 FR 78520.
    Appraisal Management Companies (12 CFR part 34). The banking 
agencies, FHFA, NCUA and CFPB, issued a proposed rule that would set 
minimum standards for state registration and regulation of appraisal 
management companies. The rule would implement the minimum requirements 
in section 1473 of the Dodd-Frank Act to be applied by states in the 
registration of appraisal management companies. It also would implement 
the requirement in section 1473 of the Dodd-Frank Act for States to 
report to the Appraisal Subcommittee (ASC) of the Federal Financial 
Institutions Examination Council the information needed by the ASC to 
administer the national registry of appraisal management companies. The 
proposed rule was issued on April 9, 2014, 79 FR 19521.
    Prohibition and Restrictions on Proprietary Trading and Certain 
Interests In, and Relationships with, Hedge Funds and Private Equity 
Funds (12 CFR part 44). The banking agencies, the Securities & Exchange 
Commission (SEC), and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) 
issued final rules to implement section 619 of the Dodd-Frank Act, 
which contains certain prohibitions and restrictions on the ability of 
banking entities and nonbank financial companies supervised by the FRB 
to engage in proprietary trading and have certain investments in, or 
relationships with, hedge funds or private equity funds. The final rule 
was issued on January 31, 2014, 79 FR 5536.
    Treatment of Certain Collateralized Debt Obligations Backed 
Primarily by Trust Preferred Securities With Regard to Prohibitions and 
Restrictions on Certain Interests in, and Relationships With, Hedge 
Funds and Private Equity Funds (12 CFR part 44). The banking agencies, 
the CFTC, and the SEC issued an interim final rule that would permit

[[Page 76611]]

banking entities to retain investments in certain pooled investment 
vehicles that invested their offering proceeds primarily in certain 
securities issued by community banking organizations of the type 
grandfathered under section 171 of the Dodd-Frank Act. The interim 
final rule was issued on January 31, 2014, 79 FR 5223.
    Margin and Capital Requirements for Covered Swap Entities (12 CFR 
part 45). The banking agencies, FCA, and the FHFA issued a proposed 
rule to establish minimum margin and capital requirements for 
registered swap dealers, major swap participants, security-based swap 
dealers, and major security-based swap participants for which one of 
the agencies is the prudential regulator. The proposed rule will 
implement sections 731 and 764 of the Dodd-Frank Act, which require the 
agencies to adopt rules jointly to establish capital requirements and 
initial and variation margin requirements for such entities on all non-
cleared swaps and non-cleared security-based swaps in order to offset 
the greater risk to such entities and the financial system arising from 
the use of swaps and security-based swaps that are not cleared. The 
proposed rule was issued on September 24, 2014, 79 FR 57347).
    Liquidity Coverage Ratio (12 CFR 50). The banking agencies issued a 
final rule to implement a quantitative liquidity requirement consistent 
with the liquidity coverage ratio standard established by the Basel 
Committee on Banking Supervision. The requirement is designed to 
promote improvements in the measurement and management of liquidity 
risk. The final rule applies to all internationally active banking 
organizations, that is, banking organizations with more than $250 
billion in total assets or more than $10 billion in on-balance sheet 
foreign exposure, and to consolidated subsidiary depository 
institutions of internationally active banking organizations with $10 
billion or more in total consolidated assets. The proposed rule was 
issued on November 29, 2013, 78 FR 71818. The final rule was issued on 
October 10, 2014, 79 FR 61439.
    Regulatory Publication and Review Under the Economic Growth and 
Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996 (12 CFR chapter I). The 
banking agencies are conducting a review of the regulations they have 
issued to identify outdated, unnecessary, or unduly burdensome 
regulations for insured depository institutions. This review is 
required by section 2222 of the Economic Growth and Regulatory 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996 (EGRPRA). The first of four Federal 
Register requests for comment was issued on June 4, 2014, 79 FR 32172.
    Regulatory priorities for fiscal year 2015 include finalizing the 
proposals and interim final rules listed above as well as the following 
rulemakings:
    Flood Insurance (12 CFR parts 22 and 172). The banking agencies, 
FCA, and NCUA plan to issue a proposed rule to amend their regulations 
regarding loans in areas having special flood hazards to implement 
certain provisions of the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act 
of 2014 (HFIAA), which amends some of the changes to the Flood Disaster 
Protection Act of 1973 mandated by Biggert-Waters. The proposal would 
establish requirements with respect to the escrow of flood insurance 
payments, consistent with the changes set forth in HFIAA. The proposal 
also would implement an exclusion in HFIAA for certain detached 
structures from the mandatory flood insurance purchase requirement.
    Automated Valuation Models (Parts 34, 164). The banking agencies, 
NCUA, FHFA and CFPB, in consultation with the Appraisal Subcommittee 
and the Appraisal Standards Board of the Appraisal Foundation, are 
required to promulgate regulations to implement quality-control 
standards required for automated valuation models. Section 1473(q) of 
the Dodd-Frank Act requires that automated valuation models used to 
estimate collateral value for mortgage lending comply with quality-
control standards designed to: ensure a high level of confidence in the 
estimates produced by automated valuation models; protect against 
manipulation of data; seek to avoid conflicts of interest; require 
random sample testing and reviews and account for other factors the 
agencies deem appropriate. The agencies plan to issue a proposed rule 
to implement the requirement for quality-control standards.
    Incentive-Based Compensation Arrangements (12 CFR part 42). Section 
956 of the Dodd-Frank Act requires the banking agencies, NCUA, SEC, and 
FHFA, to jointly prescribe regulations or guidance prohibiting any type 
of incentive-based payment arrangement, or any feature of any such 
arrangement, that the regulators determine encourages inappropriate 
risks by covered financial institutions by providing an executive 
officer, employee, director, or principal shareholder with excessive 
compensation, fees or benefits, or that could lead to material 
financial loss to the covered financial institution. The Dodd-Frank Act 
also requires such agencies to jointly prescribe regulations or 
guidance requiring each covered financial institution to disclose to 
its regulator the structure of all incentive-based compensation 
arrangements offered by such institution sufficient to determine 
whether the compensation structure provides any officer, employee, 
director, or principal shareholder with excessive compensation or could 
lead to material financial loss to the institution. The proposed rule 
was issued on April 14, 2011, 76 FR 21170. Work on a final rule is 
underway.
    Credit Risk Retention (12 CFR part 43). The banking agencies, SEC, 
FHFA, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed 
rules to implement the credit risk retention requirements of section 
15G of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78o-11), as added 
by section 941 of the Dodd-Frank Act. Section 15G generally requires 
the securitizer of asset-backed securities to retain not less than 5 
percent of the credit risk of the assets collateralizing the asset-
backed securities. Section 15G includes a variety of exemptions from 
these requirements, including an exemption for asset-backed securities 
that are collateralized exclusively by residential mortgages that 
qualify as ``qualified residential mortgages,'' as such term is defined 
by the agencies by rule. The proposal was issued on September 20, 2013, 
78 FR 57928. Work on a final rule is underway.
    Source of Strength (12 CFR part 47). The banking agencies plan to 
issue a proposed rule to implement section 616(d) of the Dodd-Frank 
Act. Section 616(d) requires that bank holding companies, savings and 
loan holding companies and companies that directly or indirectly 
control an insured depository institution serve as a source of strength 
for the insured depository institution. The appropriate Federal banking 
agency for the insured depository institution may require that the 
company submit a report that would assess the company's ability to 
comply with the provisions of the statute and its compliance.

Terrorism Risk Insurance Program Office

    The Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 (TRIA) was signed into law 
on November 26, 2002. The law, which was enacted as a consequence of 
the events of September 11, 2001, established a temporary Federal 
reinsurance program under which the Federal Government shares the risk 
of losses associated with certain types of terrorist acts with 
commercial property and casualty insurers. The Act, originally 
scheduled

[[Page 76612]]

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). Congress is 
currently considering extending the Act for an additional period of 
time.
    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.
    In the event Congress extends the Program Treasury will continue 
the ongoing work of implementing TRIA and any changes contained in the 
extension of the Act.
BILLING CODE 4810-25-P

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS (VA)

Statement of Regulatory Priorities

    The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) administers benefit 
programs that recognize the important public obligations to those who 
served this Nation. VA's regulatory responsibility is almost solely 
confined to carrying out mandates of the laws enacted by Congress 
relating to programs for veterans and their families. 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 dependents. 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 commemorate their service and sacrifice to our Nation.

VA Regulatory Priorities

    VA's regulatory priorities include a special project to undertake a 
comprehensive review and improvement of its existing regulations. The 
first portion of this project is devoted to reviewing, reorganizing, 
and rewriting the VA's compensation and pension regulations found in 38 
CFR part 3. The goal of the Regulation Rewrite Project is to improve 
the clarity and consistency of these regulations to make them easier to 
find, read, understand, and apply.
    A second VA regulatory priority is to implement title I of the 
Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act of 2014, which was 
signed into law on August 7, 2014. The purpose of the new law is to 
establish a program to furnish hospital care and medical services 
through non-VA health care providers to veterans who either cannot be 
seen within VA's wait time goals or who live far from any VA medical 
facility. The statute requires that VA publish an interim final rule by 
November 5, 2014, and VA met this deadline when we published AP24, 
Expanded Access to Non-VA Care through the Veterans Choice Program.
    A third VA regulatory priority is to codify Section 707 of the Act, 
which gives the Secretary more authority to dismiss members of the 
Senior Executive Service based on performance or misconduct. As VA 
announced on October 6, 2014, the Secretary is already implementing 
that provision. To codify the new statute into the Code of Federal 
Regulations, VA plans to publish a rulemaking, AP30, Changes to 
Expedited Senior Executive Removal Authority, as an interim final rule.
    VA is also drafting regulation AP29 to implement Section 702 of the 
Act which requires that public colleges charge in-state tuition for 
veterans under certain circumstances.

Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations

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

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


VA

Final Rule Stage

121.  Expedited Senior Executive Removal Authority

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: Pub. L. 113-146 (title VII, sec 707).
    CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: VA will amend its regulations to provide that the 
Secretary may immediately remove or demote any individual from the 
Senior Executive Service (SES), and title 38 SES equivalents, if the 
Secretary determines the performance of the individual warrants such 
removal. The senior executive would be allowed an opportunity for an 
expedited review by

[[Page 76613]]

the MSPB be conducted by an Administrative Judge at the MSPB, and if 
the MSPB Administrative Judge does not conclude their review within 21 
days then the removal or demotion is final. (MSPB is conducting a 
rulemaking to establish and implement a process to conduct expedited 
reviews.)
    VA regulations would also state that if the senior executive is 
removed, and then appeals VA's decision, the senior executive is not 
entitled to any type of pay, bonus, or benefit while appealing the 
decision of removal. Also, VA regulations would state that if a senior 
executive is demoted, and then appeals VA's decision, the employee may 
only receive any type of pay, bonus, or benefit at the rate appropriate 
for the position they were demoted to, and only if the individual shows 
up for duty, while appealing the decision of demotion.
    VA regulations would also include ``misconduct'' along with ``poor 
performance'' as a reason to remove or demote a senior executive.
    Statement of Need:
    Summary of Legal Basis: Section 707 of the Veterans Access, Choice, 
and Accountability Act of 2014, which was signed into law on August 7, 
2014, gives the Secretary more authority to dismiss members of the 
Senior Executive Service based on performance or misconduct. As VA 
announced on October 6, 2014, the Secretary is already implementing 
that provision. To codify the new statute into the Code of Federal 
Regulations, VA plans to publish a rulemaking as an interim final rule.
    Alternatives:
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
    Risks:
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule..................   07/00/15  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    URL For More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL For Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Kimberly McLeod, Deputy Assistant General Counsel, 
Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., DC 20420, 
Phone: 202 461-7630.
    RIN: 2900-AP30
BILLING CODE 8320-01-P

ARCHITECTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS COMPLIANCE BOARD

Statement of Regulatory and Deregulatory Priorities

    The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board 
(Access Board) is an independent federal agency established by section 
502 of the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. 792). The Access Board is 
responsible for developing accessibility guidelines and standards under 
various laws to ensure that individuals with disabilities have access 
to and use of buildings and facilities, transportation vehicles, 
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 five rulemaking priorities for the Access 
Board in FY 2015: (A) Information and Communication Technology 
Accessibility Standards and Guidelines; (B) Americans with Disabilities 
Act (ADA) Accessibility Guidelines for Transportation Vehicles; (C) 
Medical Diagnostic Equipment Accessibility Standards; (D) Accessibility 
Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way; and 
(E) Americans with Disabilities (ADA) Accessibility Guidelines for 
Passenger Vessels. 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.

A. Information and Communication Technology Accessibility Standards and 
Guidelines (RIN: 3014-AA37)

    This rulemaking would update in a single document the 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 the accessibility guidelines for telecommunications 
equipment and customer premises equipment covered by section 255 of the 
Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 255) (Section 255). Section 508 
requires the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council (FAR Council) and 
each appropriate Federal department or agency to revise their 
procurement policies and directives no later than 6 months after the 
Access Board's publication of standards. The FAR Council has 
incorporated the accessibility standards for electronic and information 
technology in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (48 CFR Chapter 1). 
Under Section 255, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is 
responsible for issuing implementing regulations and enforcing Section 
255. The FCC has promulgated enforceable standards (47 CFR parts 6 and 
7) implementing Section 255 that are consistent with the Access Board's 
accessibility guidelines for telecommunications equipment and customer 
premises equipment.
    The Access Board's 2010 ANPRM included a proposal to amend Section 
220 of the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines 
(ADAAG), but, based on public comments, the ADAAG proposal is no longer 
included in this rulemaking and will be pursued separately at a later 
date.
    A.1. Statement of Need: The Access Board issued the Electronic and 
Information Technology Accessibility Standards in 2000 (65 FR 80500, 
December 21, 2000), and the Telecommunications Act Accessibility 
Guidelines for telecommunications equipment and customer premises 
equipment in 1998 (63 FR 5608, February 3, 1998). Since the standards 
and the guidelines were issued, technology has evolved and changed. 
Telecommunications products and electronic and information technology 
products have converged. For example, smartphones can perform many of 
the same functions as computers. Real time text technologies and video 
relay services are replacing TTY's (text telephones). The Access Board 
is updating the standards and guidelines together to address changes in 
technology and to make them consistent.
    A.2. Summary of the Legal Basis: Section 508 and Section 255 
require the Access Board to develop accessibility standards for 
electronic and information technology and accessibility guidelines for 
telecommunications equipment and customer premises equipment, and to 
periodically review and update the standards and guidelines to reflect 
technological advances and changes.
    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

[[Page 76614]]

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.3. Alternatives: The Access Board established a 
Telecommunications and Electronic and Information Technology Advisory 
Committee to recommend changes to the existing standards and 
guidelines. The advisory committee was comprised of a broad cross-
section of stakeholders, including representatives from industry, 
disability groups, and government agencies from the U.S., the European 
Commission, Canada, Australia, and Japan. Recognizing the importance of 
standardization across markets worldwide, the advisory committee 
coordinated its work with standard-setting bodies in the U.S. and 
abroad, such as the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). The Access Board 
published Advance Notices of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRMs) in the 
Federal Register in 2010 and 2011 requesting public comments on draft 
updates to the standards and guidelines (75 FR 13457, March 22, 2010; 
and 76 FR 76640, December 8, 2011). The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
(NPRM) will be based on the advisory committee's report and public 
comments on the ANPRMs.
    The Access Board expects that the Information and Communication 
Technology Standards and Guidelines will have international influence, 
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. Anticipated Costs and Benefits: The Access Board is working 
with a contractor to assess costs and benefits and prepare a 
preliminary regulatory impact assessment to accompany the NPRM. 
Baseline cost estimates of complying with Section 508 and Section 255 
are made, and incremental costs due to the revised or new requirements 
are estimated for federal agencies and telecommunications equipment 
manufacturers. Anticipated benefits are also numerous, including hard-
to quantify benefits such as increased ability for people with 
disabilities to obtain information and conduct transactions 
electronically. The preliminary regulatory impact assessment will be 
available at www.access-board.gov once the NPRM is published.

B. Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) Accessibility Guidelines for 
Transportation Vehicles (RIN: 3014-AA38)

    This rulemaking would update the accessibility guidelines for 
buses, over-the-road buses, and vans covered by the Americans with 
Disabilities Act (ADA). The accessibility guidelines for other 
transportation vehicles covered by the ADA, including vehicles operated 
in fixed guideway systems (e.g., rapid rail, light rail, commuter rail, 
high speed rail and intercity rail) would be updated in a future 
rulemaking. The guidelines ensure that transportation vehicles covered 
by the ADA are readily accessible to and usable by individuals with 
disabilities. The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) has issued 
enforceable standards (49 CFR part 37) that apply to the acquisition of 
new, used, and remanufactured transportation vehicles, and the 
remanufacture of existing transportation vehicles covered by the ADA. 
DOT is expected to update its standards in a separate rulemaking to be 
consistent with the updated guidelines.
    B.1. Statement of Need: The Access Board issued the ADA 
Accessibility Guidelines for Transportation Vehicles in 1991, and 
amended the guidelines in 1998 to include additional requirements for 
over-the-road buses. Level boarding bus systems were introduced in the 
U.S. after the 1991 guidelines were issued. We are revising the 1991 
guidelines to include new requirements for level boarding bus systems, 
automated stop and route announcements, and other changes.
    B.2. Summary of the Legal Basis: Title II of the ADA applies to 
State and local governments and Title III of the ADA applies to places 
of public accommodation operated by private entities. The ADA covers 
designated public transportation services provided by State and local 
governments and specified public transportation services provided by 
private entities that are primarily engaged in the business of 
transporting people and whose operations affect commerce. (See 42 
U.S.C. 12141 to 12147 and 12184.) Bus rapid transit systems, including 
level boarding bus systems, that provide public transportation 
services, are covered by the ADA.
    The Access Board is required by the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act 
to establish and maintain guidelines for the accessibility standards 
adopted by DOT for transportation vehicles acquired or manufactured by 
entities covered by the ADA. Compliance with the new guidelines is not 
required until DOT revises its accessibility standards for 
transportation vehicles acquired or remanufactured by entities covered 
by the ADA to be consistent with the new guidelines.
    B.3. Alternatives: The Access Board issued a proposed rule to 
revise the 1991 guidelines for buses, over-the-road buses, and vans in 
2010. The proposed rule, comments on the proposed rule, correspondence 
received after the close of the initial comment period, and records and 
transcripts of meetings on the new ramp designs are available in the 
rulemaking docket at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=ATBCB-2010-0004. The final rule is based on the NPRM 
and public comments on the NPRM.
    B.4. Anticipated Costs and Benefits: Incremental compliance costs 
are estimated for new requirements for over-the-road buses, such as 
displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility on the window 
adjacent to wheelchair spaces and displaying the destination or route 
signs on the front as well as the boarding side of the vehicles. This 
rulemaking would enable persons who have mobility disabilities, persons 
who have difficulty hearing or are deaf, and persons who have 
difficulty seeing or are blind to use transportation services. A full 
regulatory impact analysis will be available at www.access-board.gov, 
once the final rule is published.

C. Medical Diagnostic Equipment Accessibility Standards (RIN: 3014-
AA40)

    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 NPRM in the 
Federal Register in 2012, 77 FR 6916, February 9, 2012.
    C.1. Statement of Need: A national survey of a diverse sample of 
individuals with a wide range of disabilities, including mobility and 
sensory disabilities, showed that the respondents had difficulty 
getting on and off examination tables and chairs,

[[Page 76615]]

radiology equipment and weight scales, and experienced problems with 
physical comfort, safety and communication. Focus group studies of 
individuals with disabilities also provided information on barriers 
that affect the accessibility and usability of various types of medical 
diagnostic equipment. The national survey and focus group studies are 
discussed in the NPRM.
    C.2. Summary of the Legal Basis: Section 4203 of the Patient 
Protection and Affordable Care Act (Pub. L. 111-148, 124 Stat. 570) 
amended Title V of the Rehabilitation Act, which establishes rights and 
protections for individuals with disabilities, by adding section 510 to 
the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. 794f) (Section 510). Section 510 
requires the Access Board, in consultation with the Commissioner of the 
Food and Drug Administration (FDA), to develop standards that contain 
minimum technical criteria to ensure that medical diagnostic equipment 
used in or in conjunction with medical settings such as physicians' 
offices, clinics, emergency rooms, and hospitals are accessible to and 
usable by individuals with disabilities.
    Section 510 does not address who is required to comply with the 
standards. However, the Americans with Disabilities Act require 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 diagnostic equipment.
    C.3. Alternatives: The Access Board worked with the FDA and DOJ in 
developing the standards. The Access Board considered the Association 
for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation's ANSI/AAMI HE 75:2009, 
``Human factors engineering--Design of medical devices,'' which 
includes recommended practices to provide accessibility for individuals 
with disabilities. The Access Board also established a Medical 
Diagnostic Equipment Accessibility Standards Advisory Committee that 
included representatives from the disability community and 
manufacturers of medical diagnostic equipment to make recommendations 
on issues raised in public comments and responses to questions in the 
NPRM. The final rule will be based on the public comments and 
recommendations of the advisory committee.
    C.4. Anticipated Costs and Benefits: The Access Board is working to 
assess costs and benefits and prepare a preliminary regulatory impact 
assessment to accompany the final rule. The standards would address 
many of the barriers that have been identified as affecting the 
accessibility and usability of diagnostic equipment by individuals with 
disabilities. The standards would facilitate independent transfers by 
individuals with disabilities onto and off of diagnostic equipment, and 
enable them to maintain their independence, confidence, and dignity, 
lessening the need for health care personnel to assist individuals with 
disabilities when transferring on and off of diagnostic equipment. The 
standards would improve the quality of health care for individuals with 
disabilities and ensure that they receive examinations, diagnostic 
procedures, and other health care services equivalent to those received 
by individuals without disabilities.

D. Accessibility Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities in the Public 
Right-of-Way (RIN: 3014-AA26)

    The rulemaking would establish accessibility guidelines to ensure 
that sidewalks and pedestrian facilities in the public right-of-way are 
accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. A 
Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking consolidated this rulemaking 
with RIN 3014-AA41; accessibility guidelines for shared use paths 
(which are multi-use paths designed primarily for use by bicyclists and 
pedestrians, including persons with disabilities, for transportation 
and recreation purposes). The U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. 
Department of Transportation, and other Federal agencies are expected 
to adopt the accessibility guidelines for pedestrian facilities in the 
public right-of-way and for shared use paths, as enforceable standards 
in separate rulemakings for the construction and alteration of 
facilities covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act, section 504 
of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Architectural Barriers Act.
    D.1. Statement of Need: While the Access Board has issued 
accessibility guidelines for the design, construction, and alteration 
of buildings and facilities covered by the Americans with Disabilities 
Act (ADA) and the Architectural Barriers Act (ABA) (36 CFR part 1191), 
these guidelines were developed primarily for buildings and facilities 
on sites. Some of the provisions in these guidelines can be readily 
applied to pedestrian facilities in the public right-of-way such as 
curb ramps. However, other provisions need to be adapted or new 
provisions developed for pedestrian facilities that are built in the 
public right-of-way as well as shared use paths.
    D.2. Summary of the Legal Basis: Section 502(b)(3) of the 
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. 792(b)(3), requires 
the Access Board to establish and maintain minimum guidelines for the 
standards issued by other agencies pursuant to the ADA and ABA. In 
addition, section 504 of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. 12204, required the Access 
Board to issue accessibility guidelines for buildings and facilities 
covered by that law.
    D.3. Alternatives: The Access Board established a Public Rights-of-
Way Access Advisory Committee to make recommendations for the 
guidelines. The advisory committee was comprised of a broad cross-
section of stakeholders, including representatives for State and local 
government agencies responsible for constructing facilities in the 
public right-of-way, transportation engineers, disability groups, and 
bicycling and pedestrian organizations. The Access Board released two 
drafts of the guidelines for public comment and an NPRM based on the 
advisory committee report and public comments on the draft guidelines. 
The final rule will be based on the NPRM and public comments on the 
NPRM.
    D.4. Anticipated Costs and Benefits: The Access Board identified 
four provisions in the NPRM that were expected to have more than 
minimal monetary impacts on State and local governments. Three of these 
four requirements are related to: (1) detectable warning surfaces on 
newly constructed and altered curb ramps and blended transitions at 
pedestrian street crossings; (2) accessible pedestrian signals and 
pushbuttons when pedestrian signals are newly installed or replaced at 
signalized intersections; and (3) pedestrian activated signals at 
roundabouts with multi-lane pedestrian crossings. In addition, the 
fourth requirement for provision of a two percent maximum cross slope 
on pedestrian access routes within pedestrian street crossings with 
yield or stop control was estimated to have more than minimal monetary 
impacts on State and local governments when constructing roadways with 
pedestrian crossings in hilly areas. The NPRM included questions 
requesting information to assess the costs and benefits of these 
provisions, as well as other provisions that may have cost impacts. The 
Access Board will prepare a final regulatory impact assessment to 
accompany the final rule based on

[[Page 76616]]

information provided in response to questions in the NPRM and other 
sources.

E. Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) Accessibility Guidelines for 
Passenger Vessels (RIN: 3014-AA11)

    The rulemaking would establish accessibility guidelines to ensure 
that newly constructed and altered passenger vessels covered by the 
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) are accessible to and usable by 
individuals with disabilities. The U.S. Department of Transportation 
and U.S. Department of Justice are expected to adopt the guidelines as 
enforceable standards in separate rulemakings for the construction and 
alteration of passenger vessels covered by the ADA.
    E.1. Statement of Need: Section 504 of the ADA requires the Access 
Board to issue accessibility guidelines for the construction and 
alteration of passenger vessels covered by the law to ensure that the 
vessels are readily accessible to and usable by individuals with 
disabilities (42 U.S.C. 12204).
    E.2. Summary of the Legal Basis: Title II of the ADA applies to 
State and local governments and title III of the ADA applies to places 
of public accommodation operated by private entities. The ADA covers 
designated public transportation services provided by State and local 
governments and specified public transportation services provided by 
private entities that are primarily engaged in the business of 
transporting people and whose operations affect commerce. (See 42 
U.S.C. 12141 to 12147 and 12184.)
    Titles II and III of the ADA require the DOT and DOJ to issue 
accessibility standards for the construction and alteration of 
passenger vessels covered by the law that are consistent with the 
guidelines issued by the Access Board. (See 42 U.S.C. 12134(c), 
12149(b), 12186(c).) The DOT has reserved a subpart in its ADA 
regulations for accessibility standards for passenger vessels in 
anticipation of the Access Board issuing these guidelines. (See 49 CFR 
part 39, subpart E.) Once DOT and DOJ issue accessibility standards for 
the construction and alteration of passenger vessels covered by the 
ADA, vessel owners and operators are then required to comply with the 
standards.
    E.3. Alternatives: In developing the proposed accessibility 
guidelines, the Access Board has received and considered extensive 
input from passenger vessel owners and operators, individuals with 
disabilities, and other interested parties for more than a decade. The 
Access Board convened an advisory committee comprised of passenger 
vessel industry trade groups, passenger vessel owners and operators, 
disability advocacy groups, and State and local government agencies to 
advise how to develop the accessibility guidelines. The committee 
submitted its report to the Access Board in 2000. In addition, over the 
years, the Access Board issued an ANPRM and three versions of draft 
accessibility guidelines and conducted in-depth case studies on various 
passenger vessels. The Access Board solicited and analyzed public 
comments on these documents in developing the proposed guidelines and 
regulatory impact analysis. All the published documents together with 
public comments are available at: http://www.access-board.gov.
    E.4. Anticipated Costs and Benefits: The proposed guidelines would 
address the discriminatory effects of architectural, transportation, 
and communication barriers encountered by individuals with disabilities 
on passenger vessels. The estimated compliance costs for certain types 
of vessels include: (1) the incremental impact of constructing a vessel 
in compliance with the guidelines; and (2) any additional costs 
attributable to the operation and maintenance of accessible features. 
For certain large cruise ships, the compliance costs would include loss 
of guest rooms and gross revenues attributed to a proposed requirement 
for a minimum number of guest rooms that provide mobility features. The 
proposed guidelines would significantly benefit individuals with 
disabilities by affording them equal opportunity to travel on passenger 
vessels for employment, transportation, public accommodation, and 
leisure. Other benefits, which are difficult to quantify, include 
equity, human dignity, and fairness values.
BILLING CODE 8150-01-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA)

Statement of Priorities

Overview

    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 reducing 
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, 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.

Highlights of EPA'S Regulatory Plan

    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.
Six Guiding Priorities
    The EPA's success depends on supporting innovation and creativity 
in both what we do and how we do it. To guide the agency's efforts, 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.
1. Making a Visible Difference in Communities Across the Country
    Safe Disposal and Management of Coal Combustion Residuals. Coal 
combustion residuals (CCRs), often referred to as coal ash, are 
currently considered Bevill exempt wastes under the Resource 
Conservation and

[[Page 76617]]

Recovery Act (RCRA). They are residues from the combustion of coal in 
power plants and are captured by pollution control technologies, like 
scrubbers. Potential environmental concerns from coal ash management 
include groundwater contamination from leaking surface impoundments and 
landfills and structural failures of surface impoundments. The need for 
national criteria was emphasized by the December 2008 spill of coal ash 
from a surface impoundment at the Tennessee Valley Authority's plant in 
Kingston, TN. The tragic spill flooded more than 300 acres of land with 
coal ash, which flowed into the Emory and Clinch rivers. On June 21, 
2010, the EPA proposed to regulate for the first time coal ash to 
address the risks from the management of these wastes that are 
generated by electric utilities and independent power producers. The 
Agency received over 450,000 comments on the proposal. Under a consent 
decree, a final rule must be signed by the Administrator no later than 
December 19, 2014.
    Environmental Justice in Rulemaking. The year 2014 represents the 
20th anniversary of President Clinton's issuance of the Executive order 
directing all Federal agencies to engage in a Governmentwide effort and 
issue strategies to address environmental justice issues.
    EPA has made significant progress in areas critical to advancing 
environmental justice and making a visible difference in communities, 
including rulemaking, permitting, compliance and enforcement, 
community-based programs and our work with other federal agencies. We 
have developed the critical legal, science, and screening tools to help 
support our efforts in working with and in communities.
2. Addressing Climate Change and Improving Air Quality
    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.
    Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards for Power Plants. As part of the 
President's Climate Action Plan, in September 2013, the EPA proposed 
standards to limit carbon pollution from new power plants yet to be 
built. This past June, we proposed carbon pollution standards for 
existing power plants, the Clean Power Plan. We plan to finalize 
standards for both new and existing plants in 2015. When finalized, 
these standards and guidelines will establish achievable limits of 
carbon pollution from future plants. By 2030 carbon emissions from 
existing plants are estimated to be reduced by 30% from 2005 levels.
    Heavy-Duty Vehicles GHG Emission Standards. In 2011, in cooperation 
with the Department of Transportation (DOT), EPA issued the first-ever 
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for 
Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles for model years 2014-2018. 
In 2015, EPA and DOT will propose a second set of standards to further 
reduce greenhouse gas emissions and fuel consumption from a wide range 
of on-road vehicles from semi-trucks to the largest pickup trucks and 
vans and all types and sizes of work trucks and buses. This action is 
another important component of the President's Climate Action Plan.
    Reviewing and Implementing Air Quality Standards. Despite progress, 
millions of Americans still live in areas that exceed one or more of 
the national air pollution standards. This year's regulatory plan 
describes efforts to review the primary National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards (NAAQS) for ozone and lead, as well as a rule to guide States 
in implementing the ozone, particulate matter, and other air quality 
standards.
    Cleaner Air from Improved Technology. EPA continues to address 
hazardous air pollution under authority of the Clean Air Act Amendments 
of 1990. The centerpiece of this effort is the ``Maximum Achievable 
Control Technology'' (MACT) program, which requires that all major 
sources of a given type use emission controls that better reflect the 
current state of the art. In May of 2015, EPA expects to complete a 
review of existing MACT standards for Petroleum Refineries to reduce 
residual risk and assure that the standards reflect current technology.
3. Taking Action on Toxics and Chemical Safety
    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:
    EPA's Existing Chemicals Management Program Under TSCA. As part of 
EPA's ongoing efforts to ensure the safety of chemicals, EPA plans to 
take a range of identified regulatory actions for certain chemicals and 
assess other chemicals to determine if risk reduction action is needed 
to address potential concerns.
    Addressing Formaldehyde Used in Composite Wood Products. As 
directed by the Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products Act 
of 2010, EPA is developing final regulations to address formaldehyde 
emissions from hardwood plywood, particleboard and medium-density 
fiberboard that is sold, supplied, offered for sale, or manufactured in 
the United States.
    Lead in Public and Commercial Buildings. As directed by TSCA 
section 402(c)(3), EPA is developing a proposed rule to address 
renovation or remodeling activities that create lead-based paint 
hazards in pre-1978 public buildings and commercial buildings. EPA 
previously issued a final rule to address lead-based paint hazards 
created by these activities in target housing and child-occupied 
facilities.
    Reassessment of PCB Use Authorizations. When enacted in 1978, TSCA 
banned the manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, and use 
of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), except when uses would pose no 
unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment. EPA is 
reassessing certain ongoing, authorized uses of PCBs that were 
established by regulation in 1979, including the use, distribution in 
commerce, marking and storage for reuse of liquid PCBs in electric 
equipment, to determine whether those authorized uses still meet TSCA's 
``no unreasonable risk'' standard. EPA plans to propose the revocation 
or revision of any PCBs use authorizations included in this 
reassessment that no longer meet the TSCA standard.
    Enhancing Agricultural Worker Protection. Based on years of 
extensive stakeholder engagement and public meetings, EPA is acting to 
enhance the pesticide worker safety program. EPA plans to issue final 
amendments to the agricultural worker protection regulation that 
strengthens protections for agricultural farm workers and

[[Page 76618]]

pesticide handlers. The rule is expected improve pesticide safety 
training and agricultural workers' ability to protect themselves and 
their families from potential secondary exposure to pesticides and 
pesticide residues. The proposed revisions will address key 
environmental justice concerns for a population that may be 
disproportionately affected by pesticide exposure. Other changes under 
development are intended to bring hazard communication requirements 
more in line with Occupational Safety and Health Administration 
requirements and seek to clarify current requirements to facilitate 
program implementation and enforcement.
    Strengthening Pesticide Applicator Safety. As part of EPA's effort 
to enhance the pesticide worker safety program, the Agency is also 
developing a proposal to revise the existing regulation concerning the 
certification of applicators of restricted-use pesticides to ensure 
that the federal certification program standards adequately protect 
applicators, the public and the environment from potential risks 
associated with use of restricted use pesticides. The proposed changes 
are intended to improve the competency of certified applicators of 
restricted use pesticides, increase protection for noncertified 
applicators of restricted use pesticides operating under the direct 
supervision of a certified applicator through enhanced pesticide safety 
training and standards for supervision of noncertified applicators, and 
establish a minimum age requirement for such noncertified applicators. 
Also, in keeping with EPA's commitment to work more closely with tribal 
governments to strengthen environmental protection in Indian Country, 
certain changes are intended to provide more practical options for 
establishing certification programs in Indian Country.
    Improving Chemical Facility Safety and Security. Executive Order 
13650 on Improving Chemical Facility Safety and Security directs 
federal agencies to work with stakeholders to improve chemical safety 
and security through agency programs, private sector initiatives, 
federal guidance, standards, and regulations. During the course of 
implementing this Executive order, EPA, along with the Department of 
Homeland Security (including the National Protection and Programs 
Directorate, the Transportation Security Agency and the United States 
Coast Guard); the Occupational Safety and Health Administration; the 
United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and 
Firearms; the United States Department of Agriculture; and the United 
States Department of Transportation, will assess whether its 
regulations should be modified or new regulations developed to improve 
upon chemical safety and security. EPA issued in July 2014 a request 
for information on how to strengthen its Risk Management Plan program. 
EPA plans to develop a proposed rule to modernize the Risk Management 
Plan.
4. Protecting Water: A Precious, Limited Resource
    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.
    Improving Water Quality. EPA plans to address challenging water 
quality issues in several rulemakings during FY 2015.
    Definition of ``Waters of the United States'' Under the Clean Water 
Act. After U.S. Supreme Court decisions in SWANCC and Rapanos, the 
scope of ``waters of the US'' protected under Clean Water Act (CWA) 
programs has been an issue of considerable debate and uncertainty. The 
Act does not distinguish among programs as to what constitutes ``waters 
of the United States.'' As a result, these decisions affect the 
geographic scope of all CWA programs. SWANCC and Rapanos did not 
invalidate the current regulatory definition of ``waters of the United 
States.'' However, the decisions established important considerations 
for how those regulations should be interpreted. Experience 
implementing the regulations following the two court cases has 
identified several areas that could benefit from additional 
clarification through rulemaking.
    Steam Electric Power Plants. Steam electric power plants contribute 
over half of all toxic pollutants discharged to surface waters by all 
industrial categories currently regulated in the United States under 
the Clean Water Act. Discharges of these toxic pollutants are linked to 
cancer and neurological damage in humans and ecological damage. EPA 
will establish national technology-based regulations called effluent 
guidelines to reduce discharges of these pollutants from industries to 
waters of the U.S. and publicly owned treatment works. These guidelines 
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. 
The steam electric effluent guidelines apply to steam electric power 
plants using nuclear or fossil fuels, such as coal, oil and natural 
gas.
    Water Quality Standards Regulatory Revisions. EPA will finalize 
updates to the Water Quality Standards regulation, which provides a 
strong foundation for water quality-based controls, including water 
quality assessments, impaired waters lists, total maximum daily loads, 
and water quality-based effluent limits (WQBELs) in NPDES discharge 
permits. These updates aim to clarify and resolve a number of policy 
and technical issues that have recurred over the past 30 years. They 
will assure greater public transparency, better stakeholder 
information, and more effective implementation of the Water Quality 
Standards program.
    Responding to Oil Spills in U.S. Waters. The Clean Water Act (CWA), 
as amended by the Oil Pollution Act (OPA), requires that the National 
Contingency Plan (NCP) include a schedule identifying ``dispersants, 
other chemicals, and other spill mitigating devices and substances, if 
any, that may be used in carrying out'' the NCP. EPA is considering 
amending subpart J of the NCP (the Product Schedule) for a manufacturer 
to have chemical, biological, or other spill-mitigating substances 
listed on the Product Schedule, updating the listing requirements to 
reflect new advancements in scientific understanding, and, to the 
extent practicable, considering and addressing concerns regarding the 
use of dispersants raised during the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.
5. Launching a New Era of State, Tribal and Local Partnership
    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 national 
environmental and public health protection. The history and future of 
environmental protection will be built on this type of collaboration.
    In July 2014, EPA's Administrator Gina McCarthy signed the

[[Page 76619]]

Environmental Justice Policy for Working with Tribes and Indigenous 
Peoples, reinforcing the agency's commitment to work with tribes on a 
government-to-government basis when issues of environmental justice 
arise. This policy allows EPA to reinforce its commitment to tribal 
communities, especially in addressing issues of environmental justice. 
The policy integrates 17 environmental justice and civil rights 
principles and identifies existing informational and resource tools to 
support EPA in addressing environmental justice concerns raised by 
Federally Recognized Tribes and Indigenous Peoples throughout the 
United States.
    In addition, 2014 marks 30 years of EPA's 1984 Indian Policy. EPA 
was the first to formally adopt such a Policy, reiterating the 
importance of EPA's tribal programs and our unique government-to-
government relationship with tribes.
6. Working Toward a Sustainable Future
    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 provide 
for an environmentally sustainable future more efficiently and 
effectively.
    Establishing User Fees for the Use of RCRA Manifests. The e-
Manifest Final rule of February 7, 2014 codified certain provisions of 
the ``Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest Establishment Act'' (or the 
Act), which directed EPA to adopt a regulation that authorized the use 
of electronic manifests to track hazardous waste shipments nationwide. 
The Act also instructed EPA to develop a user-fee-funded e-Manifest 
system. Since the Act grants broad discretion to EPA to determine the 
fees and gives the Agency authority to collect such fees for both 
electronic manifests and any paper manifests that continue in use, EPA 
plans to issue rulemaking to establish the appropriate electronic and 
paper manifest fees. The initial fees established in the final rule are 
expected to cover the operation and maintenance costs for the system, 
as well as the costs associated with the development of the system. EPA 
plans to also announce in the final rule the date on which the system 
will be implemented and available to users. Once 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, unless required by the State, 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.
    Strengthening the Underground Storage Tanks Program. EPA plans to 
revise the 1988 federal underground storage tank (UST) regulations by 
increasing emphasis on properly operating and maintaining UST 
equipment. These revisions will help improve prevention and detection 
of UST releases, which are one of the leading sources of groundwater 
contamination. The revisions will also help ensure all USTs in the 
United States, including those in Indian country, meet the same minimum 
standards.
Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations
    Pursuant to section 6 of Executive Order 13563 ``Improving 
Regulation and Regulatory Review'' (Jan. 18, 2011), the following 
Regulatory Identifier Numbers (RINs) have been identified as associated 
with retrospective review and analysis in the Agency's final 
retrospective review of regulations plan. Some of these entries on this 
list may be completed actions, which do not appear in The Regulatory 
Plan. However, more information can be found about these completed 
rulemakings in past publications of the Unified Agenda on Reginfo.gov 
in the Completed Actions section for that agency. These rulemakings can 
also be found on Regulations.gov. EPA's final agency plan can be found 
at: http://www.epa.gov/regdarrt/retrospective/.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Regulatory identifier number (RIN)            Rulemaking title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2060-AO60..........................  New Source Performance Standards
                                      (NSPS) Review under CAA-
                                      111(b)(1)(B)
2060-AP06..........................  New Source Performance Standards
                                      for Grain Elevators_Amendments
2040-AF15..........................  National Primary Drinking Water
                                      Regulations for Lead and Copper:
                                      Regulatory Revisions
2040-AF16..........................  Water Quality Standards Regulatory
                                      Clarifications
2040-AF25..........................  National Pollutant Discharge
                                      Elimination System (NPDES)
                                      Application and Program Updates
                                      Rule
2040-AF29..........................  National Primary Drinking Water
                                      Regulations: Group Regulation of
                                      Carcinogenic Volatile Organic
                                      Compound (VOCs)
2050-AG39..........................  Management Standards for Hazardous
                                      Waste Pharmaceuticals
2050-AG72..........................  Hazardous Waste Requirements for
                                      Retail Products; Clarifying and
                                      Making the Program More Effective
2070-AK02..........................  Lead; Lead-based Paint Program;
                                      Amendment to Jurisdiction-Specific
                                      Certification and Accreditation
                                      Requirements and Renovator
                                      Refresher Training Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Burden Reduction

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

[[Page 76620]]



------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Regulatory identifier number (RIN)            Rulemaking title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2070-AJ92..........................  Formaldehyde Emission Standards for
                                      Composite Wood Products
2060-AS16..........................  Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel
                                      Efficiency Standards for Medium-
                                      and Heavy-Duty Engines and
                                      Vehicles_Phase 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------

International Regulatory Cooperation Activities
    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:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Regulatory identifier number (RIN)            Rulemaking Title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2070-AJ44..........................  Formaldehyde; Third-Party
                                      Certification Framework for the
                                      Formaldehyde Standards for
                                      Composite Wood Products
2070-AJ92..........................  Formaldehyde Emission Standards for
                                      Composite Wood Products
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Streamlining the Export/Import Process for America's Businesses
    EPA has considered import and export streamlining activities as 
described in Executive Order 13659 and identified the following 
rulemaking activity:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Regulatory identifier number (RIN)            Rulemaking title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2050-AG77..........................  Hazardous Waste Export-Import
                                      Revisions Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------


EPA--AIR AND RADIATION(AR)

Proposed Rule Stage

122. Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7408; 42 U.S.C. 7409
    CFR Citation: 40 CFR 50.
    Legal Deadline: NPRM, Judicial, December 1, 2014, Court-ordered 
Deadline. Final, Judicial, October 1, 2015, Court-ordered Deadline. 
Must be proposed by December 1
    Abstract: Under the Clean Air Act, the EPA is required to review 
and, if appropriate, revise the air quality criteria for the primary 
(health-based) and secondary (welfare-based) national ambient air 
quality standards (NAAQS) every 5 years. On March 23, 2008, the EPA 
published a final rule to revise the primary and secondary NAAQS for 
ozone to provide increased protection of public health and welfare. 
With regard to the primary standard for ozone, the EPA revised the 
level of the 8-hour ozone standard to 0.075 ppm. With regard to the 
secondary ozone standard, the EPA made it identical in all respects to 
the primary ozone standard, as revised. The DC Circuit upheld the 
primary standard, but remanded the secondary standard back to the EPA. 
The EPA initiated the current review in October 2008 with a workshop to 
discuss key policy-relevant issues around which EPA would structure the 
review. This review included the preparation of an Integrated Science 
Assessment, Risk/Exposure Assessment, and a Policy Assessment Document 
by the EPA, with opportunities for review by EPA's Clean Air Scientific 
Advisory Committee and the public.
    Statement of Need: Under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, EPA 
is required to review and if appropriate revise the air quality 
criteria for the primary (health-based) and secondary (welfare-based) 
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) every 5 years.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Review of the NAAQS is authorized by Clean 
Air Act Sections 108 and 109.
    Alternatives: The main alternative for the Administrator's decision 
on the review of the primary and secondary national ambient air quality 
standards for ozone is whether to retain or revise the existing 
standards.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The Clean Air Act makes clear that 
the economic and technical feasibility of attaining standards are not 
to be considered in setting or revising the NAAQS, although such 
factors may be considered in the development of State plans to 
implement the standards. Accordingly, when the Agency proposes 
revisions to the standards, the Agency prepares cost and benefit 
information in order to provide States information that may be useful 
in considering different implementation strategies for meeting proposed 
or final standards. In those instances, cost and benefit information is 
generally included in the regulatory analysis accompanying the final 
rule.
    Risks: Health and welfare risks associated with exposure to O3 in 
the ambient air have been assessed. The final health and welfare Risk 
and Exposure Assessments for Ozone were released in August 2014, and 
are available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/ozone/data/20140829healthrea.pdf.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice..............................   04/28/11  76 FR 23755
NPRM................................   12/00/14  .......................
Final Rule..........................   11/00/15  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State, Tribal.
    Additional Information: Docket #: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0699.
    URL For More Information: http://www.epa.gov/ozone/.
    Agency Contact: Susan Stone, Environmental Protection Agency, Air

[[Page 76621]]

and Radiation, C504-06, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, Phone: 919 
541-1146, Fax: 919 541-0237, Email: [email protected].
    Karen Wesson, Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation, 
C504-06, RTP, NC 27711, Phone: 919 541-3515, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 2060-AP38

EPA--AR

123. Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Lead

    Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 
undetermined.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7408; 42 U.S.C. 7409
    CFR Citation: 40 CFR 50.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: Under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, the EPA is 
required to review and if appropriate revise the air quality criteria 
for the primary (health-based) and secondary (welfare-based) national 
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) every 5 years. On November 12, 
2008, the EPA published a final rule to revise the primary and 
secondary NAAQS for lead to provide increased protection for public 
health and welfare. The EPA has now initiated the next review. This new 
review includes the preparation of an Integrated Review Plan, an 
Integrated Science Assessment, and, if warranted, a Risk/Exposure 
Assessment, and also a Policy Assessment Document by the EPA, with 
opportunities for review by EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory 
Committee and the public. These documents inform the Administrator's 
proposed decision as to whether to retain or revise the standards. This 
decision will be published in the Federal Register with opportunity 
provided for public comment. The Administrator's final decisions will 
take into consideration these documents and public comment on the 
proposed decision.
    Statement of Need: Under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, EPA 
is required to review and if appropriate revise the air quality 
criteria for the primary (health-based) and secondary (welfare-based) 
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) every 5 years. In the 
last lead NAAQS review, EPA published a final rule on November 12, 
2008, to revise the primary and secondary NAAQS for lead to provide 
increased protection for public health and welfare.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, 
EPA is required to review and if appropriate revise the air quality 
criteria for the primary (health-based) and secondary (welfare-based) 
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) every 5 years.
    Alternatives: The main alternative for the Administrator's decision 
on the review of the national ambient air quality standards for lead is 
whether to retain or revise the existing standards.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The Clean Air Act makes clear that 
the economic and technical feasibility of attaining standards are not 
to be considered in setting or revising the NAAQS, although such 
factors may be considered in the development of State plans to 
implement the standards. Accordingly, when the Agency proposes 
revisions to the standards, the Agency prepares cost and benefit 
information in order to provide States information that may be useful 
in considering different implementation strategies for meeting proposed 
or final standards. In those instances, cost and benefit information is 
generally included in the regulatory analysis accompanying the final 
rule.
    Risks: As part of the review, the EPA prepares an Integrated Review 
Plan, an Integrated Science Assessment, and, if warranted, a Risk/
Exposure Assessment, and also a Policy Assessment Document, with 
opportunities for review by the EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory 
Committee and the public. These documents inform the Administrator's 
proposed decision as to whether to retain or revise the standards. The 
proposed decision will be published in the Federal Register with 
opportunity provided for public comment. The Administrator's final 
decisions will take into consideration these documents and public 
comment on the proposed decision.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   12/00/14  .......................
                                     -----------------------------------
Final Rule..........................           To Be Determined
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
    Additional Information: Docket #: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0108.
    URL for More Information: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pb/s_pb_index.html.
    Agency Contact: Deirdre Murphy, Environmental Protection Agency, 
Air and Radiation, C539-02, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, Phone: 
919 541-0729, Fax: 919 541-0840, Email: [email protected].
    Ginger Tennant, Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation, 
C504-06, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, Phone: 919 541-4072, Fax: 
919 541-0237, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2060-AQ44

EPA--AR

124. Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary 
Sources: EGUS in Indian Country and U.S. Territories

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Legal Authority: CAA 111
    CFR Citation: .40 CFR 60
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: On June 25, 2013, President Obama issued a Presidential 
Memorandum directing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to work 
expeditiously to complete greenhouse gas (GHG) standards for the power 
sector. The agency is using its authority under section 111(d) of the 
Clean Air Act (CAA) to issue emission guidelines to address GHG 
emissions from existing power plants. The Presidential Memorandum 
directs the EPA to issue proposed GHG guidelines for existing power 
plants by no later than June 1, 2014, and issue final guidelines by no 
later than June 1, 2015. In addition, the Presidential Memorandum 
directs the EPA to, in the guidelines, require states to submit to EPA 
the implementation plans required under section 111(d) of the CAA by no 
later than June 30, 2016. On June 18, 2014, the EPA proposed emission 
guidelines for states to follow in developing plans to address GHG 
emissions from existing fossil fired EGU, using its authority under CAA 
111(d). This action is a supplemental proposal and will propose 
emission guidelines to address GHG emissions from existing fossil fuel-
fired EGUs on tribal lands and in U.S. territories.
    Statement of Need: President Obama's Climate Action Plan called for 
EPA to complete carbon pollution standards for existing fossil fuel-
fired power plants by June 1, 2015. This action will propose those 
standards for existing fossil fuel-fired power plants in Indian country 
and U.S. territories.
    Summary of Legal Basis: CO2 is a regulated pollutant and 
thus is subject to regulation under section 111 of the Clean Air Act as 
Amended in 1990.
    Alternatives: Alternatives will be presented in the proposal 
preamble.

[[Page 76622]]

    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Cost and benefits information will 
be presented in the proposal preamble.
    Risks: The risk addressed is the current and future threat of 
climate change to public health and welfare, as demonstrated in the 
2009 Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases 
Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. The EPA made this 
determination based primarily upon the recent, major assessments by the 
U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), the National Research 
Council (NRC) of the National Academies and the Intergovernmental Panel 
on Climate Change (IPCC).
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   06/18/14  79 FR 34829
NPRM Comment Period Extended........   09/25/14  79 FR 57492
NPRM Comment Period Extended End....   12/01/14  .......................
Supplemental NPRM...................   11/04/14  79 FR 65481
Final Rule..........................   07/00/15  .......................
NODA................................   10/30/14  79 FR 64543
Notice..............................   11/13/14  79 FR 67406
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, State, Tribal.
    Federalism: This action may have federalism implications as defined 
in EO 13132.
    Energy Effects: Statement of Energy Effects planned as required by 
Executive Order 13211.
    Additional Information: Docket #: EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0602. Split from 
RIN 2060-AQ91.
    Agency Contact: Melanie King, Environmental Protection Agency, Air 
and Radiation, D243-01, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, Phone: 919 
541-2469, Email: [email protected].
    Robert Wayland, Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation, 
D243-01, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, Phone: 919 541-1045, Fax: 
919 541-5450, Email: [email protected].
    Related RIN: Split from 2060-AQ91
    RIN: 2060-AR33

EPA--AR

125. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium-
and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles--Phase 2

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Legal Authority: Clean Air Act sec 202(a)
    CFR Citation: 40 CFR 1036; 40 CFR 1037; 40 CFR 86.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: During the President's second term, EPA and the 
Department of Transportation, in close coordination with the California 
Air Resources Board, will develop a comprehensive National Program for 
Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission and Fuel 
Efficiency Standards for model years beyond 2018. These second sets of 
standards would further reduce greenhouse gas emissions and fuel 
consumption from a wide range of on-road vehicles from semi-trucks to 
the largest pickup trucks and vans, and all types and sizes of work 
trucks and buses. This action will be in continued response to the 
President's directive to take coordinated steps to produce a new 
generation of clean vehicles. This action follows the first ever 
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for 
Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles (75 FR September 15, 2011).
    Statement of Need: Under Clean Air Act authority, EPA has 
determined that emissions of greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles 
and engines cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be 
anticipated to endanger public health and welfare. Therefore, there is 
a need to reduce GHG emissions from medium- and heavy-duty vehicles to 
protect public health and welfare. The medium- and heavy-duty truck 
sector accounts for approximately 18 percent of the U.S. mobile source 
GHG emissions and is the second largest mobile source sector. GHG 
emissions from this sector are forecast to continue increasing rapidly; 
reflecting the anticipated impact of factors such as economic growth 
and increased movement of freight by trucks. This rulemaking would 
significantly reduce GHG emissions from future medium- and heavy-duty 
vehicles by setting GHG standards that will lead to the introduction of 
GHG reducing vehicle and engine technologies.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The Clean Air Act section 202(a)(1) states 
that The Administrator shall by regulation prescribe (and from time to 
time revise) in accordance with the provisions of this section, 
standards applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any 
class or classes of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines, 
which in his judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may 
reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. Section 
202(a) covers all on-highway vehicles including medium- and heavy-duty 
trucks. In April 2007, the Supreme Court found in Massachusetts v. EPA 
that greenhouse gases fit well within the Acts definition of air 
pollutant and that EPA has statutory authority to regulate emission of 
such gases from new motor vehicles. Lastly, in April 2009, EPA issued 
the Proposed Endangerment and Cause-or-Contribute Findings for 
Greenhouse Gases under the Clean Air Act. The endangerment proposal 
stated that greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles and engines cause 
or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to 
endanger public health and welfare.
    Alternatives: The rulemaking proposal will include an evaluation of 
regulatory alternatives. In addition, the proposal is expected to 
include tools such as averaging, banking, and trading of emissions 
credits as an alternative approach for compliance with the proposed 
program.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Detailed analysis of economy-wide 
cost impacts, greenhouse gas emission reductions, and societal benefits 
will be performed during development of the proposed rule.
    Risks: The failure to set new GHG standards for medium- and heavy-
duty trucks is likely to result in cumulative increases in GHG 
emissions from the trucking industry over time and therefore increased 
the risk of unacceptable climate change impacts.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   03/00/15  .......................
Final Rule..........................   02/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, State.
    Agency Contact: Matt Spears, Environmental Protection Agency, Air 
and Radiation, Mail Code: ASD1, Ann Arbor, MI 48105, Phone: 734 214-
4921, Fax: 734 214-4816, Email: [email protected].
    Charles Moulis, Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation, 
NFEVL, Ann Arbor, MI 48105, Phone: 734 214-4826.
    RIN: 2060-AS16


[[Page 76623]]



EPA--AR

126. Renewable Fuel 2015 Volume Standards

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: Clean Air Act sec 211(o)
    CFR Citation: 40 CFR 80.1401.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: In response to the Energy Independence and Security Act 
(EISA) which amended the Clean Air Act Section 211(o), EPA finalized 
the RFS2 Program regulations. The new provisions also require EPA to 
promulgate regulations that specify the annual statutory volume 
requirements for renewable fuels, including cellulosic, biofuel, bio-
mass-based diesel, advanced biofuel, and total renewable fuel that must 
be used in transportation fuel annually. In the case of the cellulosic 
biofuel standard, the act specifically requires that the standard be 
set based on the volume projected to be available during the following 
year. If the volumes are lower than those specified under the act, then 
EPA may also lower the advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel 
standards each year accordingly. Further, the act requires the 
Administrator to promulgate rules establishing the applicable volumes 
of biomass-based diesel for 2013 and beyond and to do so no later than 
14 months before the year for which such applicable volume would apply. 
The actions summarized here will propose and finalize the 2016 biomass 
based diesel (BBD) volume along with the 2015 standards. This 
regulatory action will establish, as required, the annual statutory 
volume requirements for the RFS2 fuel categories (cellulosic, biomass-
based diesel, advanced biofuel, and renewable fuel) that apply to all 
gasoline and diesel produced or imported in 2015 and set, at minimum, 
the 2016 requirement. Entities potentially affected by this rule are 
those involved with the production, distribution, and sale of 
transportation fuels, including gasoline and diesel fuel or renewable 
fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel.
    Statement of Need: EPA is developing this rule under the 
Congressional mandate in the Energy Independence and Security Act 
(EISA) of 2007.
    Summary of Legal Basis: EPA is developing this rule under Clean Air 
Act Section 211(o).
    Alternatives: Alternatives are being developed as part of the 
forthcoming proposal.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Cost and benefit information is 
being developed as part of the forthcoming proposal.
    Risks: The risks are those addressed by EISA--i.e., energy 
insecurity and dependence on foreign sources.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   05/00/15
Final Rule..........................   08/00/15
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Energy Effects: Statement of Energy Effects planned as required by 
Executive Order 13211.
    International Impacts: This regulatory action will be likely to 
have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise be of 
international interest.
    Sectors Affected: 325199 All Other Basic Organic Chemical 
Manufacturing; 325193 Ethyl Alcohol Manufacturing; 424690 Other 
Chemical and Allied Products Merchant Wholesalers; 454319 Other Fuel 
Dealers; 424710 Petroleum Bulk Stations and Terminals; 324110 Petroleum 
Refineries; 424720 Petroleum and Petroleum Products Merchant 
Wholesalers (except Bulk Stations and Terminals)
    URL for More Information: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/fuels/renewablefuels/.
    Agency Contact: David Korotney, Environmental Protection Agency, 
Air and Radiation, N27, Ann Arbor, MI 48105, Phone: 734 214-4507, 
Email: [email protected].
    Paul Argyropoulos, Environmental Protection Agency, Air and 
Radiation, 6401A, Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 202 564-1123, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 2060-AS22

EPA--OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION (OCSPP)

Proposed Rule Stage

127. Pesticides; Certification of Pesticide Applicators

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136 7 U.S.C. 136i 7 U.S.C. 136w.
    CFR Citation: 40 CFR 156; 40 CFR 171.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: EPA is developing a proposed rule to revise the federal 
regulations governing the certified pesticide applicator program, based 
on years of extensive stakeholder engagement and public meetings, to 
ensure that they adequately protect applicators, the public, and the 
environment from potential harm due to exposure to restricted use 
pesticides (RUPs). This action is intended to improve the training and 
awareness of certified applicators of RUPs and to increase protection 
for noncertified applicators of RUPs operating under the direct 
supervision of a certified applicator through enhanced pesticide safety 
training and standards for supervision of noncertified applicators.
    Statement of Need: Change is needed to strengthen the protections 
for pesticide applicators, the public, and the environment from harm 
due to pesticide exposure.
    Summary of Legal Basis: This action is issued under the authority 
of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as 
amended, 7 U.S.C.s 136-136y, particularly sections 136a(d), 136i, and 
136w.
    Alternatives: In the years prior to the development of this 
rulemaking, EPA pursued non-regulatory approaches to protect 
applicators, the public, and the environment from potential harm due to 
exposure to RUPs. For example, the Agency developed mechanisms to 
improve applicator trainers and make training materials more 
accessible. EPA has also developed nationally relevant training and 
certification materials to preserve state resources while improving 
competency. However, the non-regulatory approaches did not address 
other requisite needs for improving protections, such as the 
requirements for determining competency and recertification that are 
being considered in this rulemaking.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Although subject to change as the 
proposal is developed, EPA currently estimates incremental costs of 
about $44 million annually and unquantified, long term health benefits 
to certified applicators, the noncertified applicators they supervise, 
and their families. These benefits arise from reducing their daily risk 
of pesticide exposures and reduced risk of chronic illness. This 
information will be updated once the proposal is issued.
    Risks: Applicators are at risk from exposure to pesticides they 
handle for their work. The public and the environment may also be at 
risk from misapplication by applicators without appropriate training. 
Revisions to the regulations are expected to minimize these risks by 
ensuring the competency of certified applicators.
    Timetable:

[[Page 76624]]



------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   05/00/15
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, State, Local, Tribal.
    Additional Information: Docket #: EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0561. http://epa.gov/sbrefa/pesticide-applicators.html. This action includes 
retrospective review under EO 13563; see: http://www.epa.gov/regdarrt/retrospective/history.html.
    Sectors Affected: 111 Crop Production; 32532 Pesticide and Other 
Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing; 5617 Services to Buildings and 
Dwellings; 9241 Administration of Environmental Quality Programs.
    URL for More Information: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/health/worker.htm.
    Agency Contact: Kathy Davis, Environmental Protection Agency, 
Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, 7506P, Washington, 
DC 20460, Phone: 703 308-7002, Fax: 703 308-2962, Email: 
[email protected].
    Jeanne Kasai, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Chemical 
Safety and Pollution Prevention, PYS1162, Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 
703 308-3240, Fax: 703 308-3259, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2070-AJ20

EPA--OCSPP

128. Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBS); Reassessment of Use 
Authorizations

    Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 
undetermined.
    Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
    Legal Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2605 ``TSCA 6(e)''.
    CFR Citation: 40 CFR 761.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The EPA's regulations governing the use of 
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) in electrical equipment and other 
applications were first issued in the late 1970s and have not been 
updated since 1998. The EPA has initiated rulemaking to reassess the 
ongoing authorized uses of PCBs to determine whether certain use 
authorizations should be ended or phased out because they can no longer 
be justified under section 6(e) of the Toxic Substances Control Act, 
which requires that the authorized use will not present an unreasonable 
risk of injury to health and the environment. As the first step in this 
reassessment, the EPA published an Advanced Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (ANPRM) on April 7, 2010 and took comment through August 20, 
2010. The EPA reviewed and considered all comments received on the 
ANPRM in planning the current rulemaking. This action will address the 
following specific areas: (1) The use, distribution in commerce, 
marking and storage for reuse of liquid PCBs in electric equipment; (2) 
improvements to the existing use authorization for natural gas 
pipelines; and (3) definitional and other regulatory ``fixes''. The 
reassessment of use authorizations related to liquid PCBs in equipment 
will focus on small capacitors in fluorescent light ballasts, large 
capacitors, transformers and other electrical equipment. In addition, 
revised testing, characterization, and reporting requirements for PCBs 
in natural gas pipeline systems to provide more transparency for the 
Agency and the public when PCB releases occur will be considered. 
Consistent with Executive Order 13563, ``Improving Regulation and 
Regulatory Review'', wherever possible and consistent with the overall 
objectives of this rulemaking, the Agency will also eliminate or fix 
regulatory inefficiencies noted by the Agency or in public comments on 
the ANPRM.
    Statement of Need: EPA is reassessing authorized uses of PCBs to 
determine whether certain uses should be ended or phased out because 
they can no longer be justified under section 6(e) of the Toxic 
Substances Control Act, which requires that the authorized use will not 
present an unreasonable risk of injury to health and the environment. A 
rulemaking is needed to revise or revoke any PCB use authorizations 
that no longer meet the TSCA unreasonable risk standard.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The authority for this action comes from 
TSCA section 6(e)(2)(B) and (C) of TSCA (15 U.S.C. 605(e)(2)(B) and 
(C)), as well as TSCA section 6(e)(1)(B) (15 U.S.C. 2605(e)(1)(B)).
    Alternatives: EPA published an Advanced Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (ANPRM) on April 7, 2010 and took comment through August 20, 
2010. EPA reviewed and considered all comments received on the ANPRM in 
planning the current rulemaking. If EPA determines that certain 
authorized uses of PCBs can no longer be justified under TSCA section 
6(e), EPA will evaluate options for ending or phasing out those uses.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: In developing a proposed rule, EPA 
will also evaluate the costs and benefits of the options under 
consideration, which will be used to inform the decision-makers of the 
potential impacts. Once decisions regarding the proposed rule are made, 
information on the potential costs and benefits of the action will be 
available.
    Risks: PCBs are toxic, persist in the environment and bioaccumulate 
in food chains and, thus, pose risks to human health and ecosystems. 
Once in the environment, PCBs do not readily break down and therefore 
may remain for long periods of time cycling between air, water, and 
soil. PCBs can be carried long distances and have been found in snow 
and sea water in areas far away from where they were released into the 
environment. As a consequence, PCBs are found all over the world. In 
general, the lighter the form of PCB, the further it can be transported 
from the source of contamination. PCBs can accumulate in the leaves and 
above-ground parts of plants and food crops. They are also taken up 
into the bodies of small organisms and fish. Humans may be exposed to 
PCBs through diet by eating contaminated fish and shellfish, and 
consuming contaminated milk, meat, and their by-products. Infants may 
be exposed through breast milk, and unborn children may exposed while 
in the womb. In addition, humans may exposed by breathing contaminated 
indoor air in buildings where electrical equipment contains PCBs or by 
coming into contact with PCB-contaminated liquids that have leaked from 
electrical equipment. Health effects associated with exposure to PCBs 
in humans and/or animals include liver, thyroid, dermal and ocular 
changes, immunological alterations, neurodevelopmental changes, reduced 
birth weight, reproductive toxicity, and cancer. EPA is currently 
evaluating the possible risks presented by ongoing uses of PCBs that 
may be addressed by this action.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM...............................   04/07/10  75 FR 17645
ANPRM Comment Period Extended.......   06/16/10  75 FR 34076
NPRM................................   07/00/15
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: Local, State, Tribal.
    Federalism: This action may have federalism implications as defined 
in EO 13132.
    Additional Information: Docket #: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0757.

[[Page 76625]]

    Sectors Affected: 22 Utilities; 31-33 Manufacturing; 48-49 
Transportation and Warehousing; 53 Real Estate and Rental and Leasing; 
54 Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services; 562 Waste 
Management and Remediation Services; 811 Repair and Maintenance; 92 
Public Administration.
    URL For More Information: http://www.epa.gov/pcb.
    Agency Contact: Sara Kemme, Environmental Protection Agency, Office 
of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, 7404T, Washington, DC 
20460, Phone: 202 566-0511, Fax: 202 566-0473, Email: 
[email protected].
    Peter Gimlin, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Chemical 
Safety and Pollution Prevention, 7404T, Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 
202 566-0515, Fax: 202 566-0473, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2070-AJ38

EPA--OCSPP

129. Lead; Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program for Public and 
Commercial Buildings

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
    Legal Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2682(c)(3)
    CFR Citation: 40 CFR 745.
    Legal Deadline: Other, Judicial, April 22, 2010, ANPRM--2009 
Settlement agreement.
    NPRM, Judicial, July 1, 2015, Deadline from 2012 amended; 
Settlement agreement.
    Final, Judicial, January 1, 2017, Deadline from 2012 amended; 
Settlement agreement.
    Per 9/7/2012 Amended Settlement Agreement in National Assoc. of 
Homebuilders v. EPA.
    Abstract: Section 402(c)(3) of the Toxic Substances Control Act 
(TSCA) requires the EPA to regulate renovation or remodeling activities 
in target housing (most pre-1978 housing), pre-1978 public buildings, 
and commercial buildings that create lead-based paint hazards. On April 
22, 2008, the EPA issued a final rule to address lead-based paint 
hazards created by these activities in target housing and child-
occupied facilities (child-occupied facilities are a subset of pre-1978 
public and commercial buildings where children under age 6 spend a 
significant amount of time). The 2008 rule established requirements for 
training renovators, other renovation workers, and dust sampling 
technicians; for certifying renovators, dust sampling technicians, and 
renovation firms; for accrediting providers of renovation and dust 
sampling technician training; for renovation work practices; and for 
recordkeeping. After the 2008 rule was published, the EPA was sued, in 
part, for failing to address potential hazards created by the 
renovation of public and commercial buildings. In the settlement 
agreement and subsequent amendments, the EPA agreed to commence 
proceedings to determine whether or not renovations of public and 
commercial buildings create hazards. Further, if these activities do 
create hazards, the EPA agreed to propose work practice and other 
requirements by July 1, 2015, and to take final action, if appropriate, 
no later than 18 months after the proposal.
    Statement of Need: This rulemaking is being undertaken in response 
to a settlement agreement and is designed to help insure that 
individuals and firms conducting renovation, repair, and painting 
activities in and on public and commercial buildings will do so in a 
way that safeguards the environment and protects the health of building 
occupants and nearby residents, especially children under 6 years old. 
EPA has conducted several studies and reviewed additional information 
that indicates that the renovation of buildings containing lead-based 
paint can create health hazards in the form of lead-based paint dust 
under typical industry work practices.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Section 402(c)(3) of the Toxic Substances 
Control Act (TSCA) requires EPA to regulate renovation or remodeling 
activities that create lead-based paint hazards in target housing, 
public buildings built before 1978, and commercial buildings.
    Alternatives: For those activities that EPA determines create lead-
based paint hazards, EPA will evaluate options to address the hazards. 
These options are likely to include different combinations of work 
practices and worker training and certification.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Not yet determined. A detailed 
analysis of costs and benefits will be performed during development of 
the proposed rule.
    Risks: Lead is known to cause deleterious health effects on 
multiple organ systems through diverse mechanisms of action in both 
adults and children. This array of health effects includes effects on 
heme biosynthesis and related functions, neurological development and 
function, reproduction and physical development, kidney function, 
cardiovascular function, and immune function. EPA is evaluating 
information on renovation activity patterns in public and commercial 
buildings to estimate exposures to lead dust from RRP activities in 
those buildings.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM...............................   05/06/10  75 FR 24848
Notice..............................   12/31/12  77 FR 76996
Notice..............................   05/13/13  78 FR 27906
Notice..............................   05/30/14  79 FR 31072
Notice..............................   08/06/14  79 FR 45796
NPRM................................   07/00/15
                                     -----------------------------------
Final Rule..........................           To Be Determined
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
    Federalism: Undetermined.
    Additional Information: Docket #: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2010-0173.
    Sectors Affected: 236210 Industrial Building Construction; 236220 
Commercial and Institutional Building Construction; 238150 Glass and 
Glazing Contractors; 238170 Siding Contractors; 238210 Electrical 
Contractors and Other Wiring Installation Contractors; 238220 Plumbing, 
Heating, and Air-Conditioning Contractors; 238310 Drywall and 
Insulation Contractors; 238320 Painting and Wall Covering Contractors; 
238340 Tile and Terrazzo Contractors; 238350 Finish Carpentry 
Contractors; 238390 Other Building Finishing Contractors; 531120 
Lessors of Nonresidential Buildings (except Miniwarehouses); 531312 
Nonresidential Property Managers; 921190 Other General Government 
Support.
    URL for More Information: http://www2.epa.gov/lead.
    Agency Contact: Hans Scheifele, Environmental Protection Agency, 
Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, 7404T, Washington, 
DC 20460, Phone: 202 564-3122, Email: [email protected].
    Cindy Wheeler, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Chemical 
Safety and Pollution Prevention, 7404T, Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 
202 566-0484, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2070-AJ56

EPA--SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE (SWER)

Proposed Rule Stage

130. Revisions to the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution 
Contingency Plan; Subpart J Product Schedule Listing Requirements

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(d)(2); 33 U.S.C. 1321(b)(3); 33 
U.S.C. 1321(j)

[[Page 76626]]

    CFR Citation: 40 CFR 300; 40 CFR 110.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Clean Water Act requires EPA to prepare a schedule 
identifying dispersants, other chemicals, and other spill mitigating 
devices and substances, if any, that may be used in carrying out the 
National Contingency Plan (NCP); and the waters and quantities in which 
they may be used. The EPA is considering revising subpart J of the NCP 
to address the efficacy, toxicity, and environmental monitoring of 
dispersants, other chemical and biological agents, and other spill 
mitigating substances, as well as public, state, local, and federal 
officials concerns on their authorization and use. Specifically, the 
Agency is considering revisions to the technical product requirements 
under subpart J, including amendments to the effectiveness and toxicity 
testing protocols, and establishing new effectiveness and toxicity 
thresholds for listing certain products on the Schedule. Additionally, 
the Agency is considering amendments to area planning requirements for 
agent use authorization and advanced monitoring techniques. The Agency 
is also considering revisions to harmonize 40 CFR part 110.4 with the 
definitions for chemical and biological agents proposed for subpart J. 
These changes, if finalized, will help ensure that chemical and 
biological agents have met rigorous efficacy and toxicity requirements, 
that product manufacturers provide important use and safety 
information, and that the planning and response community is equipped 
with the proper information to authorize and use the products in a 
judicious and effective manner.
    Statement of Need: The use of dispersants in response to the 
Deepwater Horizon incident, both on surface slicks and injected 
directly into the oil from the well riser, raised many questions about 
efficacy, toxicity, environmental trade-offs, and monitoring 
challenges. The Agency is considering amendments to subpart J that 
would increase the overall scientific soundness of the data collected 
on mitigation agents, take into consideration not only the efficacy but 
also the toxicity, long-term environmental impacts, endangered species 
protection, and human health concerns raised during responses to oil 
discharges, including the Deepwater Horizon incident. The additional 
data requirements being considered would aid On-Scene Coordinators 
(OSCs) and Regional Response Teams (RRTs) when evaluating specific 
product information and when deciding whether and which products to use 
to mitigate hazards caused by discharges or threatened discharges of 
oil. Additionally, the Agency is considering amendments to area 
planning requirements for dispersant use authorization, toxicity 
thresholds and advanced monitoring techniques. This action is a major 
component of the EPA's effort to inform the use of dispersants and 
other chemical or biological agents when responding to oil discharges, 
based on lessons learned from the federal government's experiences in 
responding to off-shore oil discharges, including the Deepwater Horizon 
incident, in the Gulf of Mexico and anticipation of the expansion of 
oil exploration and production activities in the Arctic.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The Federal Water Pollution Control Act 
(FWPCA) requires the President to prepare and publish a National 
Contingency Plan (NCP) for the removal of oil and hazardous substances. 
In turn, the President delegated the authority to implement this 
section of the FWPCA to the EPA through Executive Order 12777 (56 FR 
54757; October 22, 1991). Section 311(d)(2)(G)(i) of the FWPCA (a.k.a., 
Clean Water Act), as amended by the OPA, requires that the NCP include 
a schedule identifying ``dispersants, other chemicals, and other spill 
mitigating devices and substances, if any, that may be used in carrying 
out'' the NCP. Currently, the use of dispersants, other chemicals, and 
other oil spill mitigating devices and substances (e.g., bioremediation 
agents) to respond to oil discharges in U.S. waters is governed by 
subpart J of the NCP (40 CFR part 300 series 900).
    Alternatives: The Agency will consider alternatives via the 
proposal that address the efficacy, toxicity, and environmental 
monitoring of dispersants, and other chemical and biological agents, as 
well as public, state, local, and federal officials' concerns regarding 
their use. Specifically, the alternative requirements for the NCP 
Product Schedule (Schedule) consider new listing criteria, revisions to 
the efficacy and toxicity testing protocols, and clarifications to the 
evaluation criteria for removing products from the Schedule. EPA is 
also considering alternatives to the requirements for the authorities, 
notifications, monitoring, and data reporting when using chemical or 
biological agents in response to oil discharges in waters of the U.S. 
The alternatives being considered are intended to encourage the 
development of safer and more effective spill mitigating products, to 
better target the use of these products in order to reduce the risks to 
human health and the environment, and to ensure that On-Scene 
Coordinators (OSCs), Regional Response Teams (RRTs), and Area 
Committees have sufficient information to support agent 
preauthorization or authorization of use decisions.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The Agency expects the proposed 
rule, if finalized, would provide overall net benefits as a result of 
having more effective products on the Schedule, as well as from avoided 
costs of oil spill response and cleanup. Costs to product manufacturers 
would be incremental annual costs for product testing and labor. For 
certain discharges, costs to the party responsible for the spill would 
be added for monitoring requirements. A detailed costs and benefits 
analysis will be available with the proposal.
    Risks: Although major catastrophic oil discharges where chemical or 
biological agents may be used are relatively infrequent, this proposed 
rulemaking under subpart J should lead to the manufacture and use of 
less toxic, more effective oil spill mitigating products. The use of 
these products may reduce the potential for human and environmental 
impact, emergency response duration, and costs associated with any oil 
discharge. However, the impacts will vary greatly depending on factors 
that include the size, location and duration of an oil discharge, as 
well as, the type of oil being discharged. While the reduction in 
environmental impacts associated with the use of oil spill mitigating 
agents driven by this action are likely small for typical oil 
discharges, they could be significant in the event of a large oil 
discharge.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   12/00/14  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State, Tribal.
    Additional Information: Docket #: EPA-HQ-OPA-2006-0090.
    Sectors Affected: 325 Chemical Manufacturing; 424 Merchant 
Wholesalers, Nondurable Goods; 211 Oil and Gas Extraction; 541 
Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services; 562 Waste Management 
and Remediation Services.
    URL For More Information: http://www.epa.gov/oem/.
    Agency Contact: Vanessa Principe, Environmental Protection Agency, 
Solid Waste and Emergency Response, 5104A, Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 
202 564-

[[Page 76627]]

7913, Fax: 202 564-2625, Email: [email protected].
    Craig Matthiessen, Environmental Protection Agency, Solid Waste and 
Emergency Response, 5104A, Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 202 564-8016, 
Fax: 202 564-2625, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2050-AE87

EPA--SWER

131.  User Fee Schedule for Electronic Hazardous Waste Manifest

    Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 
undetermined.
    Legal Authority: Pub. L. 112-195
    CFR Citation: Undetermined.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: After promulgation of the first e-Manifest regulation in 
February 2014 to authorize the use of electronic manifests and to 
codify key provisions of the Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest 
Establishment Act (or Act), the EPA is moving forward on the 
development of the separate e-Manifest User Fee Schedule Regulation. 
The Act authorizes the EPA to impose on manifest users reasonable 
service fees that are necessary to pay costs incurred in developing, 
operating, maintaining and upgrading the system, including costs 
incurred in collecting and processing data from any paper manifest 
submitted to the system after the date on which the system enters 
operation. EPA plans to issue both a proposed and final rule in setting 
the appropriate electronic manifest and manifest fees. The EPA intends 
to propose for comment the fee methodology for establishing the 
electronic manifest and paper service fees. The EPA plans in a final 
rule to establish a program of fees that will be imposed on users of 
the e-Manifest system and announce the user fee schedule for manifest-
related activities, including activities associated with the collection 
and processing of paper manifests submitted to the EPA. EPA also plans 
in that final rule to announce (1) the date upon which the EPA will be 
ready to transmit and receive manifests through the national e-Manifest 
system and (2) the date upon which the user community must comply with 
the new e-Manifest regulation.
    Statement of Need: On February 7, 2014, the EPA promulgated the e-
Manifest Final rule, in order to comply with the Hazardous Waste 
Electronic Manifest Establishment Act, which required the EPA to issue 
a regulation authorizing electronic manifests by October 5, 2013. In 
issuing that rule, the EPA completed an important step that must 
precede the development of a national e-Manifest system, as required by 
the Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest Establishment Act. This rule is 
the second regulation that must precede the development of the e-
Manifest system. This action will implement the broad discretion 
granted on the Agency to establish reasonable user fees for the various 
activities associated with using and submitting electronic and paper 
manifests to the national system. Additionally, OMB Circular A-25 on 
User Charges provides that agencies of the executive branch must 
generally set user fee charges or fees through regulation.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Section 2(c) of the e-Manifest Act 
authorizes the EPA to impose on manifest users reasonable user fees to 
pay any costs incurred in developing, operating, maintaining, and 
upgrading the system, including any costs incurred in collecting and 
processing data from any paper manifest submitted to the system. Thus, 
this Action will implement the broad discretion granted on the Agency 
to establish reasonable user fees for the various activities associated 
with using and submitting electronic and paper manifests to the 
national system.
    Alternatives: The EPA plans to issue rulemaking to establish the 
appropriate electronic manifest and paper manifest fees. Specifically, 
EPA will explore options for who will pay user fees, the most efficient 
point in the process for collecting the fees, and the fee methodologies 
and fee formulas that relate to setting the fees.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: When the e-Manifest Final Rule was 
published in February 2014, the Agency deferred the development of the 
detailed risk impact analysis (RIA) for the e-Manifest system until the 
User Fee Schedule Rule. Thus, the RIA for the proposed User Fee 
Schedule Rule will not be limited to the impacts of the user fees 
announced in the rule, but will also estimate the costs and benefits of 
the overall e-Manifest system. The primary costs in the e-Manifest RIA 
will be the cost to build the system, the costs for industry and state 
governments to connect to the system, and the cost to run the system. 
The most significant benefit of the e-Manifest system estimated in the 
RIA will be reduced burden for industry to comply with RCRA manifesting 
requirements, and the reduced burden on states that collect and utilize 
manifest data for program management purposes.
    Risks: This action does not address any particular risks in the 
EPA's jurisdiction as it does not change existing requirements for 
manifesting hazardous waste shipments. It will merely propose for 
comment our fee methodology for setting the appropriate fees of 
electronic manifests, and paper manifests that continue in use, at such 
time as the system to receive them is built and operational.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   10/00/15  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State.
    Additional Information: Docket #: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2001-0032.
    Sectors Affected: 11 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting; 23 
Construction; 51 Information; 31-33 Manufacturing; 21 Mining, 
Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction; 92 Public Administration; 44-45 
Retail Trade; 48-49 Transportation and Warehousing; 22 Utilities; 562 
Waste Management and Remediation Services; 42 Wholesale Trade.
    URL for More Information: http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/hazard/transportation/manifest/e-man.htm.
    Agency Contact: Rich LaShier, Environmental Protection Agency, 
Solid Waste and Emergency Response, 5304P, Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 
703 308-8796, Fax: 703 308-0514, Email: [email protected].
    Bryan Groce, Environmental Protection Agency, Solid Waste and 
Emergency Response, 5304P, Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 703 308-8750, 
Fax: 703 308-0514, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2050-AG80

EPA--SWER

132.  Modernization of the Accidental Release Prevention 
Regulations Under Clean Air Act

    Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 
undetermined.
    Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7412(r)
    CFR Citation: 40 CFR 68.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: In response to Executive Order 13650, the EPA is 
considering potential revisions to its Risk Management Program 
regulations and related programs. The Agency may consider changes to 
the list of regulated substances and threshold quantities, addition of 
new accident prevention or emergency response program elements

[[Page 76628]]

and/or changes to existing elements, and/or other changes to the 
existing regulatory provisions.
    Statement of Need: On August 1, 2013, President Obama signed 
Executive order 13650, entitled Improving Chemical Facility Safety and 
Security. The Executive order establishes the Chemical Facility Safety 
and Security Working Group (``Working Group''), co-chaired by the 
Secretary of Homeland Security, the Administrator of the EPA, and the 
Secretary of Labor or their designated representatives at the Assistant 
Secretary level or higher, and composed of senior representatives of 
other Federal departments, agencies, and offices. The Executive order 
requires the Working Group to carry out a number of tasks whose overall 
aim is to prevent chemical accidents, such as the explosion that 
occurred at the West Fertilizer facility in West, Texas, on April 17, 
2013. Section 6 of the Executive order is entitled ``Policy, 
Regulation, and Standards Modernization'', and among other things, 
requires certain federal agencies to consider possible changes to 
existing chemical safety and security regulations. On July 31, 2014, 
the EPA issued a Request for Information (RFI) to solicit stakeholder 
feedback on a number of potential modifications to the RMP regulations. 
This NPRM is expected to contain a number of proposed modifications to 
the RMP regulations based on stakeholder feedback received from the 
RFI.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The statutory authority for this action is 
provided by section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) as amended (42 
U.S.C. 7412(r)).
    Alternatives: Alternatives will be considered during the 
development of the proposal.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Benefits and costs will be examined 
in detail during the development of the proposal. For any proposed 
regulatory changes, EPA expects that benefits will be due to prevented 
costs of accidental releases (e.g., through covering additional 
hazardous chemical processes, or addition or improvement of accident 
prevention program requirements), or reduced costs of accidental 
releases that do occur (e.g., due to improvements in release detection 
or emergency response procedures). Costs will relate to coverage of any 
additional sources or implementation of any additional accident 
prevention or emergency response program requirements that are imposed.
    Risks: Risks will be examined during the development of the 
proposal.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   09/00/15  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State.
    Federalism: Undetermined.
    Sectors Affected: 11 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting; 
444 Building Material and Garden Equipment and Supplies Dealers; 325 
Chemical Manufacturing; 445 Food and Beverage Stores; 45431 Fuel 
Dealers; 424 Merchant Wholesalers, Nondurable Goods; 21 Mining, 
Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction; 32411 Petroleum Refineries; 486 
Pipeline Transportation; 3221 Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Mills; 482 
Rail Transportation; 488 Support Activities for Transportation; 221 
Utilities; 493 Warehousing and Storage; 562 Waste Management and 
Remediation Services.
    URL For More Information: http://www2.epa.gov/rmp.
    Agency Contact: James Belke, Environmental Protection Agency, Solid 
Waste and Emergency Response, 5104A, Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 202 
564-8023, Fax: 202 564-8444, Email: [email protected].
    Kathy Franklin, Environmental Protection Agency, Solid Waste and 
Emergency Response, 5104A, Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 202 564-7987, 
Fax: 202 564-2625, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2050-AG82

EPA--AIR AND RADIATION (AR)

Final Rule Stage

133. Petroleum Refinery Sector Risk and Technology Review and New 
Source Performance Standards

    Priority: Other Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Legal Authority: Clean Air Act sec 111 and 112
    CFR Citation: 40 CFR 60; 40 CFR 63.
    Legal Deadline: NPRM, Judicial, May 15, 2014, Consent decree 
deadline for proposed rule--Air Alliance Houston, et al. v. McCarthy; 
12-1607 (RMC); USDC for the District of Columbia filed 1/13/14.
    Final, Judicial, April 17, 2015, Consent decree deadline for final 
rule--Air Alliance Houston, et al. v. McCarthy; 12-1607 (RMC); USDC for 
the District of Columbia filed 1/13/14.
    Abstract: This action pertains to the Petroleum Refining industry 
and specifically to petroleum refinery sources that are subject to 
maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards in 40 CFR part 
63, subparts CC (Refinery MACT 1) and UUU (Refinery MACT 2) and new 
source performance standards (NSPS) in 40 CFR part 60, subpart Ja. This 
action is the Petroleum Refining Sector Rulemaking which will address 
our obligation to perform Risk and Technology Reviews (RTR) for 
Petroleum Refinery MACT 1 and 2 source categories and will address 
issues related to the reconsideration of Petroleum Refinery New Source 
Performance Standard (NSPS) subpart Ja. Petroleum refineries are 
facilities engaged in refining and producing products made from crude 
oil or unfinished petroleum derivatives. Emission sources include 
petroleum refinery-specific process units unique to the industry, such 
as fluid catalytic cracking units (FCCU) and catalytic reforming units 
(CRU), as well as units and processes commonly found at other types of 
manufacturing facilities (including petroleum refineries), such as 
storage vessels and wastewater treatment plants. Refinery MACT 1 
regulates hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions from common processes 
such as miscellaneous process vents (e.g., delayed coking vents), 
storage vessels, wastewater, equipment leaks, loading racks, marine 
tank vessel loading and heat exchange systems at petroleum refineries. 
Refinery MACT 2 regulates HAP from those processes that are unique to 
the industry including sulfur recovery units (SRU) and from catalyst 
regeneration in FCCU and CRU. A proposed rule was signed on 5/15/14 and 
published in the Federal Register on 6/30/14 (79 FR 36880). The EPA is 
reviewing comments and preparing a final rule for signature in 2015.
    Statement of Need: This proposal is required by Clean Air Act 
Section 112 to review technology-based standards and revise them as 
necessary but no less frequently than every eight years under 112 
(d)(6) and to review and reduce remaining risk (ie., residual) 
according to Section 112 (f).
    Summary of Legal Basis: Environmental and other public health 
groups filed a lawsuit alleging that EPA missed statutory deadlines to 
review and revise Refinery MACT 1 and 2. The EPA reached an agreement 
to settle this litigation, and in a consent decree filed January 13, 
2014 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, EPA 
committed to perform the risk and technology review for Refinery MACT 1 
and 2 by May 15, 2014 to either propose any regulations or propose that 
addiitonal regulations are not necessary. Under the consent decree, EPA 
comitted

[[Page 76629]]

to take final action by April 17, 2015, establishing regulations 
pursuant to the risk and technology review or to issue a final 
determination that revision to the existing rules is not necessary.
    Alternatives: Alternatives were discussed in the proposal preamble 
published on June 30, 2014, at 79 FR 36879.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: For the proposal, estimated total 
capital investment--240 million, total annualized cost--42 million; 
Projected reductions of 52,000 tons VOC, 5,560 tons of HAP.
    Risks: The risk addressed is human health risk. The proposal 
estimated that cancer incidence would be reduced by 15% over the 
current baseline as a result of proposed amendments.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   06/30/14  79 FR 36879
NPRM Comment Period Extended........   08/15/14  79 FR 48111
Final Rule..........................   05/00/15  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State.
    Additional Information: Docket #: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0682.
    Sectors Affected: 324110 Petroleum Refineries.
    URL For More Information: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/petrefine/petrefpg.html.
    Agency Contact: Brenda Shine, Environmental Protection Agency, Air 
and Radiation, E143-01, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, Phone: 919 
541-3608, Fax: 919 541-0246, Email: [email protected].
    Penny Lassiter, Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation, 
E143-01, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, Phone: 919 541-5396, Fax: 
919 541-0246, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2060-AQ75

EPA--AR

134. Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions From New 
Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: CAA 111
    CFR Citation: 40 CFR 60.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This final rule will establish the first new source 
performance standards for greenhouse gas emissions. This rule will 
establish carbon dioxide (CO2) emission standards for certain new 
fossil fuel-fired electric generating units.
    Statement of Need: EGU GHG NSPS is the first action item in 
President Obama's Climate Action Plan (CAP). The CAP called for the EPA 
to issue a proposal by September 20, 2013 to regulate carbon emissions 
from fossil fuel-fired power plants.
    Summary of Legal Basis: CO2 is a regulated pollutant and this is 
subject to regulation under section 111 of the Clean Air Act as amended 
in 1990.
    Alternatives: The three alternatives the EPA considered in the BSER 
analysis for new fossil fuel-fired utility boilers and IGCC units are: 
(1) Highly efficient new generation that does not include CCS 
technology, (2) highly efficient new generation with ``full capture'' 
CCS and (3) highly efficient new generation with ``partial capture'' 
CCS.
    We considered two alternatives in evaluating the BSER for new 
fossil fuel-fired stationary combustion turbines: (1) Modern, efficient 
NGCC units and (2) modern, efficient NGCC units with CCS.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Under a wide range of electricity 
market conditions--including the EPA's baseline scenario as well as 
multiple sensitivity analyses--EPA projects that the industry will 
choose to construct new units that already meet these standards, 
regardless of this proposal. As a result, the EPAanticipates that the 
proposed EGU New Source GHG Standards will result in negligible CO2 
emission changes, energy impacts, benefits or costs for new units 
constructed by 2020.
    Risks: The risk addressed is the current and future threat of 
climate change to public health and welfare, as demonstrated in the 
2009 Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Finding for Greenhouse Gases 
Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. The EPA made this 
determination based primarily upon the recent, major assessments by the 
U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), the National Research 
Council (NRC) of the National Academies and the Intergovernmental Panel 
on Climate Change (IPCC).
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   04/13/12  77 FR 22392
NPRM Comment Period Extended........   05/04/12  77 FR 26476
Notice..............................   01/08/14  79 FR 1352
Second NPRM.........................   01/08/14  79 FR 1429
Notice..............................   02/26/14  79 FR 10750
Comment Period Extended.............   03/06/14  79 FR 12681
Final Rule..........................   01/00/15  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, State, Tribal.
    Additional Information: Docket #: EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0660.
    Sectors Affected: 221 Utilities.
    URL For Public Comments: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0660-0001.
    Agency Contact: Nick Hutson, Environmental Protection Agency, Air 
and Radiation, D243-01, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, Phone: 919 
451-2968, Fax: 919 541-5450, Email: [email protected].
    Christian Fellner, Environmental Protection Agency, Air and 
Radiation, D243-01, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, Phone: 919 541-
4003, Fax: 919 541-5450, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2060-AQ91

EPA--AR

135. Implementation of the 2008 National Ambient Air Quality Standards 
for Ozone: State Implementation Plan Requirements

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7409; 42 U.S.C. 7410; 42 U.S.C. 7511 to 
7511f; 42 U.S.C. 7601(a)(1)
    CFR Citation: 40 CFR 50; 40 CFR 51; 40 CFR 70; 40 CFR 71.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This final rule will address a range of state 
implementation requirements for the 2008 National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards (NAAQS) for ozone, including requirements pertaining to 
attainment demonstrations, reasonable further progress, reasonably 
available control technology, reasonably available control measures, 
nonattainment new source review, emission inventories, and the timing 
of State Implementation Plan (SIP) submissions and compliance with 
emission control measures in the SIP. Other issues also addressed in 
this final rule are the revocation of the 1997 ozone NAAQS for purposes 
other than transportation conformity; anti-backsliding requirements 
that would apply when the 1997 NAAQS are revoked; and the section 185 
fee program.

[[Page 76630]]

    Statement of Need: This rule is needed to establish requirements 
for what states must include in their state implementation plans (SIPs) 
to bring nonattainment areas into compliance with the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 
There is no court-ordered deadline for this final rule. However, the 
CAA requires the nonattainment area plans addressed by this rule to be 
developed and submitted by states within 2 to 3 years after the July 
20, 2012 date of nonattainment designations.
    Summary of Legal Basis: CAA section 110 authorizes EPA to require 
state planning to attain the NAAQS and to help states implement their 
plans.
    Alternatives: The rule included several alternatives for meeting 
implementation requirements, including but not limited to options for 
SIP submittal dates, NOX substitution for VOC in RFP SIPs, 
alternative baseline years for RFP and alternatives for addressing 
anti-backsliding requirements once the 1997 ozone NAAQS has been 
revoked. The EPA solicited comments on a number of topics, including 
alternative approaches to achieving RFP, RACT flexibility and alternate 
revocation dates for the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The annual burden for this 
information collection averaged over the first 3 years is estimated to 
be a total of 120,000 labor hours per year at an annual labor cost of 
$2.4 million (present value) over the 3-year period or approximately 
$91,000 per state for the 26 state respondents, including the District 
of Columbia. The average annual reporting burden is 690 hours per 
response, with approximately 2 responses per state for 58 state 
respondents. There are no capital or operating and maintenance costs 
associated with the proposed rule requirements. Burden is defined at 5 
CFR 1320.3(b).
    Risks: Ozone concentrations that exceed the National Ambient Air 
Quality Standards (NAAQS) to can cause adverse public health and 
welfare effects, as discussed in the March 27, 2008 Final Rule for 
NAAQS for Ozone (73 FR 16436).
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   06/06/13  78 FR 34177
NPRM Comment Period Extended........   07/24/13  78 FR 44485
Final Rule..........................   03/00/15  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State, Tribal.
    Additional Information: Docket #: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0885.
    URL For More Information: http://www.epa.gov/air/ozonepollution/actions.html#impl.
    Agency Contact: Karl Pepple, Environmental Protection Agency, Air 
and Radiation, C539-01, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, Phone: 206 
553-1778, Fax: 919 541-0824, Email: [email protected].
    Megan Brachtl, Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation, 
C539-01, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, Phone: 919 541-2648, Fax: 
919 541-5315, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2060-AR34

EPA--AR

136. Carbon Pollution Standards for Modified and Reconstructed 
Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: CAA 111
    CFR Citation: 40 CFR 60.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This final rule will amend the electric generating units 
(EGU) New Source Performance Standards for modified and reconstructed 
facilities for greenhouse gas (GHG) under Clean Air Act section 111(b).
    Statement of Need: The issuance of standards of performance for 
modified and reconstructed power plants is an action item in President 
Obama's Climate Action Plan (CAP). The CAP calls for the EPA to issue a 
proposal by no later than June 1, 2014 and to issue a final rule by no 
later than June 1, 2015.
    Summary of Legal Basis: CO2 is a regulated pollutant and 
thus is subject to regulation under section 111 of the Clean Air Act as 
amended in 1990.
    Alternatives: Alternatives were discussed in the proposal preamble 
published on June 18, 2014, at 79 FR 34959.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The EPA anticipates few covered 
units will trigger the reconstruction or modification provisions in the 
period of analysis (through 2025). As a result, we do not anticipate 
any significant costs or benefits associated with this proposal.
    Risks: The risk addressed is the current and future threat of 
climate change to public health and welfare, as demonstrated in the 
2009 Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases 
under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   06/18/14  79 FR 34959
NPRM Comment Period End.............   10/16/14  .......................
Final Rule..........................   06/00/15  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, State, Tribal.
    Additional Information: Docket #: EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0603.
    Agency Contact: Christian Fellner, Environmental Protection Agency, 
Air and Radiation, D243-01, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, Phone: 
919 541-4003, Fax: 919 541-5450, Email: [email protected].
    Nick Hutson, Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation, 
D243-01, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, Phone: 919 451-2968, Fax: 
919 541-5450, Email: [email protected].
    Related RIN: Related to 2060-AQ91, Related to 2060-AR33
    RIN: 2060-AR88

EPA--OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION (OCSPP)

Final Rule Stage

137. Pesticides; Agricultural Worker Protection Standard Revisions

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136w
    CFR Citation: 40 CFR 170.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: On March 19, 2014, the EPA proposed to revise the federal 
regulations issued under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) that direct agricultural worker protection (40 
CFR 170). The proposed changes are in response to extensive stakeholder 
review of the regulation and its implementation since 1992, and reflect 
current research on how to mitigate occupational pesticide exposure to 
agricultural workers and pesticide handlers. The EPA is proposing to 
strengthen the protections provided to agricultural workers and 
handlers under the worker protection standard by improving elements of 
the existing regulation, such as training, notification, communication 
materials, use of personal protective equipment, and decontamination 
supplies. The EPA expects the revisions, once final, to prevent 
unreasonable adverse effects from exposure to pesticides among 
agricultural workers and pesticide

[[Page 76631]]

handlers; vulnerable groups, such as minority and low-income 
populations, child farmworkers, and farmworker families; and the 
general public. The EPA recognizes the importance and independence of 
family farms and is proposing to expand the immediate family exemption 
to the WPS.
    Statement of Need: Stakeholders have identified gaps in the 
protections in the current worker protection regulations. Revisions to 
the regulations are necessary to better protect agricultural workers 
and pesticide handlers from unreasonable adverse effects of pesticide 
exposure.
    Summary of Legal Basis: This rulemaking is being developed under 
the authority of sections 2 through 35 of the Federal Insecticide, 
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 136-136y, and 
particularly section 25(a), 7 U.S.C. 136w(a).
    Alternatives: EPA proposed several amendments to the existing WPS 
requirements, including: amending the existing pesticide safety 
training content, retraining interval (frequency), and qualifications 
of trainers; ensuring workers receive safety information before 
entering any pesticide treated area by amending the existing grace 
period and expanding the training required during the grace period; 
establishing a minimum age of 16 for handlers and for workers who enter 
an area under an re-entry interval (REI); establishing requirements for 
specific training and notification for workers who enter an area under 
an REI; restricting persons' entry into areas adjacent to a treated 
area during an application; enhancing the requirement for employers to 
post warning signs around treated areas; modifying the content of the 
warning sign; adding information employers must keep under the 
requirement to maintain application-specific information; requiring 
recordkeeping for pesticide safety training and worker entry into areas 
under an REI; ensuring the immediate family exemption includes an 
exemption from the proposed minimum age requirements for handlers and 
early-entry workers; and expanding the definition of immediate family 
to allow more family-owned operations to qualify for the exemptions to 
the WPS requirements. EPA considered a variety of alternatives for each 
of the proposed changes. The published NPRM describes each of the 
alternatives considered in detail.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The Economic Analysis issued with 
the proposed rule provides the EPA's analysis of the potential costs 
and impacts associated with the proposed rule. As proposed, the 
estimated cost is between $62 and $73 million annually, with most of 
the cost on the agricultural employer; and the quantified benefits are 
estimated between $5-$14 million annually, from avoided acute 
illnesses. A break even analysis of the potential reduction in chronic 
illnesses indicates that only 53 cases of several chronic illnesses 
(Parkinson's disease, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, prostate cancer, lung 
cancer, chronic bronchitis, and asthma) would satisfy the gap between 
the quantified benefits and the cost.
    Risks: Agricultural workers and pesticide handlers are at risk from 
pesticide exposure through their work activities, and may put their 
families at risk of secondary exposures. In order to address exposure 
risks to workers, pesticide handlers, and their families, the Agency 
has proposed revisions identified by stakeholders.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   03/19/14  79 FR 15443
NPRM Comment Period Extended........   05/14/14  79 FR 27546
NPRM Comment Period End.............   06/17/14  .......................
NPRM Comment Period Extended End....   08/18/14  .......................
Final Rule..........................   05/00/15  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State, Tribal.
    Additional Information: Docket #: EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0184-0119.
    Sectors Affected: 111 Crop Production; 115 Support Activities for 
Agriculture and Forestry; 32532 Pesticide and Other Agricultural 
Chemical Manufacturing; 541690 Other Scientific and Technical 
Consulting Services; 541712 Research and Development in the Physical, 
Engineering, and Life Sciences (except Biotechnology); 8133 Social 
Advocacy Organizations
    URL For More Information: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/health/worker.htm.
    URL For Public Comments: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0184.
    Agency Contact: Kathy Davis, Environmental Protection Agency, 
Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, 7506P, Washington, 
DC 20460, Phone: 703 308-7002, Fax: 703 308-2962, Email: 
[email protected].
    Richard Pont, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Chemical 
Safety and Pollution Prevention, 7506P, Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 
703 305-6448, Fax: 703 308-2962, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2070-AJ22

EPA--OCSPP

138. Formaldehyde; Third-Party Certification Framework for the 
Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2697; TSCA sec 601.
    CFR Citation: 40 CFR 770.
    Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, January 1, 2013, Deadline for 
promulgation of regulations, per 15 U.S.C. 2697(d).
    Abstract: The EPA is developing a final rule under the Formaldehyde 
Standards for Composite Wood Products Act was enacted in 2010 as title 
VI of Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 15 U.S.C. 2697, to establish 
specific formaldehyde emission limits for hardwood plywood, 
particleboard, and medium-density fiberboard, which are identical to 
the California emission limits for these products. In 2013, the EPA 
issued a proposed rule under TSCA title VI to establish a framework for 
a TSCA title VI Third-Party Certification Program whereby third-party 
certifiers (TPCs) are accredited by accreditation bodies (ABs) so that 
they may certify composite wood product panel producers under TSCA 
title VI. The proposed rule identifies the roles and responsibilities 
of the groups involved in the TPC process (EPA, ABs, and TPCs), as well 
as the criteria for participation in the program. This proposal 
contains general requirements for TPCs, such as conducting and 
verifying formaldehyde emission tests, inspecting and auditing panel 
producers, and ensuring that panel producers' quality assurance and 
quality control procedures comply with the regulations set forth in the 
proposed rule. A separate Regulatory Agenda entry (RIN 2070-AJ92) 
covers the other proposed regulation to implement the statutory 
formaldehyde emission standards for hardwood plywood, medium-density 
fiberboard, and particleboard sold, supplied, offered for sale, or 
manufactured (including imported) in the United States. EPA may decide 
to issue a single final rule to promulgate the final requirements 
related to both proposed rules.
    Statement of Need: TSCA title VI directs the EPA to promulgate

[[Page 76632]]

regulations to implement the statutory formaldehyde emission standards 
and emissions testing requirements for composite wood products 
(hardwood plywood, particleboard, and medium-density fiberboard). It 
also directs the EPA to include regulatory provisions relating to 
third-party testing and certification in addition to the auditing and 
reporting of third-party certifiers.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The EPA is issuing this rule under title VI 
of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 15 U.S.C. 2697, enacted in 
the Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products Act of 2010, 
which provides authority for the EPA to ``[Acirc]`[Acirc]`promulgate 
regulations to implement the standards required under subsection (b) of 
the Act. This provision includes authority to promulgate regulations 
relating to [Acirc]`[Acirc]`third-party testing and certification' and 
[Acirc]`[Acirc]`auditing and reporting of third-party certifiers.''
    Alternatives: As explained in the proposed rule, EPA considered a 
variety of alternatives. EPA considered directly operating a program 
for the accreditation of TPCs instead of entering into recognition 
agreements with ABs for that purpose. EPA considered increasing the 
amount of time for receiving accreditations under TSCA Title VI that 
was proposed to be afforded to TPCs that are already recognized by the 
California Air Resources Board (CARB). In addition, EPA considered 
requiring TPCs to be reaccredited every 2 years (which would align with 
CARB's requirements) instead of every 3 year years, and requiring Abs 
to audit TPCs once every 3 years instead of every 2 years (which would 
align with the proposed 3 year accreditation period). EPA also 
considered alternative retailer recordkeeping provisions for records 
related to the manufacture of component parts and finished goods prior 
to the effective date of the final rule. Finally, while the Agency did 
not propose mandatory electronic reporting for information that ABs and 
TPCs would be required to submit under the proposed rule, EPA sought 
public comment on such a requirement. EPA is evaluating public comments 
concerning the proposed rule and alternatives as it formulates the 
final rule.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Issued with the proposed rule, the 
Economic Analysis provides the EPA analysis of the potential costs and 
impacts associated with this rulemaking. As proposed, the annualized 
costs are estimated at approximately $34,000 per year using either a 3% 
discount rate or a 7% discount rate. This rule would impact an 
estimated 9 small entities, of which 8 are expected to have impacts of 
less than 1% of revenues or expenses, and 1 is expected to have impacts 
between 1% and 3%. State, Local, and Tribal Governments 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.
    Risks: At room temperature, formaldehyde is a colorless, flammable 
gas that has a distinct, pungent smell. Small amounts of formaldehyde 
are naturally produced by plants, animals and humans. Formaldehyde is 
used widely by industry to manufacture a range of building materials 
and numerous household products. It is in resins used to manufacture 
some composite wood products (e.g., hardwood plywood, particleboard and 
medium-density fiberboard). Everyone is exposed to small amounts of 
formaldehyde in the air, some foods, and products, including composite 
wood products. The primary way you can be exposed to formaldehyde is by 
breathing air containing it. Formaldehyde can cause irritation of the 
skin, eyes, nose, and throat. High levels of exposure may cause some 
types of cancers.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM...............................   12/03/08  73 FR 73620
Second ANPRM........................   01/30/09  74 FR 5632
NPRM................................   06/10/13  78 FR 34795
NPRM Comment Period Extended........   07/23/13  78 FR 44090
NPRM Comment Period Extended........   08/21/13  78 FR 51696
Final Rule..........................   02/00/15  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    International Impacts: This regulatory action will be likely to 
have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise be of 
international interest.
    Additional Information: Docket #: ANPRM stage: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2008-
0627; NPRM Stage: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2011-0380. See also RIN 2070-AJ92.
    Sectors Affected: 541611 Administrative Management and General 
Management Consulting Services; 541990 All Other Professional, 
Scientific, and Technical Services; 561990 All Other Support Services; 
813910 Business Associations; 541330 Engineering Services; 813920 
Professional Organizations; 321219 Reconstituted Wood Product 
Manufacturing; 541380 Testing Laboratories; 3212 Veneer, Plywood, and 
Engineered Wood Product Manufacturing
    URL For More Information: http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/chemtest/formaldehyde/index.html.
    URL For Public Comments: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPPT-2011-0380-0001.
    Agency Contact: Robert Courtnage, Environmental Protection Agency, 
Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, 7404T, Washington, 
DC 20460, Phone: 202 566-1081, Email: [email protected].
    Toiya Goodlow, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Chemical 
Safety and Pollution Prevention, Mail Code 7404T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave 
NW, Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 202 566-2305, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 2070-AJ44

EPA--OCSPP

139. Formaldehyde Emissions Standards for Composite Wood Products

    Priority: Other Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Unfunded Mandates: This action may affect the private sector under 
Pub. L. 104-4.
    Legal Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2697; TSCA sec 601.
    CFR Citation: 40 CFR 770.
    Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, January 1, 2013, Statutory 
Deadline. NPRM, Statutory, January 1, 2013, Deadline is for issuance of 
FINAL Rule.
    Abstract: The EPA is developing a final rule under the Formaldehyde 
Standards for Composite Wood Products Act that was enacted in 2010 as 
title VI of Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 15 U.S.C. 2697, and 
requires that the EPA promulgate implementing regulations to establish 
specific formaldehyde emission limits for hardwood plywood, 
particleboard, and medium-density fiberboard, which limits are 
identical to the California emission limits for these products. In 
2013, the EPA proposed regulations to implement emissions standards 
established by TSCA title VI for composite wood products sold, 
supplied, offered for sale, or manufactured in the United States. 
Pursuant to TSCA section 3(7), the

[[Page 76633]]

definition of ``manufacture'' includes import. As required by title VI, 
these regulations apply to hardwood plywood, medium-density fiberboard, 
and particleboard. TSCA title VI also directs EPA to promulgate 
supplementary provisions to ensure compliance with the emissions 
standards, including provisions related to labeling; chain of custody 
requirements; sell-through provisions; ULEF resins; no-added 
formaldehyde-based resins; finished goods; third-party testing and 
certification; auditing and reporting of third-party certifiers; 
recordkeeping; enforcement; laminated products; and exceptions from the 
requirements of regulations promulgated pursuant to this subsection for 
products and components containing de minimis amounts of composite wood 
products. A separate Regulatory Agenda entry (RIN 2070-AJ44) addresses 
requirements for accrediting bodies and third-party certifiers. EPA may 
decide to issue a single final rule to promulgate the final 
requirements related to both proposed rules.
    Statement of Need: TSCA title VI directs the EPA to promulgate 
regulations to implement the statutory formaldehyde emission standards 
and emissions testing requirements for composite wood products 
(hardwood plywood, particleboard, and medium-density fiberboard).
    Summary of Legal Basis: The EPA is issuing this rule under title VI 
of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 15 U.S.C. 2697, enacted in 
the Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products Act of 2010, 
which directs EPA to promulgate regulations to implement the 
formaldehyde emission standards and emissions testing requirements 
established by the Act. Congress directed the EPA to consider a number 
of elements for inclusion in the implementing regulations, many of 
which are aspects of the California Air Resources Board (CARB) program. 
These elements include: (a) labeling, (b) chain of custody 
requirements, (c) sell-through provisions, (d) ultra low-emitting 
formaldehyde resins, (e) no-added formaldehyde-based resins, (f) 
finished goods, (g) third-party testing and certification, (h) auditing 
and reporting of TPCs, (i) recordkeeping, (j) enforcement, (k) 
laminated products, and (l) exceptions from the requirements of 
regulations promulgated for products and components containing de 
minimis amounts of composite wood products.
    Alternatives: TSCA Title VI establishes national formaldehyde 
emission standards for composite wood products and the EPA has not been 
given the authority to change those standards. EPA considered various 
alternatives to other proposed requirements. With respect to a 
definition of hardwood plywood, EPA considered exempting all laminated 
products from the definition, exempting all laminated products except 
architectural panels and custom plywood, exempting laminated products 
made using no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins to attach veneer to 
platforms certified as NAF, and exempting laminated products made using 
NAF resins to attach veneer to compliant and certified platforms. EPA 
also considered allowing certifications for ultra-low emitting 
formaldehyde. Furthermore, EPA considered reduced recordkeeping 
requirements for firms that do not qualify as manufacturers under TSCA, 
not requiring notification to suppliers that the products supplied must 
comply with TSCA Title VI, and allowing to tested lots to be shipped 
before test results are available. EPA is evaluating implementation 
alternatives in this rulemaking and public comments.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Issued with the proposed rule, the 
Economic Analysis provides the EPA's analysis of the potential costs 
and benefits associated with this rulemaking. As proposed, this 
rulemaking will reduce exposures to formaldehyde, resulting in benefits 
from avoided adverse health effects. For the subset of health effects 
where the results were quantified, the estimated annualized benefits 
(due to avoided incidence of eye irritation and nasopharyngeal cancer) 
are $20 million to $48 million per year using a 3% discount rate, and 
$9 million to $23 million per year using a 7% discount rate. There are 
additional unquantified benefits due to other avoided health effects. 
The annualized costs are estimated at $72 million to $81 million per 
year using a 3% discount rate, and $80 million to $89 million per year 
using a 7% discount rate. Government entities are not expected to be 
subject to the rule's requirements, which apply to entities that 
manufacture (including import), fabricate, distribute, or sell 
composite wood products. EPA also estimated that the rulemaking would 
impact nearly 879,000 small businesses: Over 851,000 have costs impacts 
less than 1% of revenues, over 23,000 firms have impacts between 1% and 
3%, and over 4,000 firms have impacts greater than 3% of revenues. Most 
firms with impacts over 1% have annualized costs of less than $250 per 
year. This rule increases the level of environmental protection for all 
affected populations without having any disproportionately high and 
adverse human health or environmental effects on any population, 
including any minority or low-income population or children. The 
estimated costs of the proposed rule exceed the quantified benefits. 
There are additional unquantified benefits due to other avoided health 
effects. After assessing both the costs and the benefits of the 
proposal, including the unquantified benefits, EPA has made a reasoned 
determination that the benefits of the proposal justify its costs.
    Risks: At room temperature, formaldehyde is a colorless, flammable 
gas that has a distinct, pungent smell. Small amounts of formaldehyde 
are naturally produced by plants, animals and humans. Formaldehyde is 
used widely by industry to manufacture a range of building materials 
and numerous household products. It is in resins used to manufacture 
some composite wood products (e.g., hardwood plywood, particleboard and 
medium-density fiberboard). Everyone is exposed to small amounts of 
formaldehyde in the air, some foods, and products, including composite 
wood products. The primary way you can be exposed to formaldehyde is by 
breathing air containing it. Formaldehyde can cause irritation of the 
skin, eyes, nose, and throat. High levels of exposure may cause some 
types of cancers.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   06/10/13  78 FR 34820
NPRM Comment Period Extended........   07/23/13  78 FR 44089
NPRM Comment Period Extended........   08/21/13  78 FR 51695
Notice..............................   04/08/14  79 FR 19305
NPRM Comment Period Extended........   05/09/14  79 FR 26678
NPRM Comment Period Extended End....   05/26/14  .......................
Final Rule..........................   02/00/15
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    International Impacts: This regulatory action will be likely to 
have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise be of 
international interest.
    Additional Information: Docket #: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2012-0018. See also 
RIN 2070-AJ44.
    Sectors Affected: 325199 All Other Basic Organic Chemical 
Manufacturing;

[[Page 76634]]

337212 Custom Architectural Woodwork and Millwork Manufacturing; 321213 
Engineered Wood Member (except Truss) Manufacturing; 423210 Furniture 
Merchant Wholesalers; 442110 Furniture Stores; 444130 Hardware Stores; 
321211 Hardwood Veneer and Plywood Manufacturing; 444110 Home Centers; 
337127 Institutional Furniture Manufacturing; 423310 Lumber, Plywood, 
Millwork, and Wood Panel Merchant Wholesalers; 453930 Manufactured 
(Mobile) Home Dealers; 321991 Manufactured Home (Mobile Home) 
Manufacturing; 336213 Motor Home Manufacturing; 337122 Nonupholstered 
Wood Household Furniture Manufacturing; 444190 Other Building Material 
Dealers; 423390 Other Construction Material Merchant Wholesalers; 
325211 Plastics Material and Resin Manufacturing; 321992 Prefabricated 
Wood Building Manufacturing; 321219 Reconstituted Wood Product 
Manufacturing; 441210 Recreational Vehicle Dealers; 337215 Showcase, 
Partition, Shelving, and Locker Manufacturing; 321212 Softwood Veneer 
and Plywood Manufacturing; 336214 Travel Trailer and Camper 
Manufacturing; 337121 Upholstered Household Furniture Manufacturing; 
337110 Wood Kitchen Cabinet and Countertop Manufacturing; 337211 Wood 
Office Furniture Manufacturing; 337129 Wood Television, Radio, and 
Sewing Machine Cabinet Manufacturing
    URL for More Information: http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/chemtest/formaldehyde/index.html.
    URL for Public Comments: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPPT-2012-0018-0001.
    Agency Contact: Cindy Wheeler, Environmental Protection Agency, 
Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, 7404T, Washington, 
DC 20460, Phone: 202 566-0484, Email: [email protected].
    Robert Courtnage, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of 
Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, 7404T, Washington, DC 20460, 
Phone: 202 566-1081, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2070-AJ92

EPA--Solid Waste and Emergency Response (SWER)

Final Rule Stage

140. Standards for the Management of Coal Combustion Residuals 
Generated by Commercial Electric Power Producers

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Unfunded Mandates: This action may affect State, local or tribal 
governments and the private sector.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905; 42 U.S.C. 6906; 42 U.S.C. 
6907(a)(3); 42 U.S.C. 6912; 42 U.S.C. 6912(a); 42 U.S.C. 6912(a)(1); 42 
U.S.C. 6921; 42 U.S.C. 6922; 42 U.S.C. 6923; 42 U.S.C. 6924; 42 U.S.C. 
6925; 42 U.S.C. 6925(j); 42 U.S.C. 6935; 42 U.S.C. 6936; 42 U.S.C. 
6937; 42 U.S.C. 6944(a); 42 U.S.C. 6949a(c); 33 U.S.C. 1345(d); 33 
U.S.C. 1345(e)
    CFR Citation: 40 CFR 257; 261; 264; 265; 268; 271; 302.
    Legal Deadline: Final, Judicial, December 19, 2014, Signature date.
    Abstract: On June 21, 2010, the EPA proposed, under the Resource 
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) to regulate coal combustion 
residuals (CCRs) generated from the combustion of coal at electric 
utilities and independent power producers to address risks from the 
disposal of CCRs in surface impoundments and landfills. The EPA sought 
public comments on two regulatory approaches. One proposed option would 
be to list these residuals as ``special wastes,'' and draws from 
remedies available under subtitle C of RCRA, which creates a 
comprehensive program of federally enforceable requirements for waste 
management and disposal. The other proposed option included remedies 
under subtitle D of RCRA, which gives the EPA authority to set disposal 
standards for waste management facilities. Under both options, the EPA 
proposed not to regulate the beneficial use of CCRs, such as its use in 
concrete. In addition, this rule did not address CCRs generated from 
non-utility boilers burning coal, nor would it address the placement of 
coal combustion residuals in mines or non-minefill uses of CCRs at coal 
mine sites. Since the publication of the proposed rule, EPA has issued 
three Notices of Data Availability (NODAs) seeking public comment on 
additional data and information obtained by the EPA. In the most recent 
NODA, issued on August 2, 2013, the EPA invited comment on additional 
information to supplement the Regulatory Impact Analysis and risk 
assessment; information on large scale fill; and data on the surface 
impoundment structural integrity assessments. With this NODA, the EPA 
also sought comment on two issues associated with the requirements for 
CCR management units, closure and the construction of new units over 
pre-existing CCR landfills and surface impoundments. Under a consent 
decree, a final rule must be signed no later than December 19, 2014.
    Statement of Need: The EPA is proposing to regulate for the first 
time, coal combustion residuals under the Resource Conservation and 
Recovery Act (RCRA) to address the risks from the disposal of coal 
combustion residuals in surface impoundments and landfills, generated 
from the combustion of coal at electric utilities and by independent 
power producers.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The CCR rule was proposed under the 
authority of sections 1008(a), 2002(a), 3001, 3004, 3005, and 4004 of 
the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1970, as amended by RCRA and as amended 
by the hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). These 
statutes, combined, are commonly referred to as ``RCRA.'' RCRA section 
1008(a) authorizes the EPA to publish ``suggested guidelines for solid 
waste management.'' Such guidelines must provide a technical and 
economic descriptions of the level of performance that can be achieved 
by available solid waste management practices that provide for the 
protection of human health and the environment. RCRA section 2002 
grants the EPA broad authority to prescribe, in consultation with 
federal, state and regional authorities, such regulations as are 
necessary to carry out the function under federal solid waste disposal 
laws. RCRA section 3001(b) requires EPA to list particular wastes that 
will be subject to the requirements established under subtitle C. 
Section 3001(b)(3)(A) generally establishes a temporary exemption for 
CCRs primarily from the combustion of coal or other fossil fuels and 
requires the EPA to conduct a study to determine whether these waste 
should be regulated under Subtitle C or RCRA. Section 3004 generally 
requires EPA to establish standards for the treatment, storage, and 
disposal of hazardous waste to ensure protection of human health and 
the environment. RCRA section 3004(x) allows the Administrator to 
tailor certain specified requirements for particular categories of 
wastes. RCRA section 3005 generally requires that any facility that 
treats, stores, or disposes of wastes identified or listed under 
subtitle C, to have a permit. RCRA section 4004 requires the EPA to 
promulgate regulations

[[Page 76635]]

containing criteria for determining which facilities shall be 
classified as sanitary landfills (and not open dumps).
    Alternatives: In the proposed rule EPA considered two options for 
the regulation of CCRs. Under the first option, the EPA would reverse 
its August 1993 and May 2000 Bevill Regulatory Determinations regarding 
CCRs and list these residuals as special wastes subject to regulation 
under subtitle C of RCRA, when they are destined for disposal in 
landfills or surface impoundments. Under the second option, the EPA 
would leave the Bevill determination in place and regulate the disposal 
of such materials under subtitle D of RCRA by issuing national minimum 
criteria. Under both options, the EPA considered establishing dam 
safety requirements to address the structural integrity of surface 
impoundment to prevent catastrophic releases. The EPA also solicited 
comment on a number of alternatives including several combination 
approaches, such as regulating surface impoundments under subtitle C of 
RCRA while regulating landfills under subtitle D or RCRA.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The EPA estimated the potential 
costs and benefits of the proposed CCR rule in a regulatory impact 
analysis (RIA) dated April 2010. Although in June 2010 the EPA co-
proposed two regulatory options (i.e., subtitle C and subtitle D 
options) for the CCR rule, the RIA evaluated three regulatory 
approaches to the proposed rule: subtitle C, subtitle D, and subtitle 
``D Prime'' options. The RIA is available from the regulatory docket as 
document ID number EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640-0003. Based on a 50-year 
future period of analysis using a 7% discount rate at year 2009 price 
level, the RIA estimated the potential average annual future costs of 
these three options to range between $1,474 million, $587 million, and 
$236 million per year, respectively. These costs are associated with 12 
to 19 different combinations of pollution controls (i.e., engineering 
controls & ancillary requirements) proposed for each option such as 
groundwater monitoring, landfill and impoundment bottom liners, 
fugitive dust controls, and location restrictions, to name a few.
    Based on three monetized benefit categories consisting of (a) 
avoided future groundwater contamination from CCR landfills and 
impoundments, (b) avoided future CCR impoundment structural failures, 
and (c) induced future increase in the beneficial uses of CCR as a 
substitute ingredient in concrete, cement, wallboard, and about a dozen 
other markets, the RIA estimated the potential future average annual 
benefits of the three options to range between $6,320 to $7,405, $2,533 
to $3,026 and $1,023 to $1,268 per year, respectively. Because some 
stakeholders during the development of the CCR proposed rule asserted 
to the EPA a potential future stigma effect in beneficial use markets 
under the Subtitle C option, the RIA also evaluated a potential dis-
benefit decrease in CCR beneficial uses under an alternative scenario, 
as well as under a no change in beneficial use scenario.
    Risks: The EPA's damage cases and risk assessments all indicated 
the potential for CCR landfills and surface impoundments to leach 
hazardous constituents into groundwater, impairing drinking water 
supplies and causing adverse impacts on human health and the 
environment. Indeed, groundwater contamination is one of the key 
environmental risks the EPA has identified with CCR landfills and 
surface impoundments. Furthermore, as mentioned previously, the 
legislative history of RCRA specifically evidences concerns over 
groundwater contamination from disposal units. Composite liners, as 
modeled in the 2010 draft risk assessment, effectively reduce risks 
from all constituents to below the risk criteria for both landfills and 
surface impoundments at the 90th and 50th percentiles. Thus, the 
requirements for new units to be composite lined will reduce future 
risks significantly. However, the EPA proposed several regulatory 
alternatives that may or may not require existing units without 
composite liners to close.
    To this end, groundwater monitoring is a key mechanism for 
facilities to verify that the existing containment structures, such as 
liners and leachate collection and removal systems, are functioning as 
intended. Thus, the EPA believes that, in order for a CCR landfill or 
surface impoundment to meet RCRA's protection standard, a system of 
routine groundwater monitoring to detect any such contamination from a 
disposal unit, and corrective action requirements to address identified 
contamination, is necessary. EPA's proposed groundwater monitoring 
criteria require a system of monitoring wells be installed at new and 
existing CCR landfills and surface impoundments. The proposed criteria 
also provide procedures for sampling these wells and methods for 
statistical analysis of the analytical data derived from the well 
samples to detect the presence of hazardous constituents released from 
these facilities. The Agency proposed a groundwater monitoring program 
consisting of detection monitoring, assessment monitoring, and a 
corrective action program. This phased approach to groundwater 
monitoring and corrective action programs provide for a graduated 
response over time to the problem of groundwater contamination as the 
evidence of such contamination increases. This allows for proper 
consideration of the transport characteristics of CCR constituents in 
ground water, while protecting human health and the environment, and 
minimizing unnecessary costs.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice..............................   08/29/07  72 FR 49714
NPRM................................   06/21/10  75 FR 35128
Notice..............................   07/15/10  75 FR 41121
Notice..............................   10/12/11  76 FR 63252
Notice..............................   08/02/13  78 FR 46940
Final Rule..........................   12/00/14  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State, Tribal.
    Federalism: This action may have federalism implications as defined 
in EO 13132.
    Additional Information: Docket #:EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640, EPA-HQ-
RCRA-2011-0392. http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EPA-HQ-
RCRA-2009-0640.
    Sectors Affected: 221112 Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation.
    URL for More Information: http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/ccr-rule/index.htm.
    URL for Public Comments: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EPA-HQ-RCRA-2011-0392.
    Agency Contact: Alexander Livnat, Environmental Protection Agency, 
Solid Waste and Emergency Response, 5304P, Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 
703 308-7251, Fax: 703 605-0595, Email: [email protected].
    Steve Souders, Environmental Protection Agency, Solid Waste and 
Emergency Response, 5304P, Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 703 308-8431, 
Fax: 703 605-0595, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2050-AE81

EPA--SWER

141. Revising Underground Storage Tank Regulations--Revisions to 
Existing Requirements and New Requirements for Secondary Containment 
and Operator Training

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.

[[Page 76636]]

    Unfunded Mandates: This action may affect the private sector under 
Pub. L. 104-4.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6991et seq.
    CFR Citation: 40 CFR 280-281.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Underground Storage Tank (UST) regulations were first 
promulgated in 1988 primarily to prevent releases from retail petroleum 
marketers (gas stations) and other facilities into the environment. 
These regulations have reduced the incidents of contamination. However, 
there is a need to revise the regulations to incorporate changes to the 
UST program from the Energy Policy Act of 2005, as well as to update 
outdated portions of the regulations due to changes in technology since 
the 1980s. On August 8, 2005, President Bush signed the Energy Policy 
Act of 2005 (EPAct). Title XV, Subtitle B of this act (entitled the 
Underground Storage Tank Compliance Act of 2005), amends Subtitle I of 
the Solid Waste Disposal Act, the original legislation that created the 
UST program. There are key provisions of the EPAct that apply to states 
receiving federal UST funding but do not apply in Indian Country, 
including requirements for secondary containment and operator training. 
The EPA will also use our knowledge of the program gained over the last 
20 years to update and revise the regulations to make targeted changes 
to improve implementation and prevent UST releases. In the NPRM, the 
EPA proposed: adding secondary containment requirements for new and 
replaced tanks and piping; adding operator training requirements; 
adding periodic operation and maintenance requirements for UST systems; 
removing certain deferrals; adding new release prevention and detection 
technologies; updating codes of practice; making editorial and 
technical corrections; and updating state program approval requirements 
to incorporate these new changes.
    Statement of Need: The Underground Storage Tank (UST) regulations 
were first promulgated in 1988 primarily to prevent releases from 
retail petroleum marketers (gas stations) and other facilities into the 
environment. These regulations have reduced the incidents of 
contamination. However, there is a need to revise the regulations to 
incorporate changes to the UST program from the Energy Policy Act of 
2005, as well as to update outdated portions of the regulations due to 
changes in technology since the 1980s. On August 8, 2005, President 
Bush signed the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct). Title XV, Subtitle B 
of this act (entitled the Underground Storage Tank Compliance Act of 
2005), amends Subtitle I of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, the original 
legislation that created the UST program. There are key provisions of 
the EPAct that apply to states receiving federal UST funding but do not 
apply in Indian Country, including requirements for secondary 
containment and operator training. EPA also used its knowledge of the 
program gained over the last 20 years to propose revisions to the 
regulations to make targeted changes to improve implementation and 
prevent UST releases.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The legal basis for this rulemaking comes 
from 42 U.S.C. 6912, 6991, 6991(a), 6991(b), 6991(c), 6991(d), 6991(e), 
6991(f), 6991(g), and 6991(h).
    Alternatives: Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The EPA prepared an 
analysis of the potential incremental costs and benefits associated 
with the revisions to the UST regulation. The RIA estimated regulatory 
implementation and compliance costs, as well as benefits for the 
regulatory options considered. A substantial portion of the beneficial 
impacts associated with the final UST regulation are avoided cleanup 
costs as a result of preventing releases and reducing the severity of 
releases. Due to data and resource constraints, the EPA was unable to 
quantify some of the final UST regulation's benefits, including 
avoidance of human health risks, ecological benefits, and mitigation of 
acute exposure events and large-scale releases, such as those from 
airport hydrant systems and field-constructed tanks. This regulation 
will increase the protection of groundwater throughout the country, but 
the EPA was unable to place a value on the groundwater protected by 
this UST regulation.
    Under the proposed rule, on an annualized basis, the estimated 
regulatory compliance costs are $210 million (Selected Option), $520 
million (Option 1) and $130 million (Option 2). Separately, the 
proposed rule allows for annual cost savings related to avoided costs 
of $300-470 million (Selected Option), $310-770 million (Option 1) and 
$110-590 million (Option 2).
    Risks: There are approximately 575,000 underground storage tanks 
(USTs) nationwide that store petroleum or hazardous substances. The 
greatest potential threat from a leaking UST is contamination of 
groundwater, the source of drinking water for nearly half of all 
Americans.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   11/18/11  76 FR 71708
NPRM Comment Period Extended........   02/15/12  77 FR 8757
Final Rule..........................   02/00/15  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No
    Small Entities Affected: No
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State, Tribal
    Additional Information: Docket #:EPA-HQ-UST-2011-0301
    Sectors Affected: 72 Accommodation and Food Services; 481 Air 
Transportation; 48811 Airport Operations; 112 Animal Production; 111 
Crop Production; 2211 Electric Power Generation, Transmission and 
Distribution; 447 Gasoline Stations; 622 Hospitals; 31-33 
Manufacturing; 486 Pipeline Transportation; 44-45 Retail Trade; 485 
Transit and Ground Passenger Transportation; 484 Truck Transportation; 
483 Water Transportation; 42 Wholesale Trade
    URL for More Information: http://www.epa.gov/oust/fedlaws/proposedregs.html
    URL for Public Comments: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-UST-2011-0301-0001
    Agency Contact: Elizabeth McDermott, Environmental Protection 
Agency, Solid Waste and Emergency Response, 5401P, Washington, DC 
20460,
    Phone: 703 603-7175 Fax: 703 603-0175 Email: 
[email protected]
    Paul Miller, Environmental Protection Agency, Solid Waste and 
Emergency Response, 5401P, Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 703 603-7165, 
Fax: 703 603-0175, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2050-AG46

EPA--WATER (WATER)

Final Rule Stage

142. Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Steam 
Electric Power Generating Point Source Category

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Unfunded Mandates: This action may affect State, local or tribal 
governments and the private sector.
    Legal Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1311; 33 U.S.C. 1314; 33 U.S.C. 1316; 33 
U.S.C. 1317; 33 U.S.C. 1318; 33 U.S.C. 1342; 33 U.S.C. 1361
    CFR Citation: 40 CFR 423 revision.

[[Page 76637]]

    Legal Deadline: NPRM, Judicial, April 19, 2013, Consent Decree.
    Final, Judicial, September 30, 2015, 9/30/2015--Consent Decree 
deadline for Final Action--Defenders of Wildlife v. Jackson, 10-1915, 
D. DC
    Abstract: The EPA establishes national technology-based 
regulations, called effluent limitations guidelines and standards, to 
reduce discharges of pollutants from industries to waters of the U.S. 
These requirements are incorporated into National Pollutant Discharge 
Elimination System (NPDES) discharge permits issued by the EPA and 
states and through the national pretreatment program. The steam 
electric effluent limitations guidelines and standards apply to steam 
electric power plants using nuclear or fossil fuels, such as coal, oil 
and natural gas. There are about 1,200 nuclear- and fossil-fueled steam 
electric power plants nationwide; approximately 500 of these power 
plants are coal-fired. In a study completed in 2009, EPA found that the 
current regulations, which were last updated in 1982, do not adequately 
address the pollutants being discharged and have not kept pace with 
changes that have occurred in the electric power industry over the last 
three decades. The rulemaking may address discharges associated with 
coal ash waste and flue gas desulfurization (FGD) air pollution 
controls, as well as other power plant waste streams. Power plant 
discharges can have major impacts on water quality, including reduced 
organism abundance and species diversity, contamination of drinking 
water sources, and contamination of fish. Pollutants of concern include 
metals (e.g., mercury, arsenic and selenium), nutrients, and total 
dissolved solids. The proposed rule was published in the Federal 
Register on June 7, 2013 (``Effluent Limitations Guidelines and 
Standards for the Steam Electric Power Generating Point Source 
Category, '' 78 FR 34431).
    Statement of Need: Steam electric power plants contribute over half 
of all toxic pollutants discharged to surface waters by all industrial 
categories currently regulated in the United States under the Clean 
Water Act. For example, steam electric plants annually discharge: 
64,400 lb. of lead [Auml]2,820 lb. of mercury 
[Auml]79,200 lb. of arsenic [Auml]225,000 lb. of 
selenium [Auml] 1,970,000 lb. of aluminum 
[Auml]4,990,000 lb. of zinc [Auml]30,000,000 lb. of 
nitrogen [Auml]682,000 lb. of phosphorus 14,500,000 lb. of 
manganese [Auml]158,000 lb. of vanadium; and [Auml]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 [Auml]185 waters for which there are 
fish consumption advisories; and [Auml]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.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Section 301(b)(2) of the Clean Water Act 
(``CWA'') requires the EPA to promulgate effluent limitations for 
categories of point sources, using technology-based standards that 
govern the sources' discharge of certain pollutants. 33 U.S.C. 
1311(b)(2). Section 304(b) directs the EPA to develop effluent 
guidelines that identify certain technologies and control measures 
available to achieve effluent reductions for each point source 
category, specifying factors to be taken into account in identifying 
those technologies and control measures. 33 U.S.C. 1314(b). Since the 
1970s, the EPA has formulated effluent limitations and effluent 
guidelines in tandem through a single administrative process. Am. 
Frozen Food Inst. v. Train, 539 F.2d 107 (D.C. Cir. 1976). For new 
sources, the CWA authorizes the EPA to set Standards of Performance for 
categories of sources. 33 U.S.C. 1316. For new and existing facilities 
that introduce pollutants into Publicly Owned Treatment Works, the EPA 
promulgates pretreatment standards. 33 U.S.C. 1317(b), (c). Together, 
effluent limitations guidelines, standards of performance, and 
pretreatment standards are called ``Effluent Limitations Guidelines and 
Standards,'' or ``ELGs.'' The CWA also requires the EPA to perform an 
annual review of existing effluent guidelines and to revise them, if 
appropriate. 33 U.S.C. 1314(b); see also 33 U.S.C. 1314(m)(1)(A). The 
EPA originally established effluent limitations guidelines and 
standards for the steam electric generating point source category in 
1974 and last updated them in 1982. 47 FR 52,290 (Nov. 19, 1982). As 
described above, the EPA determined the existing regulations do not 
adequately address the pollutants being discharged and that revisions 
are appropriate.
    Alternatives: This analysis will cover various sizes and types of 
potentially regulated pollutant discharges and associated control 
technologies. For example, the proposal identified four preferred 
regulatory options that differ in the number of waste streams covered, 
size of the units controlled, and stringency of controls.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The EPA's proposed revisions to the 
steam electric rule identified a range of preferred regulatory options. 
The EPA's estimates of the annual social costs of the steam electric 
rule range from $185 million to $954 million with associated annual 
pollutant discharge reductions of 470 million to 2.62 billion pounds 
and water use reductions of 50 billion to 103 billion gallons. The 
EPA's estimate of the monetized benefits, which only includes a portion 
of the benefits, range from $139 million to $483 million. The range 
reflects that different regulatory options would control different 
wastestreams and provide different stringency of controls.
    Risks: Effluent limitations guidelines and standards are technology 
based discharge requirements. As such, EPA has not assessed risk 
associated with this action. However, as detailed in the Statement of 
Need, toxic pollutant discharges from steam electric plants are linked 
to cancer, neurological damage, and ecological damage.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   06/07/13  78 FR 34431
NPRM Comment Period Extended........   07/12/13  78 FR 41907
Final Rule..........................   09/00/15
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: Local, State.
    Federalism: This action may have federalism implications as defined 
in EO 13132.
    Additional Information: Docket #:EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819.
    Sectors Affected: 22111 Electric Power Generation; 221112 Fossil 
Fuel Electric Power Generation; 221113 Nuclear Electric Power 
Generation.
    URL for More Information: http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/guide/steam_index.cfm.
    Agency Contact: Ronald Jordan, Environmental Protection Agency, 
Water, Mail Code 4303T,1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 
20460, Phone: 202 566-1003, Fax: 202 566-1053, Email: 
[email protected].
    Jezebele Alicea, Environmental Protection Agency, Water, Mail Code

[[Page 76638]]

4303T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 202 
566-1755, Fax: 202 566-1053, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2040-AF14

EPA--WATER

143. Water Quality Standards Regulatory Revisions

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.
    CFR Citation: 40 CFR 131 (revision).
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The EPA proposed changes to the water quality standards 
(WQS) regulation to improve its effectiveness in helping restore and 
maintain the Nation's Waters. The core of the current WQS regulation 
has been in place since 1983. Since then, a number of issues have been 
raised by stakeholders or identified by the EPA in the implementation 
process that will benefit from clarification and greater specificity. 
The proposed rule addresses the following six key areas: 1) 
Administrator's determination that new or revised WQS are necessary, 2) 
designated uses, 3) triennial review requirements, 4) antidegradation, 
5) variances to water quality standards, and 6) compliance schedule 
authorizing provisions. These revisions will allow the EPA, states and 
authorized tribes to better achieve program goals by providing clearer 
more streamlined requirements to facilitate enhanced water resource 
protection.
    Statement of Need: The core requirements of the current WQS 
regulation have been in place for over 30 years. These requirements 
have provided a strong foundation for water quality-based controls, 
including water quality assessments, impaired waters lists, and total 
maximum daily loads (TMDLs) under CWA section 303(d), as well as for 
water quality-based effluent limits (WQBELs) in NPDES discharge permits 
under CWA section 402. As with the development and operation of any 
program, however, a number of policy and technical issues have recurred 
over the past 30 years in individual standards reviews, stakeholder 
comments, and litigation that the EPA believes would be addressed and 
resolved more efficiently by clarifying, updating and revising the 
federal WQS regulation to assure greater public transparency, better 
stakeholder information, and more effective implementation.
    The basic structure of the water quality standards regulation (40 
CFR part 131) was last revised in November 1983. The EPA added tribal 
provisions in 1991, ``Alaska rule'' provisions in 2000, and BEACH Act 
rule provisions in 2004. At the 15-year point (July 1998), the EPA 
issued a comprehensive advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) 
and conducted an extensive dialogue with states and the public on over 
130 discrete issues. The ANPRM led to some program redirections, but 
EPA did not revise the regulation itself at that time. The EPA has 
proposed targeted changes to the WQS regulation that aim to improve the 
regulation's effectiveness in restoring and maintaining the chemical, 
physical and biological integrity of the Nation's waters, and to 
clarify and simplify regulatory requirements.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The CWA establishes the basis for the 
current WQS regulation and program. Section 303(c) of the Act addresses 
the development of state and authorized tribal WQS and provides for the 
following: (1) WQS shall consist of designated uses and water quality 
criteria based upon such uses; (2) States and authorized tribes shall 
establish WQS considering the following possible uses for their waters-
propagation of fish, shellfish and wildlife, recreational purposes, 
public water supply, agricultural and industrial water supplies, 
navigation, and other uses; (3) State and tribal standards must protect 
public health or welfare, enhance the quality of water, and serve the 
purposes of the Act; (4) States and tribes must review their standards 
at least once every 3 years; and (5) the EPA is required to review any 
new or revised state and tribal standards, and is also required to 
promulgate federal standards where the EPA finds that new or revised 
state or tribal standards are not consistent with applicable 
requirements of the Act or in situations where the Administrator 
determines that federal standards are necessary to meet the 
requirements of the Act.
    The EPA established the core of the current WQS regulation in a 
final rule issued in 1983. This rule strengthened previous provisions 
that had been in place since 1977 and moved them to a new 40 CFR part 
131 (54 FR 51400, November 8, 1983). The resulting regulation describes 
how the WQS envisioned in the CWA are to be administered. It clarifies 
the content of standards and establishes more detailed provisions for 
implementing the provisions of the Act.
    Alternatives: In support of the 1983 regulation, the EPA has issued 
a number of guidance documents that have provided guidance on the 
interpretation and implementation of the WQS regulation, and on 
scientific and technical analyses that are used in making decisions 
that would impact WQS. In 1998, the EPA issued an Advance Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) to discuss and invite comment on over 130 
aspects of the federal WQS regulation and program, with a goal of 
identifying specific changes that might strengthen water quality 
protection and restoration, facilitate watershed management 
initiatives, and incorporate evolving water quality criteria and 
assessment science into state and tribal WQS programs. (63 FR 36742, 
July 7, 1998). In response, the EPA received over 3,200 specific 
written comments from over 150 comment letters. The EPA also held three 
public meetings during the 180-day comment period where additional 
comments were received and discussed. Although the EPA chose not to 
move forward with a rulemaking after the ANRPM, as a result of the 
input received, the EPA identified a number of high priority issue 
areas for which the Agency has developed guidance, provided technical 
assistance and continued further discussion and dialogue to assure more 
effective program implementation. As with the development and operation 
of any program, however, a number of policy and technical issues have 
recurred over the past 30 years that the EPA believes would be 
addressed and resolved more efficiently by clarifying, updating and 
revising the Federal WQS regulation to assure greater public 
transparency, better stakeholder information, and more effective 
implementation.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Because this proposal will not 
establish any requirements directly applicable to regulated entities, 
the focus of the EPA's economic analysis is to estimate the potential 
administrative burden and costs to state, tribal, and territorial 
governments, and the EPA. In the proposal the EPA is considering 
whether to include a requirement that antidegradation implementation 
methods be formally adopted as WQS and thus subject to the EPA's review 
and approval or disapproval. This additional requirement would require 
affected entities to develop or revise antidegradation implementation 
methods, and adopt the implementation methods in WQS, resulting in one-
time (nonrecurring) burden and costs. The total annual costs for this 
proposal with the requirement to adopt antidegradation implementation 
methods as WQS is estimated to range from $5.98 million to $9.27 
million per year. The total annual costs for this

[[Page 76639]]

proposal without the requirement to adopt antidegradation 
implementation methods as WQS is estimated to range from $5.84 million 
to $9.01 million per year.
    States, tribes, stakeholders, and the public will benefit from the 
proposed clarifications of the WQS regulations by ensuring better 
utilization of available WQS tools that allow states and tribes the 
flexibility to implement their WQS in an efficient manner while 
providing transparency and open public participation. Although 
associated with potential administrative burden and costs in some 
areas, this proposal has the potential to partially offset these costs 
by reducing regulatory uncertainty and consequently increasing overall 
program efficiency. Furthermore, more efficient and effective 
implementation of state and tribal WQS has the potential to provide a 
variety of economic benefits associated with cleaner water including 
the availability of clean, safe, and affordable drinking water, water 
of adequate quality for agricultural and industrial use, and water 
quality that supports the commercial fishing industry and higher 
property values. Nonmarket benefits of this proposal include the 
protection and improvement of public health and greater recreational 
opportunities. The EPA acknowledges that achievement of any benefits 
associated with cleaner water would involve additional control 
measures, and thus costs to regulated entities and non-point sources, 
that have not been included in the economic analyses for this proposed 
rule. The EPA has not attempted to quantify either the costs of such 
control measures that might ultimately be required as a result of this 
rule, or the benefits they would provide.
    Risks: Reducing regulatory uncertainty has the impact of increasing 
overall program efficiency.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice..............................   07/30/10  75 FR 44930
NPRM................................   09/04/13  78 FR 54517
NPRM Comment Period Extended........   11/27/13  78 FR 70905
NPRM Comment Period Extended End....   01/02/14  .......................
Final Rule..........................   05/00/15  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, State, Tribal.
    Additional Information: Docket #: EPA-HQ-OW-2010-0606.
    URL for More Information: http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/index.cfm.
    Agency Contact: Shari Barash, Environmental Protection Agency, 
Water, Mail Code 4305T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 
20460, Phone: 202 566-0996, Fax: 202 566-1053, Email: 
[email protected].
    Janita Aguirre, Environmental Protection Agency, Water, Mail Code 
4305T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 202 
566-1149 Fax: 202 566-0409 Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2040-AF16

EPA--WATER

144. Definition of ``Waters of the United States'' Under the Clean 
Water Act

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1251
    CFR Citation: 40 CFR 110; 40 CFR 112; 40 CFR 116; 40 CFR 117; 40 
CFR 122; 40 CFR 230; 40 CFR 232; 40 CFR 300; 40 CFR 302; 40 CFR 401; 33 
CFR 328
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: After U.S. Supreme Court decisions in SWANCC and Rapanos, 
the scope of ``waters of the US'' protected under all CWA programs has 
been an issue of considerable debate and uncertainty. The Act has a 
single definition for ``waters of the United States.'' As a result, 
these decisions affect the geographic scope of all CWA programs. SWANCC 
and Rapanos did not invalidate the current regulatory definition of 
``waters of the United States.'' However, the decisions established 
important considerations for how those regulations should be 
interpreted, and experience implementing the regulations has identified 
several areas that could benefit from additional clarification through 
rulemaking. U.S. EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers proposed a 
rule for determining whether a water is protected by the Clean Water 
Act. This rule will make clear which waterbodies are protected under 
the Clean Water Act.
    Statement of Need: After U.S. Supreme Court decisions in SWANCC 
(Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers, 531 U.S. 159 (2001)) and Rapanos (Rapanos v. United States , 
547 U.S. 715 (2006)), the scope of waters of the US protected under all 
CWA programs has been an issue of considerable debate and uncertainty. 
The Act has a single definition for waters of the United States. As a 
result, these decisions affect the geographic scope of all CWA 
programs. SWANCC and Rapanos did not invalidate the current regulatory 
definition of waters of the United States. However, the decisions 
established important considerations for how those regulations should 
be interpreted, and experience implementing the regulations has 
identified several areas that could benefit from additional 
clarification through rulemaking. EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers are developing a proposed rule for determining whether a 
water is protected by the Clean Water Act. This rule would clarify 
which water bodies are protected under the Clean Water Act.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers (Corps) publish for public comment a proposed rule defining 
the scope of waters protected under the CWA, in light of the U.S. 
Supreme Court cases in U.S. v. Riverside Bayview Homes, Solid Waste 
Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
(SWANCC), and Rapanos v. United States (Rapanos). The goal of the 
agencies is to ensure the regulatory definition is consistent with the 
CWA, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, and as supported by science, 
and to provide maximum clarity to the public, as the agencies work to 
fulfill the CWA's objectives and policy to protect water quality, 
public health, and the environment.
    Alternatives: The agencies solicited comment on a number of issues 
throughout the proposed rule preamble. In particular, the agencies 
requested comment on alternate approaches to determining whether 
``other waters'' are similarly situated and have a ``significant 
nexus'' to a traditional navigable water, interstate water, or the 
territorial seas. Just as the agencies are seeking comment on a variety 
of approaches, or combination of approaches, as to which waters are 
jurisdictional, the agencies also request comment on determining which 
waters should be determined non-jurisdictional. In addition, the 
agencies are seeking comment on alternate approaches to define 
``neighboring.''
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The EPA and the Corps of Engineers 
prepared an analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated 
with this action. The definition of ``waters of the U.S.,'' by itself, 
imposes no direct costs. The potential costs and benefits incurred as a 
result of this proposed action are considered indirect because the 
action involves a definitional change to a term that is used in the

[[Page 76640]]

implementation of a variety of CWA programs. Each of these programs may 
subsequently impose direct or indirect costs as a result of 
implementation of their specific regulations. The proposed rule would 
provide an estimated $388 million to $514 million annually of benefits 
to the public, including reducing flooding, filtering pollution, 
providing wildlife habitat, supporting hunting and fishing, and 
recharging groundwater. The public benefits outweigh the costs of about 
$162 million to $278 million per year for mitigating impacts to streams 
and wetlands, and taking steps to reduce pollution to waterways.
    Risks: This proposal would enhance protection for the nation's 
public health and aquatic resources, and increase CWA program 
predictability and consistency by increasing clarity as to the scope of 
``waters of the United States'' protected under the Act.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   04/21/14  79 FR 22187
NPRM Comment Period Extended........   06/24/14  79 FR 35712
NPRM Comment Period End.............   07/21/14  .......................
NPRM Comment Period Extended End....   10/21/14  .......................
Final Rule..........................   04/00/15  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    URL For More Information: http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/guidance/wetlands/CWAwaters.cfm.
    Agency Contact: Donna Downing, Environmental Protection Agency, 
Water, 4502T, Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 202 566-2428, Email: 
[email protected].
    Rose Kwok, Environmental Protection Agency, Water, 1200 
Pennsylvania Ave NW., Mail Code 4502T, Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 202 
566-0657, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2040-AF30
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION (EEOC)

Statement of Regulatory and Deregulatory Priorities

    The mission of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC, 
Commission, or Agency) is to ensure equality of opportunity in 
employment by vigorously enforcing 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 item in this Regulatory Plan is entitled ``The Federal 
Sector's Obligation To Be a Model Employer of Individuals with 
Disabilities.'' The EEOC's regulations implementing section 501, as set 
forth in 29 CFR part 1614, require Federal agencies and departments to 
be ``model employers'' of individuals with disabilities. The Commission 
issued an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) on May 15, 
2014, (79 FR 27824), and intends to issue a proposed rule to 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.'' 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.
    The second item is entitled ``Federal Sector Equal Employment 
Opportunity Process.'' In July 2012, the Commission published a final 
rule containing fifteen discrete changes to various parts of the 
Federal sector EEO process, and indicated that the rule was the 
Commission's initial step in a broader review of the Federal sector EEO 
process. The Commission intends to develop an ANPRM which would seek 
public input on additional issues associated with the Federal sector 
EEO process.
    The third item is entitled ``Amendments to Regulations Under the 
Americans With Disabilities Act.'' This proposed rule would amend the 
regulations to implement the equal employment provisions of the 
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to address the interaction 
between title I of the ADA and financial inducements and/or penalties 
as part of wellness programs offered through health plans. EEOC also 
plans to address other aspects of wellness programs that may be subject 
to the ADA's nondiscrimination provisions in this NPRM.
    The fourth item is entitled ``Amendments to Regulations Under the 
Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008.'' This proposed rule 
would amend the regulations on the Genetic Information 
Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 to address inducements to employees' 
spouses or other family members who respond to questions about their 
current or past medical conditions on health risk assessments. This 
NPRM will also correct a typographical error in the rule's discussion 
of wellness programs and add references to the Affordable Care Act, 
where appropriate.
    Consistent with section 4(c) of Executive Order 12866, this 
statement was reviewed and approved by the Chair of the Agency. The 
statement has not been reviewed or approved by the other members of the 
Commission.

Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations

    Pursuant to section 6 of Executive Order 13563, ``Improving 
Regulation and Regulatory Review'' (Jan. 18, 2011), the following 
Regulatory Identifier Numbers (RINs) have been identified as associated 
with retrospective review and analysis in the EEOC's final 
retrospective review of regulations plan. Some of 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 
(http://reginfo.gov/) in the Completed Actions section. These 
rulemakings can also be found on Regulations.gov (http://regulations.gov).

[[Page 76641]]

The EEOC's final Plan for Retrospective Analysis of Existing Rules can 
be found at: http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/regulations/retro_review_plan_final.cfm.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Effect on small
              RIN                      Title               business
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3046-AA91.....................  REVISIONS TO         This rulemaking may
                                 PROCEDURES FOR       decrease burdens
                                 COMPLAINTS OR        on small
                                 CHARGES OF           businesses by
                                 EMPLOYMENT           making the charge/
                                 DISCRIMINATION       complaint process
                                 BASED ON             more efficient.
                                 DISABILITY SUBJECT
                                 TO THE AMERICANS
                                 WITH DISABILITIES
                                 ACT AND SECTION
                                 504 OF THE
                                 REHABILITATION ACT
                                 OF 1973.
3046-AA92.....................  REVISIONS TO         This rulemaking may
                                 PROCEDURES FOR       decrease burdens
                                 COMPLAINTS/CHARGES   on small
                                 OF EMPLOYMENT        businesses by
                                 DISCRIMINATION       making the charge/
                                 BASED ON             complaint process
                                 DISABILITY FILED     more efficient.
                                 AGAINST EMPLOYERS
                                 HOLDING GOVERNMENT
                                 CONTRACTS OR
                                 SUBCONTRACTS.
3046-AA93.....................  REVISIONS TO         This rulemaking may
                                 PROCEDURES FOR       decrease burdens
                                 COMPLAINTS OF        on small
                                 EMPLOYMENT           businesses by
                                 DISCRIMINATION       making the charge/
                                 FILED AGAINST        complaint process
                                 RECIPIENTS OF        more efficient.
                                 FEDERAL FINANCIAL
                                 ASSISTANCE.
3046-AB00.....................  FEDERAL SECTOR       This rulemaking
                                 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT     pertains to the
                                 OPPORTUNITY.         Federal Sector
                                                      equal employment
                                                      opportunity
                                                      process and thus
                                                      is not expected to
                                                      affect small
                                                      businesses.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


EEOC

Prerule Stage

145. Federal Sector Equal Employment Opportunity Process

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 29 U.S.C. 206(d); 29 U.S.C. 633a; 29 U.S.C. 791; 
29 U.S.C. 794; 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16; EO 10577; EO 11222; EO 11478; EO 
12106; Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1978; 42 U.S.C. 2000ff-6(e)
    CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1614.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: In July 2012, the Commission published a final rule 
containing 15 discrete changes to various parts of the Federal sector 
EEO complaint process, and indicated that the rule was the Commission's 
initial step in a broader review of the Federal sector EEO process. The 
Commission intends to develop an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
(ANPRM), which would seek public input on additional issues associated 
with the Federal sector EEO process.
    Statement of Need: Any proposals contained in an ANPRM would be 
aimed at making the process more fair and efficient.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 
authorizes EEOC ``to issue such rules, regulations, orders, and 
instructions as it deems necessary and appropriate to carry out its 
responsibilities under . . . section [717].'' 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16(b).
    Alternatives: The EEOC would consider all alternatives offered by 
public commenters.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Based on the information currently 
available, we anticipate that most of the changes will have no cost and 
will benefit users of the process by correcting or clarifying the 
requirements. Any cost that might result would only be borne by the 
Federal Government.
    Risks: Any proposed revisions would not affect risks to the public 
health, safety, or the environment
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM...............................   03/00/15
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal.
    Agency Contact: Thomas J. Schlageter, Assistant Legal Counsel, 
Office of Legal Counsel, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 131 M 
Street NE., Washington, DC 20507, Phone: 202 663-4668, Fax: 202 653-
6034, Email: [email protected].
    Gary Hozempa, Senior Attorney Advisor, Office of Legal Counsel, 
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 131 M Street NE., Washington, 
DC 20507, Phone: 202 663-4666, Fax: 202 653-6034, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 3046-AB00

EEOC

Proposed Rule Stage

146. The Federal Sector's Obligation To Be a Model Employer of 
Individuals With Disabilities

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 29 U.S.C. 791(b)
    CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1614.203(a).
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act, as amended 
(Section 501), prohibits discrimination against individuals with 
disabilities in the Federal Government. The EEOC's regulations 
implementing section 501, as set forth in 29 CFR part 1614, require 
Federal agencies and departments to be ``model employers'' of 
individuals with disabilities.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 29 CFR 1614.203(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 15, 2014, the Commission issued an Advance Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking (79 FR 27824) that sought public comments on 
whether and how the existing regulations could be improved to provide 
more detail on what being a ``model employer'' means and how Federal 
agencies and departments should ``give full consideration to the 
hiring, placement and advancement of qualified individuals with 
disabilities.'' \2\ The EEOC's review of the comments and potential 
revisions was informed by the discussion in Management Directive 715 of 
the tools Federal agencies should use to establish goals for the 
employment and advancement of individuals with disabilities. The EEOC's 
review of the comments and potential revisions was also informed by, 
and consistent with, the goals of Executive Order 13548 to increase the 
employment of individuals with disabilities and the employment of 
individuals with targeted disabilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Statement of Need: Pursuant to section 501 of the Rehabilitation 
Act, the Commission is authorized to issue such regulations as it deems 
necessary to carry out its responsibilities under this Act. Executive 
Order 13548 called for increased efforts by Federal agencies and 
departments to recruit, hire, retain, and return individuals with 
disabilities to the Federal workforce.
    Summary of Legal Basis:

[[Page 76642]]

    Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (section 
501), 29 U.S.C. 791, in addition to requiring nondiscrimination with 
respect to Federal employees and applicants for Federal employment who 
are individuals with disabilities, also requires Federal agencies to 
maintain, update annually, and submit to the Commission an affirmative 
action program plan for the hiring, placement, and advancement of 
individuals with disabilities. As part of its responsibility for the 
administration and enforcement of equal opportunity in Federal 
employment, the Commission is authorized under 29 U.S.C. 794a(a)(1) to 
issue rules, regulations, orders, and instructions pursuant to section 
501.
    Alternatives: The EEOC considered all alternatives offered by ANPRM 
public commenters. The EEOC will consider all alternatives offered by 
future public commenters.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Any costs that might result would 
only be borne by the Federal Government. The revisions would contribute 
to increased employment of individuals with disabilities.
    Risks: The proposed changes do not affect risks to public health, 
safety, or the environment.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM...............................   05/15/14  79 FR 27824
ANPRM Comment Period End............   07/14/14
NPRM................................   01/00/15
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal.
    Agency Contact: Christopher Kuczynski, Assistant Legal Counsel, 
Office of Legal Counsel, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 131 M 
Street NE., Washington, DC 20507, Phone: 202 663-4665, TDD Phone: 202 
663-7026, Fax: 202 653-6034, Email: [email protected].
    Aaron Konopasky, Senior Attorney Advisor, Office of Legal Counsel, 
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 131 M Street NE., Washington, 
DC 20507, Phone: 202 663-4127, Fax: 202 653-6034, Email: 
[email protected].
    Related RIN: Related to 3046-AA73
    RIN: 3046-AA94

EEOC

147. Amendments to Regulations Under the Americans With Disabilities 
Act

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.
    CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1630.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This proposed rule would amend the regulations to 
implement the equal employment provisions of the Americans with 
Disabilities Act (ADA) to address the interaction between title I of 
the ADA and financial inducements and/or penalties as part of wellness 
programs offered through health plans. EEOC also plans to address other 
aspects of wellness programs that may be subject to the ADA's 
nondiscrimination provisions in this NPRM.
    Statement of Need: The revision to 29 CFR 1630.14(d) is needed to 
address numerous inquiries EEOC has received about whether an employer 
that complies with regulations implementing the final Health Insurance 
Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) rules concerning wellness 
program incentives, as amended by the Affordable Care Act (ACA), will 
be in compliance with the ADA.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The ADA requires the EEOC to issue 
regulations implementing title I of the Act. The EEOC initially issued 
regulations in 1991 on the law's requirements and prohibited practices 
with respect to employment and issued amended regulations in 2011 to 
conform to changes to the ADA made by the ADA Amendments Act of 2008. 
These proposed revisions are based on that statutory requirement.
    Alternatives: The EEOC will consider all alternatives offered by 
public commenters.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Based on the information currently 
available, the Commission does not anticipate that the rule will impose 
additional costs on employers, beyond minimal costs to train human 
resource professionals. The regulation does not impose any new employer 
reporting or recordkeeping obligations. We anticipate that the changes 
will benefit entities covered by title I of the ADA by generally 
promoting consistency between the ADA and HIPAA, as amended by the ACA, 
and result in greater predictability and ease of administration.
    Risks: The proposed rule imposes no new or additional risks to 
employers. The proposal does not address risks to public safety or the 
environment.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   02/00/15
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, 
Organizations.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State.
    Agency Contact: Christopher Kuczynski, Assistant Legal Counsel, 
Office of Legal Counsel, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 131 M 
Street NE., Washington, DC 20507, Phone: 202 663-4665, TDD Phone: 202 
663-7026, Fax: 202 653-6034, Email: [email protected].
    Joyce Walker-Jones, Senior Attorney Advisor, Office of Legal 
Counsel, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 131 M Street NE., 
Washington, DC 20507, Phone: 202 663-7031, Fax: 202 653-6034, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 3046-AB01

EEOC

148. Amendments to Regulations Under the Genetic Information 
Nondiscrimination Act of 2008

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 2000ff
    CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1635.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This proposed rule would amend the regulations on the 
Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 to address 
inducements to employees' spouses or other family members who respond 
to questions about their current or past medical conditions on health 
risk assessments. This NPRM will also correct a typographical error in 
the rule's discussion of wellness programs and add references to the 
Affordable Care Act, where appropriate.
    Statement of Need: The revision to 29 CFR 1635.8 is needed to 
address numerous inquiries received by EEOC about whether an employer 
will violate the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 by 
offering an employee a financial inducement if the employee's family 
member completes an HRA that asks about the family member's current 
health status. Technical amendments are also needed to correct a 
typographical error and to include references to the ACA, where 
appropriate.
    Summary of Legal Basis: GINA, section 211, 42 U.S.C. 2000ff-10,

[[Page 76643]]

requires the EEOC to issue regulations implementing title II of the 
Act. The EEOC issued regulations on November 9, 2010. These proposed 
revisions are based on that statutory requirement.
    Alternatives: The EEOC will consider all alternatives offered by 
public commenters.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Based on the information currently 
available, the Commission does not anticipate that the rule will impose 
additional costs on employers, beyond minimal costs to train human 
resource professionals. The regulation does not impose any new employer 
reporting or recordkeeping obligations. We anticipate that the changes 
will benefit entities covered by title II of GINA by clarifying that 
employers who offer wellness programs are free to adopt a certain type 
of inducement without violating GINA, as well as correcting an internal 
citation, and providing citations to the ACA.
    Risks: The proposed rule imposes no new or additional risks to 
employers. The proposal does not address risks to public safety or the 
environment.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   02/00/15  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, 
Organizations.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State.
    Agency Contact: Christopher Kuczynski, Assistant Legal Counsel, 
Office of Legal Counsel, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 131 M 
Street NE., Washington, DC 20507, Phone: 202 663-4665, TDD Phone: 202 
663-7026, Fax: 202 653-6034, Email: [email protected].
    Kerry Leibig, Senior Attorney Advisor, Office of the Legal Counsel, 
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 131 M Street NE., Washington, 
DC 20507, Phone: 202 663-4516, Fax: 202 653-6034, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 3046-AB02
BILLING CODE 6570-01-P

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION (GSA)--REGULATORY PLAN--OCTOBER 2014

I. Mission and Overview

    GSA oversees the business of the Federal Government. The 
acquisition solutions GSA implements provides Federal purchasers with 
cost-effective, high-quality products and services from commercial 
vendors, while helping to 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. We provide workplaces for Federal employees and oversee the 
preservation of historic Federal properties.
    Our Agency 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). With a continuing commitment to its Federal customers and 
the U.S. taxpayers, GSA provides its services in the most cost-
effective manner possible.

Federal Acquisition Service (FAS)

    FAS is the lead organization for procurement of products and 
services (other than real property) for the Federal Government. The FAS 
organization leverages the buying power of the Government by 
consolidating Federal agencies' requirements for common goods and 
services. FAS provides a range of high-quality and flexible acquisition 
services that increase overall Government effectiveness and efficiency. 
FAS business operations are organized into four business portfolios 
based on the product or service provided to customer agencies: 
Integrated Technology Services (ITS); Assisted Acquisition Services 
(AAS); General Supplies and Services (GSS); and Travel, Motor Vehicles, 
and Card Services (TMVCS). The FAS portfolio structure enables GSA and 
FAS to provide best value services, products, and solutions to its 
customers by aligning resources around key functions.

Public Buildings Service (PBS)

    PBS is the largest public real estate organization in the United 
States, providing facilities and workspace solutions to more than 60 
Federal agencies. PBS aims to provide a superior workplace for the 
Federal worker and superior value for the U.S. taxpayer. Balancing 
these two objectives is PBS' greatest management challenge. PBS' 
activities fall into two broad areas. The first is space acquisition 
through both leases and construction. PBS translates general needs into 
specific requirements, marshals the necessary resources, and delivers 
the space necessary to meet the respective missions of its Federal 
clients. The second area is management of space. This involves making 
decisions on maintenance, servicing tenants, and ultimately, deciding 
when and how to dispose of a property at the end of its useful life.

Office of Government-Wide Policy (OGP)

    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:

Office of Asset and Transportation Management (Federal Travel 
Regulation)

    Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) enumerates the travel and 
relocation policy for all title 5 Executive agency employees. The Code 
of Federal Regulations (CFR) is available at www.gpoaccess.gov/cfr. 
Each version is updated as official changes are published in the 
Federal Register (FR). FR publications and complete versions of the FTR 
are available at www.gsa.gov/ftr.
    The FTR is the regulation contained in 41 Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR), chapters 300 through 304, that implements statutory 
requirements and

[[Page 76644]]

executive branch policies for travel by Federal civilian employees and 
others authorized to travel at Government expense.
    The Administrator of General Services promulgates the FTR to: (a) 
Interpret statutory and other policy requirements in a manner that 
balances the need to ensure that official travel is conducted in a 
responsible manner with the need to minimize administrative costs and 
(b) communicate the resulting policies in a clear manner to Federal 
agencies and employees.

Office of Asset and Transportation Management (Federal Management 
Regulation)

    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.

Office of Acquisition Policy (General Services Administration 
Acquisition Manual (GSAM) and the General Services Administration 
Acquisition Regulation (GSAR))

    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), which implements and 
supplement the Federal Acquisition Regulation at GSA. The GSAM 
comprises both a non-regulatory portion (GSAM), which reflects policies 
with no external impact, and a regulatory portion, the General Services 
Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR). The GSAR establishes 
agency acquisition regulations that affect GSA's business partners 
(e.g. prospective offerors and contractors) and acquisition of 
leasehold interests in real property. The latter are established under 
the authority of 40 U.S.C. 490. The GSAR implements contract clauses, 
solicitation provisions, and forms that control the relationship 
between GSA and contractors and prospective contractors.

II. Statement of Regulatory and Deregulatory Priorities

FTR Regulatory Priorities
    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.
FMR Regulatory Priorities
    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.
GSAR Regulatory Priorities
    GSA plans, to update the GSAR to maintain consistency with the 
Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and to implement streamlined and 
innovative acquisition procedures that contractors, offerors, and GSA 
contracting personnel can utilize when entering into and administering 
contractual relationships. Currently, GSA is focusing on clarifying the 
GSAR by--
     Providing consistency with the FAR;
     Eliminating coverage that duplicates the FAR or creates 
inconsistencies within the GSAR;
     Correcting inappropriate references listed to indicate the 
basis for the regulation;
     Rewriting sections that have become irrelevant because of 
changes in technology or business processes or that place unnecessary 
administrative burdens on contractors and the Government;
     Streamlining or simplifying the regulation;
     Rolling up coverage from the services and regions/zones 
that should be in the GSAR;
     Providing new and/or augmented coverage; and
     Deleting unnecessary burdens on small businesses.

Regulations of Concern to Small Businesses

    FAR and GSAR rules are relevant to small businesses who do or wish 
to do business with the Federal Government. Approximately 18,000 
businesses, most of whom are small, have GSA schedule contracts. GSA 
assists its small businesses by providing assistance through its Office 
of Small Business Utilization. In addition, GSA extensively utilizes 
its regional resources, within FAS and PBS, to provide grassroots 
outreach to small business concerns, through hosting such outreach 
events, or participating in a vast array of other similar presentations 
hosted by others.

Regulations Which Promote Open Government and Disclosure

    RIN 3090-AJ30; Federal Management Regulation (FMR); FMR Case 2012-
102-4, Disposal and Reporting of Federal Electronic Assets (FEA):
    The GSA is considering comments received during the publication of 
the Proposed Rule FMR 102-36 in developing its Final Rule. As 
envisioned, this policy directs agencies to dispose of non-functional 
electronics through more sustainable means, and will require 
publication of agency disposal data on www.data.gov for public viewing 
into Federal activities.

III. Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations

    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 
www.gsa.gov/improvingregulations. The FAR retrospective review and 
analysis final and updated regulations plan can be found at 
www.acquisition.gov.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation Identifier No.                      Title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Proposed Rule Stage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3090-AI76................  General Services Administration Acquisition
                            Regulation (GSAR); GSAR Case 2008-G506,
                            Rewrite of GSAR Part 515, Contracting by
                            Negotiation.

[[Page 76645]]

 
3090-AI81................  General Services Administration Acquisition
                            Regulation (GSAR); GSAR Case 2008-G509,
                            Rewrite GSAR 536, Construction and Architect-
                            Engineer Contracts.
3090-AI82................  General Services Administration Acquisition
                            Regulation (GSAR); GSAR Case 2006-G506,
                            Environment, Conservation, Occupational
                            Safety, and Drug-Free Workplace.
3090-AJ29................  Federal Management Regulation (FMR); FMR Case
                            2012-102-3; Government Domain Registration
                            and Management.
3090-AJ41................  General Services Administration Acquisition
                            Regulation (GSAR); GSAR Case 2013-G502,
                            Federal Supply Schedule Contracting
                            (Administrative Changes).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Final Rule Stage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3090-AI79................  Federal Management Regulation (FMR); FMR Case
                            2008-102-4, Mail Management, Financial
                            Requirements for All Agencies.
3090-AI95................  Federal Travel Regulation (FTR); FTR Case
                            2009-307, Temporary Duty (TDY) Travel
                            Allowances (Taxes); Relocation Allowances
                            (Taxes).
3090-AJ23................  Federal Travel Regulation (FTR); FTR Case
                            2011-310; Telework Travel Expenses Test
                            Programs.
3090-AJ26................  Federal Management Regulation (FMR); FMR Case
                            2012-102-2; Donation of Surplus Personal
                            Property.
3090-AJ27................  Federal Travel Regulation (FTR); FTR Case
                            2012-301; Removal of Conference Lodging
                            Allowance Provisions.
3090-AJ30................  Federal Management Regulation (FMR); FMR Case
                            2012-102-4, Disposal and Reporting of
                            Federal Electronic Assets (FEA).
3090-AJ34................  Federal Management Regulation (FMR); FMR Case
                            2012-102-5, Restrictions on International
                            Transportation of Freight and Household
                            Goods.
3090-AJ46................  General Services Administration Acquisition
                            Regulation (GSAR); GSAR Case 2013-G501;
                            Qualifications of Offerors.
3090-AJ47................  General Services Administration Acquisition
                            Regulation (GSAR); GSAR Case 2014-G501;
                            Progressive Awards and Monthly Quantity
                            Allocations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Completed Actions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3090-AJ06................  Federal Travel Regulation (FTR); FTR Case
                            2010-303; Terms and Definitions for
                            ``Dependent,'' ``Domestic Partner,''
                            ``Domestic Partnership,'' and ``Immediate
                            Family.''
3090-AJ11................  Federal Travel Regulation (FTR); FTR Case
                            2011-301; Per Diem, Miscellaneous
                            Amendments.
3090-AJ21................  Federal Travel Regulation (FTR); FTR Case
                            2011-308; Payment of Expenses Connected with
                            the Death of Certain Employees.
3090-AJ22................  Federal Travel Regulation (FTR); FTR Case
                            2011-309, Lodging Reimbursement.
3090-AJ31................  General Service Administration Acquisition
                            Regulation (GSAR); GSAR Case 2012-G503,
                            Industrial Funding Fee (IFF) and Sales
                            Reporting.
3090-AJ35................  Federal Management Regulation (FMR); FMR Case
                            2013-102-1; Obligating Authority.
3090-AJ36................  General Services Administration Acquisition
                            Regulation (GSAR); GSAR Case 2012-G501,
                            Electronic Contracting Initiative.
3090-AJ42................  General Services Administration Acquisition
                            Regulation (GSAR); GSAR Case 2010-G511,
                            Purchasing by Non-Federal Entities.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Dated: September 23, 2014.
Christine Harada,
Associate Administrator, Office of Government-wide Policy.
BILLING CODE 6820-34-P

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION (NASA)

Statement of Regulatory Priorities

    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. 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 2014 
Strategic Plan. 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, (available at http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/2014_NASA_Strategic_Plan.pdf), 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 pursuit 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 2015. Concurrently, NASA will continue to make routine 
changes to the NFS to implement NASA initiatives and Federal 
procurement policy.

Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations

    Pursuant to section 6 of Executive Order 13579 ``Regulation and 
Independent Regulatory Agencies'' (Jul. 11, 2011), NASA regulations 
associated with its retrospective review and analysis are described in 
the Agency's final retrospective plan of existing regulations. Nineteen 
of these regulations were completed and are described below. NASA's 
final plan and

[[Page 76646]]

updates can be found at http://www.nasa.gov/open, under the Compliance 
Documents Section.

Rulemaking That Was Streamlined and Reduced Unjustified Burdens

    1. Supplemental Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration [5 CFR 6901]--NASA, with 
the concurrence of the Office of Government Ethics, amended its 
Supplemental Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration that permits student interns to 
seek prior approval to engage in outside employees with a NASA 
Contractor, subcontractor, grantee, or party to a NASA agreement in 
connect with work performed by that entity or under that agreement. The 
amendments clarified the types of outside employment activities that 
require approval, streamlined the process for approval, eliminated 
obsolete position titles, and extended the permissible time period of 
approval. The revision to NASA's supplemental outside activity 
regulation liberalizes a general restriction prohibiting NASA employees 
from outside jobs performing work under NASA's contracts, grants and 
other agreements to allow student interns to do so if the work complies 
with Federal ethics laws and U.S. Office of Government Ethics 
regulations. This modification helps insure that students in STEM 
(science, technology, engineering, and math) disciplines have full 
access to NASA development opportunities to maintain U.S. leadership in 
these fields. The revision also narrows the scope of employee-owned 
businesses that NASA personnel must obtain prior agency approval to 
undertake to those that will perform or seek to perform Federal 
government-related work. This change enhances workforce development by 
reducing burdens associated with pursuing outside activities that may 
help NASA employees develop new skills. Finally, the revision 
decentralizes and streamlines the approval process [79 FR 49225].

Rulemakings That Were Modified, Streamlined, Expanded, or Repealed

    2. Removal of Obsolete Regulations: Space Flight Mission Critical 
Systems Personnel Reliability Program [14 CFR 1204]--NASA amended is 
regulations to make nonsubstantive changes by removing a regulation 
that was obsolete and no longer used [79 FR 7391].
    3. Removal of Redundant Regulatory Text [14 CFR parts 1204, 1230, 
and 1232]--NASA amended its regulations to make nonsubstantive changes 
by removing redundant regulatory language that is already captured in 
statutes that govern NASA activities related to delegation of authority 
of certain civil rights functions, protection of human subjects, and 
care and use of animals in the conduct of NASA activities [78 FR 
76057].
    4. Removal of Obsolete Regulation: Use of Centennial of Flight 
Commission Name [14 CFR 1204.506]--NASA amended its regulations to make 
nonsubstantive changes to remove a regulation that is obsolete and no 
longer used [77 FR 60619].

Rulemaking That Promotes Open Government and Uses Disclosure as a 
Regulatory Tool

    5. Procedures for Disclosure of Records Freedom of Information Act 
Regulations [14 CFR 1206]--NASA revised its Freedom of Information Act 
(FOIA) regulations to clarify and update procedures for requesting 
information from the Agency, as well as procedures that the Agency 
follows in responding to requests from the public. These revisions also 
incorporate clarifications and update results from changes to the FOIA 
and case law, as well as include current cost figures to be used in 
calculating and charging fees and increase the amount of information 
that members of the public may receive from the Agency without being 
charged processing fees. This rule is a `how to' guide for submitting 
requests for Agency records, if these records are not currently on a 
public-facing Web site. The rule, which comports with the law, is an 
information access tool for disclosure of Agency records. Providing 
access details to the public through the FOIA rule is an effective 
means to promote open government and ensure the public has the 
knowledge of how to submit a request for Agency documents and what to 
expect once that request is received by the Agency [79 FR 46676].

Rulemakings That Are of Particular Concerns to Small Business

    6. Small Business Policy [14 CFR 1204]--NASA amended its 
regulations to make nonsubstantive changes to update offices names and 
titles, described the role of the Small Business Technical Advisor, add 
more small business categories to include small disadvantaged business 
HUBZone small business, women-owned small business concerns, veteran-
owned small business, and service-and disabled veteran-owned small 
business in accordance with and required by the Small Business Act (15 
U.S.C. 631). NASA certifies that this rule is not subject to the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601), because it would not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses 
[78 FR 77352].
    7. Nonprocurement Rule, Suspension, and Debarment [2 CFR 1880]--
NASA has adopted as final, with no change, a proposed rule to extend 
coverage of non-procurement suspension and debarment to all tiers of 
procurement and non-procurement actions under all grants and 
cooperative agreements. NASA certifies that this rule does not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et 
seq. Small entities are already required to check the Excluded Parties 
List System (EPLS) prior to making first-tier, procurement subawards 
under a grant or cooperative agreement. They will now be required to 
ensure that none of their potential subrecipients are on the EPLS. The 
EPLS is an easy-to-access and easy to-use on-line resources [78 FR 
13211].

Rulemaking That Has Significant International Impacts

    8. Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System [14 CFR 1215]--NASA 
amended its regulations to make nonsubstantive changes to the policy 
governing the Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System (TDRSS) services 
provided to non-U.S. Government users and the reimbursement for 
rendering such services. TDRSS, also known as the Space Network, 
provides command, tracking, data, voice, and video services to the 
International Space Station, NASA's space and Earth science missions, 
and other Federal agencies, including the Department of Defense and the 
National Science Foundation. For a fee, commercial users can also have 
access to TDRSS for tracking and data acquisition purposes. Over the 
last 25 years, TDRSS has delivered pictures, television, scientific, 
and voice data to the scientific community and the general public, 
including data from more than 100 Space Shuttle and International Space 
Station missions and the Hubble Space Telescope. A principal advantage 
of TDRSS is providing communications services, which previously have 
been provided by multiple worldwide ground stations, with much higher 
data rates and lower latency to the user missions. The rule is designed 
for NASA to sell unused TDRSS time to non-U.S. Government customers. 
The main class of current users of this rule is expendable launch 
vehicle providers. The United Launch Alliance (Atlas and Delta 
rockets), SpaceX (Falcon rocket), and Sea Launch

[[Page 76647]]

(rocket) all use TDRSS to support their launch operations. The TDRSS 
allows them to receive data from their launch vehicles through most of 
the critical aspects of flight (mark events such as pre-launch testing, 
ignition, stage separations, engine start and stop, etc.). This service 
could be useful to international customers such as Arianespace (for 
their Vega or Ariane 5 launches out of French Guiana) or JAXA (for 
their H-IIA rocket), which has used TDRSS in the past. They would have 
to have TDRSS compatible transmitters on their vehicles in order to use 
the service. Low earth orbit (LEO) international customers not 
associated with NASA by international agreement would find it difficult 
to book unused TDRSS time, due to limited capacity on the system. ELVs 
are one-time, short duration events and much more likely to fit into 
the TDRSS schedule than a multiyear mission requiring many contacts per 
day [77 FR 6949].

Other Rulemakings

    9. NASA Protective Services Enforcement [14 CFR 1204]--NASA amended 
is regulations by adding a subpart to establish traffic enforcement 
authority and procedures at all NASA Centers and component facilities 
[79 FR 54902].
    10. Aeronautics and Space--Statement of Organization and General 
Information [14 CFR 1201]--NASA amended its regulations to make 
nonsubstantive changes to provide current information of NASA's 
organization and to redesignate the Dryden Flight Research Center as 
the Armstrong Flight Research Center per H.R. 667 signed by the 
President on January 3, 2014 [79 FR 18443].
    11. Delegation and Designations [14 CFR 1204]--NASA amended its 
regulations to make nonsubstantive changes to correct citations and 
title throughout [79 FR 11318].
    12. Inventions and Contributions [14 CFR 1240] NASA amended its 
regulations to clarify and update the procedures for board recommended 
awards and the procedures and requirements for recommended special 
initial awards, including patent application awards, software release 
awards, and Tech Brief awards, and to update citations and the 
information on the systems used for reporting inventions and issuing 
award payments [77 FR 27365].
    13. Information Security Protection [14 CFR 1203]--NASA amended its 
regulations to make nonsubstantive changes to align with and implement 
the provisions of Executive Order (E.O.) 13526, Classified National 
Security Information, and appropriately to correspond with NASA's 
internal requirements, NPR 1600.2, Classified National Security 
Information, that establishes the Agency's requirements for the proper 
implementation and management of a uniform system for classifying, 
accounting, safeguarding, and declassifying national security 
information generated by or in the possession of NASA [78 FR 5116].
    14. Claims for Patent and Copyright Infringement [14 CFR 1245]--
NASA finalized its regulations relating to requirements for the filing 
of claims against NASA where a potential claimant believes NASA is 
infringing privately owned rights in patented inventions or copyrighted 
works. The requirements for filing an administrative claim are 
important since the filing of a claim carries with it certain rights 
relating to the applicable statute of limitations for filing suit 
against the Government. The regulations set forth guidelines as to what 
NASA considers necessary to file a claim for patent or copyright 
infringement, and they also provide for written notification to the 
claimant upon completion of an investigation by NASA [77 FR 14686].
    15. Procedures for Implementing the National Environmental Policy 
Act [14 CFR 1216]--NASA amended its regulations governing compliance 
with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and the 
Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ) Code of Federal Regulations 
(CFR) (40 CFR parts 1500-1508). This rule replaces procedures contained 
in NASA's current regulations. The revised regulations are intended to 
improve NASA's efficiency in implementing NEPA requirements by reducing 
costs and preparation time while maintaining quality. In addition, 
NASA's experience in applying the NASA NEPA regulations since they were 
issued in 1988 suggested the need for NASA to make changes in its NEPA 
regulations. [77 FR 3102]
    16. Boards and Committees [14 CFR 1209]--NASA amended its 
regulations to make nonsubstantive changes to correct and remove 
citations referenced in NASA's Contract Adjustment Board rule [78 FR 
20422].
    17. Research Misconduct [14 CFR 1275]--NASA amended its regulations 
to make nonsubstantive changes to the policy governing the handling of 
allegations of research misconduct and updates to reflect 
organizational changes that have occurred in the Agency [77 FR 44439].
    18. Updating of Existing Privacy Act--NASA Regulations [14 CFR 
1212]--NASA amended its regulations to make nonsubstantive changes to 
its rules governing implementation of the Privacy Act by updating 
statute citations, position titles, terminology, and adjusting 
appellate responsibility for records for records held by the NASA 
Office of the Inspective General [77 FR 60620].
    19. NASA Security and Protective Service Enforcement [14 CFR 1203a, 
1203b, 1204]--NASA amended its regulations to make nonsubstantive 
changes to its regulations to clarify the procedures for establishing 
controlled/secure areas and to revise the definitions for these areas 
and the process for granting access to these areas, as well as denying 
or revoking access to such areas. Arrest powers and authority of NASA 
security force personnel are also updated and clarified to include the 
carrying of weapons and the use of such weapons should a circumstance 
require it [78 FR 5122].
    Abstracts for other regulations that will be amended or repealed 
between October 2014 and October 2015 are reported in the fall 2014 
edition of Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulation 
actions.
BILLING CODE 7510-13-P

NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION (NARA)

Statement of Regulatory Priorities

Overview

    The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) 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 Government-wide 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 two regulatory priorities for Fiscal Year 2015, which are 
included in The Regulatory Plan. The first are NARA's continuing 
revisions to the

[[Page 76648]]

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, 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, 1227, 1229, 1232, 1233, 
1235, 1237, and 1239. These provisions were substantially revamped and 
began undergoing public comment beginning in September 2014. Additional 
proposed revisions to the subchapter will be published for public 
comment later this fiscal year as well.
    The second 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.
BILLING CODE 7515-01-P

2014 OPM

Statement of Regulatory Priorities

Personnel Management in Agencies

    The Chief Human Capital Act of 2002 requires OPM to develop 
systems, standards, and metrics for strategic human capital management 
in agencies. This rule promulgates these systems, standards, and 
metrics.

Human Resources Management Reporting Requirements

    This rule was a Presidential initiative as part of paperwork 
reduction and eliminating burdensome and unnecessary reporting. It 
enables agencies to focus on strategic human capital management rather 
than administrative reporting. We have been building new leadership and 
accountability mechanisms around its requirements. This rule also 
supports Strategic Goal 3 as OPM is building internal data and 
reporting capabilities to replace these burdensome reporting 
requirements on agencies.

Performance Appraisal System Certification for Pay Purposes

    This rule establishes certification criteria and procedures for 
agencies to follow to have their Senior Executive and Senior 
Professional's appraisal system certified by OPM. An agency appraisal 
system is certified only when a review of that system's design (i.e., 
system documentation), implementation (i.e., performance plans), and 
application (i.e., results) reveals that the agency meets the 
certification criteria. The appraisal process must make meaningful 
distinctions based on relative performance. The law requires OPM and 
OMB to jointly regulate the criteria and process used for appraisal 
system certification.

Managing Senior Executive Performance

    This rule fosters an effective enterprise approach to the 
performance management of Senior Executive Service (SES) members. In 
January 2012, OPM and OMB released a basic SES appraisal system to 
provide a more consistent and uniform framework to communicate 
expectations and evaluate the performance of SES members. The system 
focuses on the role and responsibility of SES members to achieve 
results through effective executive leadership. This rule includes the 
requirements of this system.

Federal Employees Health Benefits Program

    OPM will make several amendments to the Federal Employees Health 
Benefits (FEHB) regulations to adhere to the provisions of the 
Affordable Care Act of 2010. These amendments include enrollments for 
eligible employees of Tribes and Tribal organizations, changes to 
resolutions of disputed health claims and external reviews, rate 
settings for community-rated plans, enrollment options following the 
termination of a plan or plan option, and the expansion of eligibility 
to certain employees on temporary appointments and certain employees on 
seasonal and intermittent schedules.
BILLING CODE 6325-44-P

PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORPORATION (PBGC)

Statement of Regulatory and Deregulatory Priorities

    The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) protects the 
pensions of 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 continues to follow a regulatory approach that does not 
inadvertently discourage the maintenance of existing defined benefit 
plans or the establishment of new plans. Thus, in developing new 
regulations and reviewing existing regulations, the focus, to the 
extent possible, is to avoid placing burdens on plans, employers, and 
participants, and to ease and simplify employer compliance. PBGC 
particularly strives to meet the needs of small businesses that sponsor 
defined benefit plans.
    PBGC develops its regulations in accordance with the principles set 
forth in Executive Order 13563 ``Improving Regulation and Regulatory 
Review'' (Jan. 18, 2011), and PBGC's Plan for Regulatory Review 
(Regulatory Review Plan).\1\ This Statement of Regulatory and 
Deregulatory Priorities reflects PBGC's ongoing implementation of its 
Regulatory Review Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ http://www.pbgc.gov/documents/plan-for-regulatory-review.pdf 
. Progress reports on the plan can be found at http://www.pbgc.gov/res/laws-and-regulations/reducing-regulatory-burden.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

PBGC Insurance Programs

    PBGC administers two insurance programs for privately defined 
benefit plans under title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security 
Act of 1974 (ERISA):
     Single-Employer Program. Under the single-employer 
program, when a plan terminates with insufficient assets to cover all 
plan benefits (distress and involuntary terminations), PBGC pays plan 
benefits that are guaranteed under title IV. PBGC also pays 
nonguaranteed plan benefits to the extent funded by plan assets or 
recoveries from employers.
     Multiemployer Program. The smaller multiemployer program 
covers more than 1,450 collectively bargained plans involving more than 
one unrelated employer. PBGC provides financial assistance (in the form 
of a loan) to the plan if the plan is unable

[[Page 76649]]

to pay benefits at the guaranteed level. Guaranteed benefits are less 
than single-employer guaranteed benefits.
    At the end of fiscal year 2013, PBGC had a deficit of about $36 
billion in its insurance programs. Current PBGC premiums are 
insufficient.

Regulatory Objectives and Priorities

    PBGC's regulatory objectives and priorities are developed in the 
context of the Corporation's statutory purposes:
     To encourage voluntary private pension plans.
     To provide for the timely and uninterrupted payment of 
pension benefits.
     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 Open 
Government and Public Participation below).
    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).

Rethinking Existing Regulations

    Pursuant to section 6 of Executive Order 13563 ``Improving 
Regulation and Regulatory Review'' (Jan. 18, 2011), the following 
Regulatory Identifier Numbers (RINs) have been identified as associated 
with retrospective review and analysis in the Department's final 
retrospective review of regulations plan. The regulatory actions 
associated with these RINs, as well as other regulatory review 
projects, are described below.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Effect on small
               Title                     RIN             business
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reportable Events..................    1212-AB06  Expected to reduce
                                                   burden on small
                                                   business.
Premium Rates; Payment of Premiums;    1212-AB26  Reduces the burden on
 Reducing Regulatory Burden.                       small business.
Multiemployer Plans; Valuation and     1212-AB25  Little effect on small
 Notice Requirements.                              business.
Allocation of Assets in Single-        1212-AA55  Undetermined.
 Employer Plans; Valuation of
 Benefits and Assets.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Reportable events. PPA 2006 affected certain provisions in PBGC's 
reportable events regulation, which requires employers to notify PBGC 
of certain plan or corporate events. In November 2009, PBGC published a 
proposed rule to conform the regulation to the PPA 2006 changes and 
make other changes.\2\ In response to Executive Order 13563 and 
comments on the proposed rule, in April 2013, PBGC published a new 
proposal that would exempt more than 90 percent of plans and sponsors 
from many reporting requirements. The new proposal takes advantage of 
other existing reporting requirements and methods to avoid burdening 
companies and plans and expands waivers and redefines events to reduce 
reporting. The new proposal implements stakeholder suggestions that 
different reporting requirements should apply in circumstances where 
the risk to PBGC is low or compliance is especially burdensome. PBGC is 
developing the final rule, taking into account the public comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 74 FR 61248 (Nov. 23, 2009), http://www.pbgc.gov/Documents/E9-28056.pdf .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Premiums. In January and March 2014 PBGC published final rules to 
make its premium rules more effective and less burdensome. \3\ PBGC 
developed the rules in response to regulatory review and public 
comments. The changes simplify due dates, coordinate the due date for 
terminating plans with the termination process, make conforming and 
clarifying changes to the variable-rate premium rules, and provide for 
relief from penalties. Large plans no longer have to pay flat-rate 
premiums early; small plans get more time to value benefits. The 
changes were favorably received by the pension community.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 79 FR 347 (Jan. 3, 2014), http://www.pbgc.gov/documents/2013-31109.pdf; 79 FR 13547 (Mar. 11, 2014), http://www.pbgc.gov/documents/2014-05212.pdf .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Multiemployer plans. In May 2014, PBGC published a final rule 
amending PBGC's multiemployer regulations.\4\ The changes were 
developed as a result of PBGC's regulatory review. The amendments 
reduce the number of actuarial valuations required for certain small 
terminated but not insolvent plans, shorten the advance notice filing 
requirements for mergers in situations that do not involve a compliance 
determination, and remove certain insolvency notice and update 
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 79 FR 30459 (May 28, 2014), http://www.pbgc.gov/documents/2014-12154.pdf .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Allocation of Assets in Single-Employer Plans; Valuation of 
Benefits and Assets. In FY 2014, PBGC began an internal process to 
establish routine, periodic review of PBGC regulations and policies to 
ensure that the actuarial and economic content remains current.
    ERISA section 4062(e). The statutory provision requires reporting 
of, and liability for, certain substantial cessations of operations by 
employers that maintain single-employer plans. In August 2010, PBGC 
issued a proposed rule to provide guidance on the applicability and 
enforcement of section 4062(e).\5\ In light of comments on the proposal 
and PBGC's enforcement practices, in November 2012, PBGC announced a 
4062(e) enforcement pilot program under which it did not enforce in the 
case of small plans or financially strong sponsors (90 percent of plans 
are small or have financially strong sponsors). In July 2014, PBGC 
announced a moratorium, until the end of 2014, on the enforcement of 
4062(e) cases.\6\ The moratorium will enable PBGC to further target at-
risk plans and work with the business community, labor, and other 
stakeholders to minimize effects on necessary business activities. At 
this time, PBGC is withdrawing RIN 1212-AB20 from its regulatory 
agenda.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 75 FR 48283 (Aug. 10, 2010), http://www.pbgc.gov/Documents/2010-19627.pdf .
    \6\ http://www.pbgc.gov/news/press/releases/pr14-09.html .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ERISA section 4010. PBGC is reviewing its regulation on Annual 
Financial and Actuarial Information Reporting (part 4010) and the 
related e-filing application to consider ways of reducing reporting 
burden and ensuring that PBGC receives the critical information it 
needs.

[[Page 76650]]

Retirement Security
    DC to DB plan rollovers.
    In April 2014, PBGC published a proposed rule that would clarify 
the treatment of benefits resulting from a rollover distribution from a 
defined contribution plan to a defined benefit plan, if the defined 
benefit plan was terminated and trusteed by PBGC.\7\ Under the 
proposal, a benefit resulting from rollover amounts generally would not 
be subject to PBGC's maximum guaranteeable benefit or phase-in 
limitations and would be in the second highest priority category of 
benefits in the allocation of assets. The proposed rule was well-
received by the public, and PBGC expects to publish a final rule early 
in FY 2015. This rulemaking is part of PBGC's efforts to enhance 
retirement security by promoting lifetime income options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 79 FR 18483 (Apr. 2, 2014), http://www.pbgc.gov/documents/2014-07323.pdf .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

PPA 2006 Implementation
    Cash balance plans. PPA 2006 changed the rules for determining 
benefits in cash balance plans and other statutory hybrid plans. In 
October 2011, PBGC published a proposed rule implementing the changes 
in both PBGC-trusteed plans and in plans that close out in the private 
sector.\8\ The final rule is on hold until Treasury issues final 
regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 76 FR 67105 (Oct. 31, 2011), http://www.pbgc.gov/Documents/2011-28124.pdf .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Missing participants. A major focus of PBGC's current regulatory 
efforts is the development of a proposal to improve and expand our 
missing participants program. The expanded program will cover 
terminating defined contribution plans, non-covered defined benefit 
plans, and multiemployer plans. The proposal will take into account 
comments received from employers, plans, and other stakeholders in 
response to a 2013 Request for Information. PBGC is working with IRS 
and DOL to coordinate government requirements for dealing with missing 
participant issues. PBGC expects to publish a proposed regulation early 
in FY 2015.
    Shutdown benefits. Under PPA 2006, the phase-in period for the 
guarantee of a benefit payable solely by reason of an ``unpredictable 
contingent event,'' such as a plant shutdown, starts no earlier than 
the date of the shutdown or other unpredictable contingent event. PBGC 
published a final rule implementing this statutory change in May 
2014.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 79 FR 25667 (May 6, 2014), http://www.pbgc.gov/documents/2014-10357.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Small Businesses

    PBGC takes into account the special needs and concerns of small 
businesses in making policy. A large percentage of the plans insured by 
PBGC are small or maintained by small employers. PBGC has issued or is 
considering several proposed rules that will focus on small businesses:
    Small plan premium due date. The March 2014 final rule discussed 
above under Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations addresses 
concerns that some small plans determine funding levels too late in the 
year to be able to use current-year figures for the variable-rate 
premium by the new uniform due date. Under the final rule, small plans 
generally use prior-year figures for the variable-rate premium (with a 
provision for opting to use current-year figures).
    Reportable events. The reportable events proposed rule discussed 
above under Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations would waive 
many reporting requirements for plans with fewer than 100 participants.
    Missing participants. The missing participants proposed rule 
discussed above under PPA 2006 Implementation would benefit small 
businesses by simplifying and streamlining current requirements, better 
coordinating with requirements of other agencies, and providing more 
options for sponsors of terminating non-covered plans.

Open Government and Increased Public Participation

    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 process. For 
example, in June 2013, PBGC held its first ever regulatory hearing on 
the reportable events proposed rule, so that the agency would have a 
better understanding of the needs and concerns of plan administrators 
and plan sponsors. PBGC's 2013 Request for Information on missing 
participants in individual account plans is another example of PBGC's 
efforts to solicit public participation in the regulatory process.
    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 [email protected].
    PBGC will continue to look for ways to further improve its 
regulations.
BILLING CODE 7709-01-P

U.S. SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION (SBA)

Statement of Regulatory Priorities

Overview

    The mission of the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) is to 
maintain and strengthen the Nation's economy by enabling the 
establishment and viability of small businesses and by assisting in 
economic recovery of communities after disasters. In carrying out this 
mission, SBA strives to improve the economic 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 provides 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.

Reducing Burden on Small Businesses

    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.

[[Page 76651]]

Openness and Transparency

    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.

Regulatory Framework

    The SBA's FY 2014 to FY 2018 strategic plan serves as the 
foundation for the regulations that the Agency will develop during the 
next 12 months. The strategic plan proposes three strategic goals: (1) 
Growing businesses and creating jobs; (2) serving as the voice for 
small business; and (3) building an SBA that meets the needs of today's 
and tomorrow's small businesses. 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;
     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 12 months, SBA's highest regulatory priority 
is to implement the Mentor-Prot[eacute]g[eacute] 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.
 (1) Small Business Mentor-Prot[eacute]g[eacute] Programs (RIN: 3245-
AG24):
    SBA currently has a mentor-prot[eacute]g[eacute] program for the 
8(a) Business Development Program that is intended to enhance the 
capabilities of the prot[eacute]g[eacute] and to improve its ability to 
successfully compete for Federal contracts. The Small Business Jobs Act 
authorized SBA to use this model to establish similar mentor-
prot[eacute]g[eacute] programs for the Service Disabled Veteran Owned, 
HUBZone and Women-Owned Small Business Programs. The National Defense 
Authorization Act for FY 2013 further authorized SBA to extend the 
availability of mentor-prot[eacute]g[eacute] 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-prot[eacute]g[eacute] programs. The various types of assistance 
that a mentor will be expected to provide to a prot[eacute]g[eacute] 
include technical and/or management assistance; financial assistance in 
the form of equity investment and/or loans; subcontracts and/or 
assistance in performing prime contracts with the Government in the 
form of joint venture arrangements.

Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations

    Pursuant to section 6 of Executive Order 13563 ``Improving 
Regulation and Regulatory Review'' (Jan. 18, 2011), 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 http://www.sba.gov/about-sba/sba_performance/open_government/retrospective_review_of_regulations.
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (SSA)

Statement of Regulatory Priorities

    We administer the Retirement, Survivors, and Disability Insurance 
programs under title II of the Social Security Act (Act), the 
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program under title XVI of the Act, 
and the Special Veterans Benefits program under title VIII of the Act. 
As directed by Congress, we also assist in administering portions of 
the Medicare program under title XVIII of the Act. Our regulations 
codify the requirements for eligibility and entitlement to benefits and 
our procedures for administering these programs. Generally, our 
regulations do not impose burdens on the private sector or on State or 
local governments, except for the States' disability determination 
services. We fully fund the disability determination services in 
advance or by way of reimbursement for necessary costs in making 
disability determinations.
    The ten entries in our regulatory plan (plan) represent issues of 
major importance to the Agency. We describe the individual initiatives 
more fully in the attached plan.

Improving the Disability Process

    Since the continued improvement of the disability program is of 
vital concern to us, we have initiatives in the plan addressing 
disability-related issues. They include:
    One proposed rule and five final rules update the medical listings 
used to determine disability--evaluating digestive disorders, 
neurological impairments, hematological disorders, growth disorders and 
weight loss in children, human immunodeficiency virus infection for 
evaluating functional limitation in immune system disorders, and cancer 
(malignant neoplastic diseases). The revisions reflect our adjudicative 
experience and advances in medical knowledge, diagnosis, and treatment.

Enhance Public Service

    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 are revising our rules to allow applicants for a Social Security 
number card to apply by completing a prescribed application and 
submitting the required evidence, rather than completing a paper 
application.
    There is one proposed rule that will enhance claims processing. The 
rule will strengthen the integrity of our programs by clarifying our 
expectations about the obligations representatives have in representing 
their clients.

Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations

    Pursuant to section 6 of Executive Order 13563 ``Improving 
Regulation and Regulatory Review'' (January 18, 2011), the following 
Regulatory Identifier Numbers (RINs) have been identified as associated 
with retrospective review and analysis in our 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, 
you can find more information about these completed rulemakings in past 
publications of the Unified Agenda at: www.Reginfo.gov in the Completed 
Actions section for the Social Security Administration. You can also 
find these rulemakings at: www.Regulations.gov. The agency final plans 
are located at: www.socialsecurity.gov/open/regsreview/EO-13563-Final-Plan.html.

[[Page 76652]]



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Expected to  significantly  reduce
               RIN                                   Title                       burdens  on small  businesses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0960-AF35.......................  Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating     No.
                                   Neurological Impairments.
0960-AF58.......................  Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating     No.
                                   Respiratory System Disorders.
0960-AF69.......................  Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating     No.
                                   Mental Disorders.
0960-AF88.......................  Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating     No.
                                   Hematological Disorders.
0960-AG21.......................  New Medical Criteria for Evaluating         No.
                                   Language and Speech Disorders.
0960-AG28.......................  Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating     No.
                                   Growth Impairments.
0960-AG38.......................  Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating     No.
                                   Musculoskeletal Disorders.
0960-AG65.......................  Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating     No.
                                   Digestive Disorders.
0960-AG74.......................  Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating     No.
                                   Cardiovascular Disorders.
0960-AG91.......................  Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating     No.
                                   Skin Disorders.
0960-AH04.......................  Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating     No.
                                   Congenital Disorders That Affect Multiple
                                   Body Systems.
0960-AH28.......................  Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating     No.
                                   Visual Disorders.
0960-AH43.......................  Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating     No.
                                   Cancer (Malignant Neoplastic Diseases).
0960-AH54.......................  Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating     No.
                                   Hearing Loss and Disturbances of
                                   Labyrinthine-Vestibular Function.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


SSA

Proposed Rule Stage

149. Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating Digestive Disorders 
(3441P)

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 402; 42 U.S.C. 405(a); 42 U.S.C. 405(b); 
42 U.S.C. 405(d) to 405(h); 42 U.S.C. 416(i); 42 U.S.C. 421(a); 42 
U.S.C. 421(i); 42 U.S.C. 423; 42 U.S.C. 902(a)(5); 42 U.S.C. 1381a; 42 
U.S.C. 1382c; 42 U.S.C. 1383; 42 U.S.C. 1383b.
    CFR Citation: 20 CFR 404.1500, app 1.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: Sections 5.00 and 105.00, Digestive Systems, of appendix 
1 to subpart P of part 404 of our regulations describe those digestive 
disorders that we consider severe enough to prevent a person from doing 
any gainful activity, or that cause marked and severe functional 
limitations for a child claiming Supplemental Security Income payments 
under title XVI. We are proposing to revise the criteria in these 
sections to ensure that the medical evaluation criteria are up-to-date 
and consistent with the latest advances in medical knowledge and 
treatment.
    Statement of Need: These proposed rules will update, simplify, and 
clarify our rules.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Administrative--not required by statute or 
court order.
    Alternatives: We could continue to use our current criteria. 
However, we believe these proposed revisions are necessary because of 
our program experience, information we received from medical experts we 
consulted, and comments we received at the Listings Symposium and in 
response to the ANPRM.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Presently under review.
    Risks: None.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM...............................   12/12/07  72 FR 70527
ANPRM Comment Period End............   02/11/08  .......................
NPRM................................   01/00/15  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Additional Information: Includes Retrospective Review under E.O. 
13563.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Cheryl A. Williams, Director, Social Security 
Administration, Office of Medical Listings Improvement, 6401 Security 
Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, Phone: 410 965-1020.
    Shawnette Ashburne, Social Insurance Specialist, Social Security 
Administration, Office of Medical Listings Improvement, 6401 Security 
Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, Phone: 410 966-5788.
    Brian J. Rudick, Social Insurance Specialist, Regulations Writer, 
Social Security Administration, Office of Regulations and Reports 
Clearance, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, Phone: 
410 965-7102.
    RIN: 0960-AG65

SSA

150. Revisions to Representative Code of Conduct (3835P)

    Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 
undetermined.
    Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
    Legal Authority: Not Yet Determined.
    CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This regulatory change adds several affirmative duties 
and prohibited actions for representatives, including the requirement 
to assist claimants with complying with the directive to submit all 
evidence. We will also clarify some of our rules regarding processing 
representative sanction actions at the hearing and Appeals Council 
levels and change the timeframe for suspended representatives to 
request reinstatement when the Appeals Council denies an initial 
request for reinstatement from 1 to 3 years.
    Statement of Need: We revised the rules of conduct in 2011 and are 
further clarifying our expectations about the obligations of 
representatives to competently represent their clients. These changes 
are necessary because our current regulations do not address some 
representative conduct that we find inappropriate. We are also updating 
procedures we use when we bring charges against a representative for 
violating our rules of conduct. These changes will allow us to better 
protect the integrity of our administrative process and further clarify 
representatives' responsibilities in their conduct with us and 
claimants.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Administrative-not required by statute or 
court order.
    Alternatives: Based on our program experience, there are no 
alternatives at this time. These rules will be based on 
recommendations.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The administrative effect of this 
regulation is negligible.
    Risks: Undetermined.
    Timetable:

[[Page 76653]]



------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   01/00/15  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: William P. Gibson, Social Insurance Specialist, 
Regulations Writer, Social Security Administration, Office of 
Regulations and Reports Clearance, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, 
MD 21235-6401, Phone: 410 966-9039.
    RIN: 0960-AH63

SSA

Final Rule Stage

151. Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating Neurological Impairments 
(806F)

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 402; 42 U.S.C. 405(a); 42 U.S.C. 405(b); 
42 U.S.C. 405(d) to 405(h); 42 U.S.C. 416(i); 42 U.S.C. 421(a); 42 
U.S.C. 421(i); 42 U.S.C. 423; 42 U.S.C. 902(a)(5); 42 U.S.C. 1381a; 42 
U.S.C. 1382c; 42 U.S.C. 1383; 42 U.S.C. 1383b.
    CFR Citation: 20 CFR 404.1500, app 1.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: Sections 11.00 and 111.00, Neurological Impairments, of 
appendix 1 to subpart P of part 404 of our regulations describe 
neurological impairments that we consider severe enough to prevent a 
person from doing any gainful activity, or that cause marked and severe 
functional limitations for a child claiming Supplemental Security 
Income payments under title XVI. We will revise these sections to 
ensure that the medical evaluation criteria are up-to-date and 
consistent with the latest advances in medical knowledge and treatment.
    Statement of Need: These final rules are necessary to update the 
listings for evaluating neurological impairments to reflect advances in 
medical knowledge, treatment, and methods of evaluating these 
impairments. The changes will ensure that determinations of disability 
have a sound medical basis, that claimants receive equal treatment 
through the use of specific criteria, and that people who are disabled 
can be readily identified and awarded benefits if all other factors of 
entitlement or eligibility are met.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Administrative-not required by statute or 
court order.
    Alternatives: We considered not revising the listings and 
continuing to use our current criteria. However, we believe that these 
revisions are preferable because of the medical advances that have been 
made in treating and evaluating these types of impairments.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Estimated Savings-low.
    Risks: None.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM...............................   04/13/05  70 FR 19356
ANPRM Comment Period End............   06/13/05  .......................
NPRM................................   02/25/14  79 FR 10636
NPRM Comment Period End.............   04/28/14  .......................
NPRM Comment Period Reopened........   05/01/14  79 FR 24634
NPRM Comment Period Reopened End....   06/02/14  .......................
Final Action........................   07/00/15  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Additional Information: Includes Retrospective Review under E.O. 
13563.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Cheryl A. Williams, Director, Social Security 
Administration, Office of Medical Listings Improvement, 6401 Security 
Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, Phone: 410 965-1020.
    Shawnette Ashburne, Social Insurance Specialist, Social Security 
Administration, Office of Medical Listings Improvement, 6401 Security 
Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, Phone: 410 966-5788.
    William P. Gibson, Social Insurance Specialist, Regulations Writer, 
Social Security Administration, Office of Regulations and Reports 
Clearance, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, Phone: 
410 966-9039.
    RIN: 0960-AF35

SSA

152. Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating Hematological Disorders 
(974F)

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 402; 42 U.S.C. 405(a); 42 U.S.C. 405(b); 
42 U.S.C. 405(d) to 405(h); 42 U.S.C. 416(i); 42 U.S.C. 421(a); 42 
U.S.C. 421(i); 42 U.S.C. 423; 42 U.S.C. 902(a)5)); 42 U.S.C. 1381a; 42 
U.S.C. 1382c; 42 U.S.C. 1383; 42 U.S.C. 1383b.
    CFR Citation: 20 CFR 404.1500, app 1.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: Sections 7.00 and 107.00, Hematological Disorders, of 
appendix 1 to subpart P of part 404 of our regulations, describe 
hematological disorders that we consider severe enough to prevent a 
person from performing any gainful activity or that cause marked and 
severe functional limitation for a child claiming Supplemental Security 
Income payments under title XVI. We are proposing to revise the 
criteria in these sections to ensure that the medical evaluation 
criteria are up-to-date and consistent with the latest advances in 
medical knowledge and treatment.
    Statement of Need: These final rules are necessary to update the 
hematological listings to reflect advances in medical knowledge, 
treatment, and methods of evaluating hematological disorders. The 
changes ensure that determinations of disability have a sound medical 
basis, that claimants receive equal treatment through the use of 
specific criteria, and that people who are disabled can be readily 
identified and awarded benefits if all other factors of entitlement or 
eligibility are met.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Administrative-not required by statute or 
court order.
    Alternatives: We considered not revising the listings or making 
only minor technical changes and continuing to use our current 
criteria. However, we believe that these revisions are preferable 
because of the medical advances that have been made in treating and 
evaluating these types of impairments.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Estimated savings-low.
    Risks: None.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   11/19/13  78 FR 69324
NPRM Comment Period End.............   01/21/14  .......................
Final Action........................   09/00/15  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Additional Information: Includes Retrospective Review under E.O. 
13563.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Cheryl A. Williams, Director, Social Security

[[Page 76654]]

Administration, Office of Medical Listings Improvement, 6401 Security 
Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, Phone: 410 965-1020.
    Mark Kuhn, Social Insurance Specialist, Social Security 
Administration, Office of Medical Listings Improvement, 6401 Security 
Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, Phone: 410 966-6109.
    Helen Droddy, Social Insurance Specialist, Regulations Writer, 
Social Security Administration, Office of Regulations and Reports 
Clearance, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, Phone: 
410 965-1483.
    RIN: 0960-AF88

SSA

153. Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating Growth Disorders and 
Weight Loss in Children (3163F)

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 402; 42 U.S.C. 405(a); 42 U.S.C. 405(b); 
42 U.S.C. 405(d) to 405(h); 42 U.S.C. 416(i); 42 U.S.C. 421(a); 42 
U.S.C. 421(i); 42 U.S.C. 423; 42 U.S.C. 902(a)(5); 42 U.S.C. 1381a; 42 
U.S.C. 1382c; 42 U.S.C. 1383; 42 U.S.C. 1383b.
    CFR Citation: 20 CFR 404.1500, app 1.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: Section 100.00, Growth Impairments, of appendix 1 to 
subpart P of part 404 of our regulations describes growth impairments 
that we consider severe enough to prevent a person from doing any 
gainful activity, or that cause marked and severe functional 
limitations for a child claiming Supplemental Security Income payments 
under title XVI. We will revise the criteria in this section to ensure 
that the medical evaluation criteria are up-to-date and consistent with 
the latest advances in medical knowledge and treatment.
    Statement of Need: These final rules are necessary to update 
several body systems that contain listings for children based on 
impairment of linear growth or weight loss to reflect advances in 
medical knowledge, treatment, and methods of evaluating impairments. 
The changes ensure that determinations of disability have a sound 
medical basis, that claimants receive equal treatment through the use 
of specific criteria, and that people who are disabled can be readily 
identified and awarded benefits if all other factors of eligibility are 
met.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Administrative-not required by statute or 
court order.
    Alternatives: We considered not revising the listings or making 
only minor technical changes and continuing to use our current 
criteria. However, we believe that these revisions are preferable 
because of the medical advances that have been made in treating and 
evaluating these types of impairments.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Estimated savings-low.
    Risks: None.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM...............................   09/08/05  70 FR 53323
ANPRM Comment Period End............   11/07/05  .......................
NPRM................................   05/22/13  78 FR 30249
NPRM Comment Period End.............   07/22/13  .......................
Final Action........................   12/00/14  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Additional Information: Includes Retrospective Review under E.O. 
13563.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Cheryl A. Williams, Director, Social Security 
Administration, Office of Medical Listings Improvement, 6401 Security 
Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, Phone: 410 965-1020.
    Tiya Marshall, Social Insurance Specialist, Social Security 
Administration, Office of Medical Listings Improvement, 6401 Security 
Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, Phone: 410 965-9291.
    Helen Droddy, Social Insurance Specialist, Regulations Writer, 
Social Security Administration, Office of Regulations and Reports 
Clearance, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, Phone: 
410 965-1483.
    RIN: 0960-AG28

SSA

154. Use of Date of Written Statement as Filing Date (3431F)

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 402(i); 42 U.S.C. 402(j); 42 U.S.C. 
402(o); 42 U.S.C. 402(p); 42 U.S.C. 402(r); 42 U.S.C. 405(a); 42 U.S.C. 
416(i)(2); 42 U.S.C. 423(b); 42 U.S.C. 428(a); 42 U.S.C. 902(a)(5).
    CFR Citation: 20 CFR 404.630.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: We are revising our rules for protective filing after we 
receive a written statement of intent to claim Social Security benefits 
under title II of the Social Security Act (Act). Specifically, we are 
revising from 6 months to 60 days the time period during which a 
claimant must file an application for benefits after the date of a 
notice we send explaining the need to file an application. We are 
revising our rules to make this time period used in the title II 
program consistent with the time period used in our other programs.
    Statement of Need: We believe that eliminating the difference 
between the time periods in our programs will make it easier for the 
public to understand and follow our rules.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Administrative-not required by statute or 
court order.
    Alternatives: None.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Estimated savings-low.
    Risks: None.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   12/17/08  73 FR 76573
NPRM Comment Period End.............   02/17/09  .......................
Final Action........................   01/00/15  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Helen Droddy, Social Insurance Specialist, 
Regulations Writer, Social Security Administration, Office of 
Regulations and Reports Clearance, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, 
MD 21235-6401, Phone: 410 965-1483.
    RIN: 0960-AG58

SSA

155. Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating Immune (HIV) System 
Disorders (3466F)

    Priority: Other Significant
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 402; 42 U.S.C. 405(a); 42 U.S.C. 405(b); 
42 U.S.C. 42 U.S.C. 405(d) to 405(h); 42 U.S.C. 416(i); 42 U.S.C. 
421(a); 42 U.S.C. 421(i); 42 U.S.C. 423; 42 U.S.C. 902(a)(5); 42 U.S.C. 
1381a; 42 U.S.C. 1382c; 42 U.S.C. 1383; 42 U.S.C. 1383b.
    CFR Citation: 20 CFR 404.1500, app 1.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: Sections 14.00 and 114.00, Immune System, of appendix 1 
to subpart P of part 404 of our regulations describe immune system 
disorders that we consider severe enough to prevent an individual from 
doing any gainful activity, or that cause marked and severe functional 
limitations for a child

[[Page 76655]]

claiming Supplemental Security Income payments under title XVI. We will 
revise the criteria in these sections to ensure that the medical 
evaluation criteria are up-to-date and consistent with the latest 
advances in medical knowledge and treatment.
    Statement of Need: These final rules are necessary in order to 
update the HIV evaluation listings to reflect advances in medical 
knowledge, treatment, and evaluation methods. The changes that 
determinations of disability have a sound medical basis, that claimants 
receive equal treatment through the use of specific criteria, and that 
individuals who are disabled can be readily identified and awarded 
benefits if all other factors of entitlement or eligibility are met.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Administrative-not required by statute or 
court order.
    Alternatives: Undetermined at this time.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Cost/savings estimate-negligible.
    Risks: Undetermined at this time.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM...............................   03/18/08  73 FR 14409
ANPRM Comment Period End............   05/19/08  .......................
NPRM................................   02/26/14  79 FR 10730
NPRM Comment Period End.............   04/28/14  .......................
NPRM Correction and NPRM Comment       03/25/14  79 FR 16250
 Period Extended.
NPRM Comment Period Extended End....   05/27/14  .......................
Final Action........................   05/00/15  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Additional Information: Includes Retrospective Review under E.O. 
13563.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Cheryl A. Williams, Director, Social Security 
Administration, Office of Medical Listings Improvement, 6401 Security 
Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, Phone: 410 965-1020.
    Paul J. Scott, Social Insurance Specialist, Social Security 
Administration, Office of Medical Listings Improvement, 6401 Security 
Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, Phone: 410 966-1192.
    Helen Droddy, Social Insurance Specialist, Regulations Writer, 
Social Security Administration, Office of Regulations and Reports 
Clearance, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, Phone: 
410 965-1483.
    RIN: 0960-AG71

SSA

156. Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating Cancer (Malignant 
Neoplastic Diseases) (3757F)

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 402; 42 U.S.C. 405(a); 42 U.S.C. 405(b); 
42 U.S.C. 405(d) to 405(h); 42 U.S.C. 405(h); 42 U.S.C. 416(i); 42 
U.S.C. 421(a); 42 U.S.C. 421(i); 42 U.S.C. 423; 42 U.S.C. 902(a)(5); 42 
U.S.C. 1381a; 42 U.S.C. 1382c; 42 U.S.C. 1383; 42 U.S.C. 1383b.
    CFR Citation: 20 CFR 404.1500, app 1.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: Sections 13.00 and 113.00, Malignant Neoplastic Diseases, 
of appendix 1 to subpart P of our regulations describe malignant 
neoplastic diseases that we consider severe enough to prevent an 
individual from doing any gainful activity or that cause marked and 
severe functional limitations for a child claiming SSI payments under 
title XVI. We will revise these sections to ensure that the medical 
evaluation criteria are up-to-date and consistent with the latest 
advances in medical knowledge and treatment.
    Statement of Need: These final regulations are necessary to update 
the Malignant Neoplastic Diseases listings to reflect advances in 
medical knowledge, treatment, and methods of evaluating malignant 
neoplastic diseases. The changes will ensure that determinations of 
disability have a sound medical basis, that claimants receive equal 
treatment through the use of specific criteria, and that people who are 
disabled can be readily identified and awarded benefits if all other 
factors of entitlement or eligibility are met.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Administrative--not required by statute or 
court order.
    Alternatives: We considered not revising the listings and 
continuing to use our current criteria. However, we believe that these 
revisions are preferable because of the medical advances that have been 
made in treating and evaluating these malignant neoplastic diseases and 
because of our adjudicative experience.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Estimated costs--low.
    Risks: None.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   12/17/13  78 FR 76508
NPRM Comment Period End.............   02/18/14  .......................
Final Action........................   06/00/15  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Cheryl A. Williams, Director, Social Security 
Administration, Office of Medical Listings Improvement, 6401 Security 
Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, Phone: 410 965-1020.
    Mark Kuhn, Social Insurance Specialist, Social Security 
Administration, Office of Medical Listings Improvement, 6401 Security 
Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, Phone: 410 966-6109.
    Helen Droddy, Social Insurance Specialist, Regulations Writer, 
Social Security Administration, Office of Regulations and Reports 
Clearance, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, Phone: 
410 965-1483.
    RIN: 0960-AH43

SSA

157. Submission of Evidence in Disability Claims (3802F)

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 405(a); 42 U.S.C. 405(d); 42 U.S.C. 
423(d)(5); 42 U.S.C. 1383c(a)(3)(H); 42 U.S.C. 1383(d)(1)
    CFR Citation: 20 CFR 404.900; 20 CFR 404.935; 20 CFR 404.1512; 20 
CFR 404.1740; 20 CFR 405.1; 20 CFR 405.331; 20 CFR 416.912; 20 CFR 
416.1400; 20 CFR 416.1435; 20 CFR 416.1540.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: We will require claimants to inform us about or submit 
all evidence known to them that relates to their disability claim, 
subject generally to two exceptions for privileged communications and 
work product. This requirement would include the duty to submit all 
evidence obtained from any source in its entirety, unless subject to an 
exception. We will also require a representative to help the claimant 
obtain the information or evidence that the claimant must submit under 
our regulations.
    Statement of Need: These final rules will protect the integrity of 
the programs by clarifying a claimant's duty to submit all relevant 
evidence and enabling us to have a more complete case record on

[[Page 76656]]

which to make more accurate disability determinations or decisions.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Administrative--not required by statute or 
court order.
    Alternatives: Based on our program experience, there are no 
alternatives at this time. These final rules are based on 
recommendations by the Administrative Conference of the United States.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Undetermined.
    Risks: None.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   02/20/14  79 FR 9663
NPRM Comment Period End.............   04/21/14  .......................
Final Rule..........................   12/00/14  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Janet Truhe, Social Insurance Specialist, Social 
Security Administration, Office of Disability Programs, 6401 Security 
Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, Phone: 410 966-7203.
    William P. Gibson, Social Insurance Specialist, Regulations Writer, 
Social Security Administration, Office of Regulations and Reports 
Clearance, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, Phone: 
410 966-9039, RIN: 0960-AH53.

SSA

158.  Social Security Number Card Applications (3855I)

    Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 
undetermined.
    Legal Authority: Not Yet Determined.
    CFR Citation: 20 CFR 422.103; 20 CFR 422.107; 20 CFR 422.110.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: We are revising our regulations to allow applicants for a 
Social Security number (SSN) card to apply by completing a prescribed 
application and submitting the required evidence without completing a 
paper for SS-5. We are also removing the word ``documentary'' from our 
description of certain evidence requirements. These administrative 
changes will simplify the SSN card application and provide flexibility 
to allow for the use of electronic processes which would result in 
greater access and ease of use for card applicants. In addition, we are 
replacing ``Immigration and Naturalization Service'' with ``Department 
of Homeland Security'' to reflect that agency's name change. These 
changes are administrative in nature and do not substantively affect 
eligibility or evidentiary requirements.
    Statement of Need: These administrative changes will simplify the 
SSN card application and provide flexibility to allow for the use of 
electronic processes, which would result in greater access and ease of 
use for card applicants.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Administrative--not required by statute or 
court order.
    Alternatives: None.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: To be determined.
    Risks: None.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule..................   12/00/14  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Arthur LaVeck, Social Insurance Specialist, Social 
Security Administration, Office of Retirement and Disability Policy, 
Office of Income Security Programs, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, 
MD 21235-6401, Phone: 410 966-5665.
    Helen Droddy, Social Insurance Specialist, Regulations Writer, 
Social Security Administration, Office of Regulations and Reports 
Clearance, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, Phone: 
410 965-1483.
    RIN: 0960-AH68
BILLING CODE 4191-02-P

FALL 2014 STATEMENT OF REGULATORY PRIORITIES

CFPB Purposes and Functions

    The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (CFPB) was established 
as an independent bureau of the Federal Reserve System by the Dodd-
Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Public Law 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 CFPB 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.

CFPB Regulatory Priorities

    The CFPB's regulatory priorities for the period from November 1, 
2014, to October 31, 2015, 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.

Implementing Dodd-Frank Act Mortgage Protections

    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.
    A major rulemaking priority for the Bureau continues to be the 
implementation of the Dodd-Frank Act amendments to the Home Mortgage 
Disclosure Act (HMDA) and other

[[Page 76657]]

revisions to the HMDA regulations. The Dodd-Frank Act amendments 
augment existing data reporting requirements regarding housing-related 
loans and applications for such loans. In addition to obtaining data 
that is critical to the purposes of HMDA--which include providing the 
public and public officials with information that can be used to help 
determine whether financial institutions are serving the housing needs 
of their communities, assisting public officials in the distribution of 
public sector investments, and assisting in identifying possible 
discriminatory lending patterns and enforcing antidiscrimination 
statutes--the Bureau views this rulemaking as an opportunity to 
streamline and modernize HMDA data collection and reporting, in 
furtherance of its mission under the Dodd-Frank Act to reduce 
unwarranted regulatory burden. The Bureau published a proposed HMDA 
rule in the Federal Register on August 29, 2014 to add several new 
reporting requirements and to clarify several existing requirements. 
Publication of the proposal followed initial outreach efforts and the 
convening of 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. As 
the Bureau develops a final rule, it expects to review and consider 
public comments on the proposed rule, consult with other agencies and 
coordinate with them on implementation efforts, conduct additional 
outreach to build and refine operational capacity, and prepare to 
assist financial institutions in their compliance efforts.
    A major effort of the Bureau is the implementation of its final 
rule combining several federal mortgage 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). This project 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. 
These new ``Know Before You Owe'' mortgage forms and their implementing 
regulations will replace several pages of existing federal disclosures 
with two simpler, streamlined forms that will help consumers understand 
their options, choose the deal that is best for them, and avoid costly 
surprises at the closing table. The Bureau conducted extensive 
qualitative testing of the new forms prior to issuing a proposal, and 
also conducted a post-proposal quantitative study to validate the 
results of the new forms. The results of the quantitative testing 
showed that consumers of all different experience levels, with 
different loan types--whether focused on buying a home or refinancing--
were able to understand the Bureau's new forms better than the current 
forms.
    The rule was issued in November 2013 and takes effect in August 
2015. The Bureau is working intensively to support implementation 
efforts and prepare consumer education materials and initiatives to 
help consumers understand and use the new forms. To facilitate 
implementation, the Bureau has released two compliance guides, sample 
forms, and additional materials. The Bureau also has been conducting 
extensive industry outreach to identify interpretive questions or 
implementation challenges with the rule, and hosting ongoing webinars 
to address common questions. In addition, in late 2014, the Bureau 
plans to issue a small proposed rule to make technical corrections, 
allow for certain language related to new construction loans to be 
added to the Loan Estimate form, and modify the same-day redisclosure 
requirement for floating interest rates that are locked after the Loan 
Estimate is first provided.
    In addition, the Bureau is working to support the full 
implementation of, and facilitate compliance with, various mortgage-
related final rules issued by the Bureau in January 2013 to strengthen 
consumer protections involving the origination and servicing of 
mortgages. These rules, implementing requirements under the Dodd-Frank 
Act, were all effective by January 2014. The Bureau is working 
diligently to monitor the market and plans to make clarifications and 
adjustments to the rules where warranted. The Bureau is planning to 
issue rules in fall 2014 to provide certain adjustments to its rules 
for certain nonprofit entities and to provide a cure mechanism for 
lenders seeking to make ``qualified mortgages'' under rules requiring 
assessment of consumers' ability to repay their mortgage loans where 
the mortgages exceed certain limitations on points and fees. The Bureau 
also anticipates issuing a proposal in fall 2014 to amend various 
provisions of its mortgage servicing rules, in both Regulation X and 
Regulation Z, including further clarification of the applicability of 
certain provisions when the borrower is in bankruptcy, possible 
additional enhancements to loss mitigation requirements, and other 
topics. In addition, in order to promote access to credit, the Bureau 
is currently engaged in further research to assess the impact of 
certain provisions implemented under the Dodd-Frank Act that modify 
general requirements for small creditors that operate predominantly in 
``rural or underserved'' areas, and expects to release a notice of 
proposed rulemaking in early 2015.
    Further, the Bureau continues to participate 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 
implementing certain other Dodd-Frank Act amendments to FIRREA 
concerning regulation of appraisal management companies and automated 
valuation models.

Bureau Regulatory Efforts in Other Consumer Financial Markets

    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.
    First, the Bureau anticipates in fall 2014 issuing a proposed rule 
to create a comprehensive set of protections for General Purpose 
Reloadable (GPR) cards and other prepaid products, such as payroll 
cards and student loan disbursement cards, which are increasingly being 
used by consumers in place of a traditional deposit account or credit 
card. The proposal will build on comments received by the Bureau in 
response to a 2012 ANPRM seeking comment, data, and information from 
the public about GPR cards. The proposed rule will seek to expand 
coverage in Regulation E (implementing the Electronic Fund Transfer 
Act) to prepaid accounts, including GPR cards, by extending and in some 
cases modifying disclosure, periodic statement, and error resolution 
requirements that apply to consumer asset accounts that are currently 
subject to Regulation E. The Bureau also expects the proposal to 
address treatment of overdraft services and

[[Page 76658]]

credit features in connection with prepaid accounts under both 
Regulation Z (Truth in Lending Act) and Regulation E.
    Building on Bureau research and other sources, the Bureau is also 
considering what rules may be appropriate for addressing the sustained 
use of short-term, high-cost credit products such as payday loans and 
deposit advance products. The Bureau issued a white paper on these 
products in April 2013 and a data point providing additional research 
in March 2014, and is continuing to analyze other consumer protection 
concerns associated with the use of high-cost, small-dollar credit 
products. Rulemaking might include disclosures or address acts or 
practices in connection with these products.
    The Bureau is also continuing to develop research on other critical 
consumer protection markets to help assess whether regulation may be 
warranted. For example, the Bureau issued research on bank and credit 
union overdraft programs in 2013 and 2014 and is planning to release 
the results of further studies on overdraft programs and their effects 
on consumers.
    In addition, the Bureau has launched research initiatives to build 
on its November 2013 ANPRM on debt collection. These efforts include 
undertaking a survey to obtain information from consumers about their 
experiences with debt collection and launching consumer testing 
initiatives to determine what information would be useful for consumers 
to have about debt collection and their debts and how that information 
should be provided to them.
    Bureau work is also continuing on a number of earlier initiatives 
concerning consumer payment services. In addition to the prepaid 
rulemaking discussed above, in 2014, the Bureau engaged in a rulemaking 
to make further amendments to its existing rule that applies to 
consumer remittance transfers to foreign countries. The primary purpose 
of the rulemaking was to 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 would have expired in July 2015 unless the Bureau exercises 
authority to extend it for up to five years. The Bureau's final rule 
extended the provision to July 2020.
    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. In fall 2014, 
the Bureau issued a final rule that amended the regulation defining 
larger participants of certain consumer financial products and services 
markets by adding a new section to define larger participants of a 
market for international money transfers, and began a rulemaking that 
would define larger participants of a market for automobile financing 
and define certain automobile leasing activity as a financial product 
or service.

Bureau Regulatory Streamlining Efforts

    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 
connection with the HMDA rulemaking described above, the Bureau has 
identified potential opportunities to reduce unwarranted regulatory 
burden concerning reporting of mortgage application, origination, and 
purchase activity, as described in the proposed rule. Similarly, the 
Bureau took the opportunity when streamlining federal mortgage forms as 
mandated by the Dodd-Frank Act and discussed above, to clarify existing 
regulations to address longstanding compliance concerns. The Bureau 
also issued a final rule in fall 2014 to allow financial institutions 
that restrict their information sharing practices and meet other 
requirements to post their annual privacy notices to customers under 
the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act online rather than delivering them 
individually. The rulemaking addresses longstanding concerns that the 
annual mailings are a source of unwarranted regulatory burden and 
unwanted paperwork for consumers.

Additional Analysis, Planning, and Prioritization

    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, the findings of which 
shall be consistent with 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 2015 to 
reflect the results of further analysis, planning, and prioritization.

BILLING CODE 4810-AM-P

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION (CPSC)

Statement of Regulatory Priorities

    The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission is charged with 
protecting the public from unreasonable risks of death and injury 
associated with consumer products. To achieve this goal, the CPSC:
     develops mandatory product safety standards or bans when 
other efforts are inadequate to address a safety hazard, or where 
required by statute;
     obtains repair, replacement, or refunds 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 statutory mandates.
    Unless directed otherwise by congressional mandate, when deciding 
which of these approaches to take in any specific case, the CPSC 
gathers and analyzes data about the nature and extent of the risk 
presented by the product. The Commission's rules at 16 CFR 1009.8 
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;
     probability of exposure to the hazard; and
     additional criteria that warrant Commission attention.

Significant Regulatory Actions:
    Currently, the Commission is considering one rule that would 
constitute a ``significant regulatory

[[Page 76659]]

action'' under the definition of that term in Executive Order 12866:
    1. Flammability Standard for Upholstered Furniture
    Under section 4 of the Flammable Fabrics Act (FFA), the Commission 
may issue a flammability standard or other regulation for a product of 
interior furnishing if the Commission determines that such a standard 
is needed to adequately protect the public against unreasonable risk of 
the occurrence of fire leading to death or personal injury, or 
significant property damage. The Commission's regulatory proceeding 
could result in several actions, one of which could be the development 
of a mandatory standard requiring that upholstered furniture meet 
mandatory requirements specified in the standard.
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION (FTC)

Statement of Regulatory and Deregulatory Priorities

I. Regulatory and Deregulatory Priorities
Background
    The Federal Trade Commission (``FTC'' or ``Commission'') is an 
independent agency charged by its enabling statute, the Federal Trade 
Commission Act, with protecting American consumers from ``unfair 
methods of competition'' and ``unfair or deceptive acts or practices'' 
in the marketplace. The Commission strives to ensure that consumers 
benefit from a vigorously competitive marketplace. The Commission's 
work is rooted in a belief that competition, based on truthful and non-
misleading information about products and services, 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, 
financial and marketing practice statutes \1\ and to energy laws.\2\ 
The Commission also has adopted a number of voluntary industry guides. 
Most of the regulations and guides pertain to consumer protection 
matters and are intended to ensure that consumers receive the 
information necessary to evaluate competing products and make informed 
purchasing decisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For example, the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited 
Pornography and Marketing Act of 2003 (CAN-SPAM Act) (15 U.S.C. 
sections 7701-7713) and the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and 
Abuse Prevention Act (15 U.S.C. sections 6101-6108).
    \2\ For example, the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 2776, 
codified in scattered sections of the U.S. Code, particularly 42 
U.S.C. section 6201 et seq. and the Energy Independence and Security 
Act of 2007 (EISA)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commission Initiatives
    The Commission protects consumers through a variety of tools, 
including both regulatory and non-regulatory approaches. 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,\3\ and 
initiatives it has pursued since the 2013 Regulatory Plan was 
published.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The FTC also prepares a number of annual and periodic 
reports on the statutes it administers. These are not discussed in 
this plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (a) Protecting Consumer Privacy. As the nation's top enforcer on 
the consumer privacy beat, the FTC works to ensure that consumers can 
take advantage of the benefits of a dynamic and ever-changing digital 
marketplace without compromising their privacy. The FTC achieves that 
goal through civil law enforcement, policy initiatives, and consumer 
and business education. For example, the FTC's unparalleled experience 
in consumer privacy enforcement has addressed practices offline, 
online, and in the mobile environment by large, well-known companies 
and lesser-known players alike. Data security is an important focus of 
the Commission's privacy work. Since 2002, the FTC has brought over 50 
cases against companies that have engaged in unfair or deceptive 
practices that the Commission alleged put consumers' personal data at 
unreasonable risk.
    The Commission's recent policy initiatives to promote privacy 
included a three-part ``Spring Privacy Series'' \4\ that examined the 
privacy implications of three new areas of technology or business 
practices that have garnered considerable attention for the possible 
privacy concerns they raise for consumers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See press release ``FTC to Host Spring Seminars on Emerging 
Consumer Privacy Issues'' dated December 2, 2013, at http://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2013/12/ftc-host-spring-seminars-emerging-consumer-privacy-issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The first event on February 19, 2014, focused on the 
privacy and security implications of mobile device tracking, which 
involves physically tracking consumers in retail and other businesses 
using signals from their smartphones.
     The second seminar on March 19, 2014, examined alternative 
scoring products, which are scores increasingly used by businesses for 
a wide variety of purposes, ranging from identity verification and 
fraud prevention to marketing and advertising. The event discussed the 
privacy ramifications of such predictive scores, which may fall outside 
the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
     The final seminar on May 7, 2014, examined consumers' use 
of connected health and fitness devices that regularly collect 
information about them and may transmit this information to other 
entities.
    In November 2013, the Commission held a workshop entitled Internet 
of

[[Page 76660]]

Things--Privacy and Security in a Connected World to explore consumer 
privacy and security issues posed by the growing connectivity of 
consumer devices, such as cars, home appliances, and health and fitness 
devices.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See workshop agenda and conference description at http://www.ftc.gov/news-events/events-calendar/2013/11/internet-things-privacy-security-connected-world.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) Protecting Children. Children increasingly use the Internet for 
entertainment, information and schoolwork. The Children's Online 
Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) and the FTC's COPPA Rule protect 
children's privacy when they are online by putting their parents in 
charge of who gets to collect personal information about their preteen 
kids. The FTC enforces COPPA by ensuring that parents have the tools 
they need to protect their children's privacy.
    The Commission is actively litigating to protect children and their 
parents when children use mobile apps that appeal to children and offer 
virtual goods for sale. On August 1, 2014, the FTC filed a court 
complaint alleging that Amazon.com, Inc. billed parents and other 
account holders for millions of dollars in unauthorized in-app charges 
incurred by children.\6\ Amazon offers many children's apps in its app 
store for download to mobile devices such as the Kindle Fire. The 
lawsuit seeks a court order requiring refunds to consumers for the 
unauthorized charges and permanently banning the company from billing 
parents and other account holders for in-app charges without their 
consent. This is the FTC's third case relating to children's in-app 
purchases; Apple and Google both settled FTC complaints concerning the 
issue in 2014.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ FTC v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-01038 (W.D. Wash.) 
(Complaint For Permanent Injunction And Other Equitable Relief filed 
on July 10, 2014).
    \7\ In the Matter of Apple Inc., Docket No. C-4444, Decision and 
Order, March 25, 2014; In the Matter of Google Inc., Docket No. 122 
3237, Proposed Agreement Containing Consent Order, September 4, 
2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has issued an updated version of the popular free 
consumer guide, ``Net Cetera: Chatting with Kids About Being Online.'' 
\8\ The revised publication contains updated information for parents 
and other adults to use when talking with kids about how to be safe, 
secure and responsible online. The revision adds new topics that 
reflect changes in the online world since the guide was first issued in 
2009. In the revised booklet, adults can find advice on how to talk 
with kids about mobile apps, using public Wi-Fi securely and how to 
recognize text message spam. The booklet also includes information 
about the recent changes to the COPPA Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See ``Net Cetera: Chatting with Kids About Being Online'' at 
http://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/pdf-0001-netcetera.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (c) Protecting Seniors. The Commission works vigilantly to fight 
telephone scams that harm millions of Americans. The agency has 
aggressively used law enforcement tools \9\ as well as efforts to 
educate consumers about these scams and to find technological solutions 
that will make it more difficult for scammers to operate and hide from 
law enforcement. FTC education and outreach programs reach tens of 
millions of people every year. Among them is the recently created 
``Pass It On'' program that provides seniors with information, in 
English and Spanish, on a variety of scams targeting the elderly. The 
agency also works with the Elder Justice Coordinating Council to help 
protect seniors and with the AARP Foundation, whose peer counselors 
provided fraud-avoidance advice last year to more than a thousand 
seniors who had filed complaints with the FTC about certain frauds, 
including lottery, prize promotion, and grandparent scams. The 
Commission is also promoting initiatives to make it harder for scammers 
to fake or ``spoof'' their caller Identification information and the 
more widespread availability of technology that will block calls from 
fraudsters, essentially operating as a spam filter for the telephone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The FTC has brought more than 130 cases involving 
telemarketing fraud against more than 800 defendants during the past 
decade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (d) Protecting Financially Distressed Consumers. Even as the 
economy recovers, some consumers continue to face financial challenges. 
The FTC acts to ensure that consumers are protected from deceptive and 
unfair credit practices and get the information they need to make 
informed financial choices. The Commission has continued its 
enforcement efforts by bringing law enforcement actions to curb 
deceptive and unfair practices in mortgage rescue, debt relief, auto 
financing and debt collection.
    In October 2014, the FTC also co-hosted a roundtable on debt 
collection issues with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). 
The roundtable specifically examined how debt collection issues affect 
Latino consumers, especially those who have limited English proficiency 
(LEP). The event brought together consumer advocates, industry 
representatives, State and Federal regulators, and academics to 
exchange information on a range of issues. Topics included an overview 
of the Latino community, its finances, and the collectors who contact 
members of this community; pre-litigation collection from Latino 
consumers; the experience of LEP Latinos in debt collection litigation; 
credit reporting issues among LEP Latinos; and developing improved 
strategies for educating and reaching out to LEP Latinos about debt 
collection.
    (e) Ensuring Consumers Benefit from New Technologies While Also 
Protecting Them.
     Mobile Cramming. The widespread adoption of mobile devices 
has provided many important benefits to consumers, including the 
convenience of paying for goods and services using a mobile phone. 
Recently, the FTC has brought a number of law enforcement actions in 
addition to policy and education activities designed to combat mobile 
cramming that are part of the Commission's overall work to protect 
consumers in the mobile environment. In the Commission's six mobile 
cramming cases brought since the spring of 2013, the three that have 
been fully or partially resolved have resulted in strong relief for 
consumers. The agency has obtained judgments totaling more than $160 
million, as well as court orders preventing the defendants from further 
illegal cramming. The Commission also has two ongoing cases against two 
other merchants who crammed charges onto consumers' bills, along with 
its case against wireless carrier T-Mobile filed earlier in July 
2014.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ FTC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-00967 (W.D. Wash.) 
(Complaint For Permanent Injunction And Other Equitable Relief filed 
on July 1, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Mobile Billing. One mobile payment option is known as 
``carrier billing''--the ability to charge a good or service directly 
to a mobile phone account. In a report issued on July 28, 2014, FTC 
staff recommended steps that mobile carriers and other companies should 
take to prevent consumers from being stuck with unauthorized charges on 
their mobile phone bills, an unlawful practice known as mobile 
cramming.\11\ FTC staff set out five recommended best practices for 
industry participants to protect consumers against unwanted charges 
while enabling innovation and consumer access to another payment 
mechanism. The FTC will continue to monitor and, where appropriate, 
investigate industry participants--carriers, billing intermediaries, 
and merchants--involved in third-party

[[Page 76661]]

mobile billing and bring further enforcement actions. Further, the FTC 
will continue to monitor the issue of cramming on mobile phone accounts 
and evaluate whether other potential solutions--including legislative 
measures and additional regulatory changes--are necessary to ensure 
consumers are protected from unwanted and unauthorized charges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See ``Mobile Cramming: A Federal Trade Commission Staff 
Report (July 2014)'' at http://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/reports/mobile-cramming-federal-trade-commission-staff-report-july-2014/140728mobilecramming.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Mobile Shopping Apps. A new staff report issued on August 
1, 2014, by the Commission finds that many mobile apps for use in 
shopping do not provide consumers with important information--such as 
how the apps manage payment-related disputes or handle consumer data--
prior to download. The report, ``What's the Deal? An FTC Study on 
Mobile Shopping Apps,'' \12\ looked at some of the most popular apps 
used by consumers to comparison shop, collect and redeem deals and 
discounts, and pay in-store with their mobile devices. The report 
builds on the findings of the Commission's 2012 workshop on mobile 
payments and the report from that workshop, which raised concerns about 
consumers' potential financial liability--as well as the privacy and 
security of their data--when using mobile payment services. The report 
is part of the Commission's work to ensure that consumers are fully 
protected in the growing mobile space, which has included workshops and 
other initiatives to study cutting-edge issues in this area, along with 
a number of law enforcement cases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See ``What's the Deal? An FTC Study on Mobile Shopping Apps 
(August 2014)'' at http://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/reports/whats-deal-federal-trade-commission-study-mobile-shopping-apps-august-2014/140801mobileshoppingapps.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Use of Big Data. The Commission hosted a public workshop 
entitled ``Big Data: A Tool for Inclusion or Exclusion?'' on September 
15, 2014, which explored the use of ``big data'' and its impact on 
American consumers, including low-income and underserved consumers. A 
growing number of companies are increasingly using big data analytics 
techniques to categorize consumers and make predictions about their 
behavior. As part of the FTC's ongoing work to shed light on the full 
scope of big data practices, the workshop examined the potentially 
positive and negative effects of big data on low income and underserved 
populations.
    (f) Promoting Competition in Health Care. The FTC continues to work 
to eliminate anticompetitive settlements featuring payments by branded 
drug firms to a generic competitor to keep generic drugs off the market 
(so-called, ``pay-for-delay'' agreements). It's a practice where the 
pharmaceutical industry wins, but consumers lose. The brand company 
protects its drug franchise, and the generic competitor shares in the 
monopoly profits preserved by avoiding competition. The Commission 
supports legislation to ban these harmful agreements while actively 
litigating Federal court challenges to invalidate individual 
agreements. In a significant victory on June 17, 2013, the U.S. Supreme 
Court reversed a lower court ruling and held that pay-for-delay 
agreements between brand and generic drug companies are subject to 
antitrust scrutiny under an antitrust ``rule of reason'' analysis. FTC 
v. Actavis, Inc., 570 U.S. 756 (2013). The FTC now has three active 
pay-for-delay litigations underway in federal courts. Two of them 
involve the blockbuster male testosterone replacement drug Androgel, 
including the Actavis case on remand to the U.S. District Court for the 
Northern District of Georgia and FTC v. AbbVie, Inc., in the U.S. 
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.\13\ The third, 
underway in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of 
Pennsylvania, FTC v. Cephalon, Inc., involves the billion-dollar 
narcolepsy drug Provigil.\14\ However, solving this problem through the 
courts will take considerable time, during which American consumers and 
governments will continue to pay high prices for prescription drugs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ FTC v. AbbVie, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-05151-RK (E.D. Pa.) 
(Complaint For Injunctive And Other Equitable Relief filed on 
September 8, 2014).
    \14\ FTC v. Cephalon, Inc., No. 2:08-CV-02141 (E.D. Pa.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FTC also continues to vigorously challenge anticompetitive 
acquisitions in health care provider markets. For example, in January 
2014, a federal court in Idaho issued a permanent injunction enjoining 
St. Luke's Health System's acquisition of Saltzer Medical Group, 
Idaho's largest independent, multi-specialty physician practice group, 
and requiring full divestiture of Saltzer's physicians and assets in an 
action brought by the FTC, together with the Idaho Attorney General. 
The complaint charged that the combination of St. Luke's employed 
primary care physicians and Saltzer's physicians would give the merged 
firm the market power to demand higher rates for primary care physician 
services in Nampa, Idaho, and surrounding areas. This case is on 
appeal. Moreover, in April 2014, in the first appellate decision in a 
health care provider merger in 15 years, the U.S. Court of Appeals for 
the Sixth Circuit upheld the Commission's 2012 decision finding that 
ProMedica Health System, Inc. acquisition of a rival, St. Luke's 
Hospital in the Toledo, Ohio area, violated the antitrust laws. The 
Commission's order requires ProMedica to divest St. Luke's Hospital to 
an FTC-approved buyer.
    (g) Fostering Innovation & Competition. For more than two decades, 
the Commission has examined difficult issues at the intersection of 
antitrust and intellectual property law--issues related to innovation, 
standard-setting, and patents. The Commission's work in this area is 
grounded in the recognition that intellectual property and competition 
laws share the fundamental goals of promoting innovation and consumer 
welfare. The Commission has authored several seminal reports on 
competition and patent law and conducted workshops to learn more about 
emerging practices and trends.
    For instance, the FTC and DOJ held a joint workshop in December 
2012 to explore the impact of patent assertion entity (PAE) activities 
\15\ and encouraged efforts of the Patent Trade Office to provide the 
public with more complete information regarding patent ownership.\16\ 
The FTC and DOJ also received public comments in conjunction with the 
workshop. While workshop panelists and commenters identified potential 
harms and efficiencies of PAE activity, they noted a lack of empirical 
data in this area and recommended that FTC use its authority under 
Section 6(b) of the Federal Trade Commission Act. After public notice 
and comment, on August 8, 2014, the Commission received authority from 
the Office of Management and Budget to issue compulsory process orders 
to PAEs and other industry participants for the purpose of gathering 
information to examine how PAEs do business and develop a better 
understanding of how they impact innovation and competition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See press release ``Federal Trade Commission, Department of 
Justice to Hold Workshop on Patent Assertion Entity Activities'' 
dated November 19, 2012, at http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2012/11/paeworkshop.shtm.
    \16\ See Comments of the Antitrust Division of the United States 
Department of Justice And the United States Federal Trade 
Commission, February 1, 2013, Before the United States Department of 
Commerce Patent and Trademark Office, In the Matter of Notice of 
Roundtable on Proposed Requirements for Recordation of Real-Party-
in-Interest Information Throughout Application Pendency and Patent 
Term, Docket No. PTO-P-2012-0047, at http://www.ftc.gov/os/2013/02/130201pto-rpi-comment.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (h) Alcohol Advertising. On February 1, 2012, the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) gave the Commission

[[Page 76662]]

approval, under the Paperwork Reduction Act, to issue compulsory 
process orders to up to 14 alcohol companies. On April 16, 2012, the 
Commission issued the orders, seeking information on company brands, 
sales, and marketing expenses; compliance with advertising placement 
codes; and use of social media and other digital marketing.\17\ On 
March 20, 2014, the Commission released a report, setting forth the 
results of its study.\18\ The Commission also continues to promote the 
``We Don't Serve Teens'' consumer education program, supporting the 
legal drinking age.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ A copy of the order, a list of the target companies, and 
the press release are available online at http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2012/04/alcoholstudy.shtm.
    \18\ See Self-Regulation in the Alcohol Industry (March 2014), 
available at http://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/reports/self-regulation-alcohol-industry-report-federal-trade-commission/140320alcoholreport.pdf.
    \19\ More information can be found at http://www.dontserveteens.gov/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (i) Gasoline Prices. Given the impact of energy prices on consumer 
budgets, the energy sector continues to be a major focus of FTC law 
enforcement and study. In November 2009, the FTC's Petroleum Market 
Manipulation Rule became final.\20\ Our staff continues to examine all 
communications from the public about potential violations of this Rule, 
which prohibits manipulation in wholesale markets for crude oil, 
gasoline, and petroleum distillates. Other activities complement these 
efforts, including merger enforcement and an agreement with the 
Commodity Futures Trading Commission to share investigative 
information. In view of the fundamental importance of oil, natural gas, 
and other energy resources to the overall vitality of the United States 
and world economy, we expect that FTC review and oversight of the oil 
and natural gas industries will remain a centerpiece of our work for 
years to come.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 16 CFR part 317; See press release: ``New FTC Rule 
Prohibits Petroleum Market Manipulation'' (Aug. 6, 2009), available 
at http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/08/mmr.shtm; ``FTC Issues Compliance 
Guide for Its Petroleum Market Manipulation Regulations,'' News 
Release (Nov. 13, 2009), available at http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/11/mmr.shtm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (j) Fraud Surveys. The FTC's Bureau of Economics (BE) continues to 
conduct fraud surveys and related research on consumer susceptibility 
to fraud. For example, BE conducted an exploratory experimental study 
in a university economics laboratory to see whether we could identify 
characteristics of consumers who might be more likely to fall victim to 
fraud. A second exploratory study of susceptibility to fraud was 
conducted using an Internet panel. The results of that study are 
currently being analyzed. The most recent survey of the incidence of 
consumer fraud was conducted between late November 2011 and early 
February 2012, and a report describing the findings was released in 
April 2013. The results of these efforts may aid the FTC to better 
target its enforcement actions and consumer education initiatives and 
improve future fraud surveys.
    (k) Protecting Consumers from Cross-Border Harm. The FTC continues 
to focus on combatting cross-border violations of law that affect 
consumers. For example, this year the Commission approved fourteen 
settlements with U.S. businesses that had falsely claimed they were 
abiding by an international privacy framework known as the U.S.-
European Union Safe Harbor that enables U.S. companies to transfer 
consumer data from the European Union (EU) to the United States in 
compliance with EU law.\21\ Additionally, the FTC, with the help of 
counterparts in Canada, Slovakia, and Austria, brought an action 
against a notorious multi-million dollar international business 
directory scam in FTC v. Construct Data.\22\ Building on the FTC's work 
with African consumer agencies, the FTC signed a memorandum of 
understanding (MOU) with Nigeria's Consumer Protection Council and its 
Economic and Financial Crimes Commission.\23\ It is the first FTC MOU 
of this kind to include a foreign criminal enforcement authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See press release ``FTC Approves Final Orders Settling 
Charges of U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Violations Against 14 Companies'' 
dated June 25, 2014, at http://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2014/06/ftc-approves-final-orders-settling-charges-us-eu-safe-harbor.
    \22\ FTC v. Construct Data Publishers, a.s. d/b/a Fair Guide, 
Civil Action Number: 13 cv 1999 (N.D. Ill.) Default Judgment and 
Order for Permanent Injunction and Other Equitable Relief Against 
Construct Data Publishers A.S., Wolfgang Valvoda, and Susanne Anhorn 
(March 7, 2014).
    \23\ See press release ``FTC Signs Memorandum of Understanding 
with Nigerian Consumer Protection and Criminal Enforcement 
Authorities'' dated August 28, 2013, at http://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2013/08/ftc-signs-memorandum-understanding-nigerian-consumer-protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FTC strives to promote sound approaches to common problems by 
building relationships with sister agencies around the world. With over 
130 jurisdictions enforcing competition laws, the FTC continues to lead 
efforts to develop strong mutual enforcement cooperation and sound 
policy with its international partners. We continue to strengthen 
cooperation and coordination with agencies to reach compatible results 
on cases of mutual interest, such as Thermo Fisher/Life Technologies, 
in which the FTC recently cooperated with antitrust agencies in nine 
jurisdictions to reach consistent results.\24\ We also work to develop 
improved tools to facilitate cooperation. This year, FTC and Department 
of Justice Antitrust Division staff jointly released a model waiver of 
confidentiality that is designed to streamline the waiver negotiation 
process, facilitating deeper communication between cooperating 
agencies.\25\ During the past year the FTC held bilateral meetings with 
key partners, including competition agencies in the EU, Canada, Mexico, 
Japan, China and India, and continued to play a lead role in the 
International Competition Network, including co-leading the Agency 
Effectiveness Working Group and its Investigative Process Project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See press release ``FTC Puts Conditions on Thermo Fisher 
Scientific Inc.'s Proposed Acquisition of Life Technologies 
Corporation'' dated January 31, 2014, at http://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2014/01/ftc-puts-conditions-thermo-fisher-scientific-incs-proposed.
    \25\ See press release ``Federal Trade Commission and Justice 
Department Issue Updated Model Waiver of Confidentiality for 
International Civil Matters and Accompanying FAQ'' dated September 
25, 2013, at http://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2013/09/federal-trade-commission-and-justice-department-issue-updated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (l) Self-Regulatory and Compliance Initiatives With Industry. The 
Commission continues to engage industry in compliance partnerships in 
the funeral and franchise industries. Specifically, the Commission's 
Funeral Rule Offender Program, conducted in partnership with the 
National Funeral Directors Association, is designed to educate funeral 
home operators found in violation of the requirements of the Funeral 
Rule, 16 CFR 453, so that they can meet the rule's disclosure 
requirements. Almost 460 funeral homes have participated in the program 
since its inception in 1996. In addition, the Commission established 
the Franchise Rule Alternative Law Enforcement Program in partnership 
with the International Franchise Association (IFA), a nonprofit 
organization that represents both franchisors and franchisees. This 
program is designed to assist franchisors found to have a minor or 
technical violation of the Franchise Rule, 16 CFR 436, in complying 
with the rule. Violations involving fraud or other section 5 violations 
are not candidates for referral to the program. The IFA teaches the 
franchisor how to comply with the rule and monitors its business for a 
period of years. Where appropriate, the program offers franchisees the 
opportunity to mediate claims arising from the law violations. Since 
December

[[Page 76663]]

1998, 21 companies have agreed to participate in the program.
Rulemakings and Studies Required by Statute
    Congress has enacted laws requiring the Commission to undertake 
rulemakings and studies. This section discusses required rules and 
studies. The final actions section below describes actions taken on the 
required rulemakings and studies since the 2013 Regulatory Plan was 
published.
    FACTA Rules. The Commission has issued all of the rules required by 
FACTA (Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act). These rules are 
codified in several parts of 16 CFR 602 et seq., amending or 
supplementing regulations relating to the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
    FACTA Studies. On March 27, 2009, the Commission issued compulsory 
information requests to the nine largest private providers of homeowner 
insurance in the nation. The purpose was to help the FTC collect data 
for its study on the effects of credit-based scores in the homeowner 
insurance market, a study mandated by section 215 of the FACTA. During 
the summer of 2009, these nine insurers submitted responses to the 
Commission's requests. FTC staff has reviewed the large policy-level 
data files included in these submissions and has identified a sample 
set of data to be used for the study. The insurance companies then 
worked with their vendor to ensure the security of delivering the data 
set to the FTC's own and separate vendor. That data was sent to the 
FTC's vendor, which then sent the data, stripped of any personally 
identifiable information, to the FTC. The FTC's vendor also sent other 
data to the Social Security Administration (SSA), which will provide 
the FTC with additional data for the Report. The FTC hopes to receive 
the SSA data soon. Staff expects the Report will be submitted to 
Congress during the spring of 2015. This study is not affected by the 
Consumer Financial Protection Act.
    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 participants 
who identified a potentially material error on their report were 
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 scores. For five percent of consumers, the 
errors on their credit reports 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.
Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations
    In 1992, the Commission implemented a program to review its rules 
and guides regularly. The Commission's review program is patterned 
after provisions in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612. 
Under the Commission's program, rules are reviewed on a 10-year 
schedule. For many rules, this has resulted in more frequent reviews 
than are 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 or 
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 long-standing 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 20 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 http://www.ftc.gov/regreview that serves as a one-stop shop for the public to obtain 
information and provide comments on individual rules and guides under 
review as well as the Commission's regulatory review program generally.
    In addition, the Commission's 10-year periodic review schedule 
includes initiating reviews for the following rules and guides (79 FR 
14199, March 13, 2014) during 2014 and 2015:
    (1) Standards for Safeguarding Customer Information, 16 CFR 314,
    (2) Contact Lens Rule, 16 CFR 315,
    (3) CAN-SPAM Rule, 16 CFR 316, and
    (4) Ophthalmic Practice Rules (Eyeglass Rule), 16 CFR 456.
    As set out below under Ongoing Rule and Guide Reviews, the 
Commission recently initiated reviews of the Telemarketing Sales Rule 
(TSR), 16 CFR 308, and the Hobby Rules, 16 CFR 304.

Ongoing Rule and Guide Reviews

    The Commission is continuing review of a number of rules and 
guides, which are discussed below.
(a) Rules
    Premerger Notification Rules and Report Form (or HSR Rules), 16 CFR 
801-803. The Premerger Office is considering recommending amendments to 
the HSR Rules regarding standards for the valuation of potentially 
reportable transactions, regarding the instructions to the HSR Form to 
update information related to NAICS (North American Industry 
Classification System) codes, recent rule changes, and a change of 
address for delivery of filings to the FTC Premerger Office. The 
proposed amendments may be issued during the first quarter of 2015. The 
Premerger Office is also considering amendments to the Instructions to 
the HSR Form to update information related to NAICS codes and

[[Page 76664]]

recent rule changes and allow the submission of filings on electronic 
media.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See Final Actions for information about a separate final 
rule proceeding for HSR Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Fuel Rating Rule, 16 CFR 306. First issued in 1979, the Fuel Rating 
Rule (or Automotive Fuel Ratings, Certification and Posting Rule) 
enables consumers to buy gasoline with an appropriate octane rating for 
their vehicle and establishes standard procedures for determining, 
certifying, and posting octane ratings. On March 27, 2014, the 
Commission proposed amendments to the Rule that would adopt and revise 
rating, certification, and labeling requirements for blends of gasoline 
with more than 10 percent ethanol and would allow an alternative octane 
rating method that would lower compliance costs. 79 FR 18850. The 
comment period closed on July 2, 2014. Staff is reviewing comments and 
anticipates sending a recommendation to the Commission by the end of 
the first quarter of 2015.
    Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR), 16 CFR 308. Anti-Fraud Provisions--
Commission staff are considering proposed ``Anti-Fraud'' amendments to 
the TSR concerning, among other things, the misuse of novel payment 
methods by telemarketers and sellers. On May 21, 2013, the Commission 
issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (``NPRM''), which was published 
in the Federal Register on July 9, 2013. 78 FR 41200. After a short 
extension, the comment period closed on August 8, 2013. Commission 
staff is reviewing the comments submitted in response to the NPRM, and 
anticipates making a recommendation to the Commission by the end of 
2014.
    Periodic Rule Review--On August 11, 2014, Commission initiated 
periodic review of the TSR as set out on the 10-year review schedule. 
79 FR 46732. The comment period as extended will close on November 13, 
2014. 79 FR 61267 (Oct. 10, 2014).
    Hobby Rules, 16 CFR 304. As part of the systematic rule review 
process, on July 14, 2014, the Commission requested public comments on, 
among other things, the economic impact and benefits of the Hobby Rules 
(Rules and Regulations under the Hobby Protection Act); possible 
conflict between the Rules and State, local, or other Federal laws or 
regulations; and the effect on the Rules of any technological, 
economic, or other industry changes. 79 FR 40691. The comment period 
closed on September 22, 2014. The Hobby Protection Act, 16 U.S.C. 2101-
2106, prohibits manufacturing or importing imitation numismatic and 
collectible political items unless they are marked in accordance with 
regulations prescribed by the Federal Trade Commission. The 
implementing Rules prescribe that imitation political items--such as 
buttons, posters or coffee mugs--must be marked with the calendar year 
in which they were manufactured, and imitation numismatic items--
including coins, tokens and paper money--must be marked with the word 
``copy.'' Staff anticipates sending a recommendation to the Commission 
by May 2015.
    The Fair Packaging and Labeling Act (``FPLA'') Rules, 16 CFR 500-
502. The FPLA requires consumer commodities to be marked with 
statements of: (1) Identity; (2) net quantity of contents; and (3) name 
and place of the business of manufacturer, packer, or distributor. 
These requirements serve FPLA's stated purpose of ``enabling consumers 
to obtain accurate information as to the quantity of the contents and . 
. . to facilitate value comparisons.'' As part of its ongoing 
systematic review process, the Commission requested comments on March 
19, 2014, regarding, among other things, the economic impact and 
benefits of the FPLA Rules; possible conflict between the Rules and 
State, local, or other Federal laws or regulations; and the effect on 
the Rules of any technological, economic, or other industry changes. 
The comment period closed on May 21, 2014. Staff is reviewing the 
comments and anticipates forwarding a recommendation to the Commission 
by the end of 2014.
    Care Labeling Rule, 16 CFR 423. Promulgated in 1971, the Rule on 
Care Labeling of Textile Apparel and Certain Piece Goods as Amended 
(the Care Labeling Rule) makes it an unfair or deceptive act or 
practice for manufacturers and importers of textile wearing apparel and 
certain piece goods to sell these items without attaching care labels 
stating ``what regular care is needed for the ordinary use of the 
product.'' The Rule also requires that the manufacturer or importer 
possess, prior to sale, a reasonable basis for the care instructions 
and allows the use of approved care symbols in lieu of words to 
disclose care instructions. After reviewing the comments from a 
periodic rule review (76 FR 41148; July 13, 2011), the Commission 
concluded on September 20, 2012, that the Rule continued to benefit 
consumers and would be retained, and sought comments on potential 
updates to the Rule, including changes that would: Allow garment 
manufacturers and marketers to include instructions for professional 
wetcleaning on labels; permit the use of ASTM Standard D5489-07, 
``Standard Guide for Care Symbols for Care Instructions on Textile 
Products,'' or ISO 3758:2005(E), ``Textiles--Care labeling code using 
symbols,'' in lieu of terms; clarify what can constitute a reasonable 
basis for care instructions; and update the definition of ``dryclean.'' 
77 FR 58338. On March 28, 2014, the Commission hosted a public 
roundtable in Washington, DC, that analyzed proposed changes to the 
Rule. Staff anticipates forwarding a recommendation to the Commission 
action during early 2015.
    Used Car Rule, 16 CFR 455. The Used Motor Vehicle Trade Regulation 
Rule (``Used Car Rule''), 16 CFR 455, sets out the general duties of a 
used vehicle dealer; requires that a completed Buyers Guide be posted 
at all times on the side window of each used car a dealer offers for 
sale; and mandates disclosure of whether the vehicle is covered by a 
dealer warranty and, if so, the type and duration of the warranty 
coverage, or whether the vehicle is being sold ``as is-no warranty.'' 
The Commission published a notice seeking public comments on the 
effectiveness and impact of the rule. See 73 FR 42285 (July 21, 2008). 
The comment period, as extended and then reopened, ended on June 15, 
2009. In response to comments, the Commission published a Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking on December 17, 2012 (See 77 FR 74746) and a final 
rule revising the Spanish translation of the window form on December 
12, 2012. See 77 FR 73912. The extended comment period on the NPRM 
ended on March 13, 2012. The Commission is currently considering 
staff's recommendation relating to the next step in this rulemaking.
    Consumer Warranty Rules, 16 CFR 701-703. The Rule Governing the 
Disclosure of Written Consumer Product Warranty Terms and Conditions 
(Rule 701) establishes requirements for warrantors for disclosing the 
terms and conditions of written warranties on consumer products 
actually costing the consumer more than $15.00. The Rule Governing the 
Pre-Sale Availability of Written Warranty Terms, 16 CFR part 702 (Rule 
702) requires sellers and warrantors to make the terms of a written 
warranty available to the consumer prior to sale. The Rule Governing 
Informal Dispute Settlement Procedures (IDSM) (Rule 703) establishes 
minimum requirements for those informal dispute settlement mechanisms 
that are incorporated by the warrantor into its consumer product 
warranty. By incorporating the IDSM into the warranty, the warrantor 
requires the consumer to use the IDSM before pursuing any legal 
remedies in

[[Page 76665]]

court. On August 23, 2011, as part of its ongoing systematic review of 
all FTC rules and guides, the Commission requested comments on, among 
other things, the economic impact and benefits of these Rules, Guides, 
and Interpretations; \27\ possible conflict between the Rules, Guides, 
and Interpretations and state, local, or other federal laws or 
regulations; and the effect on the Rules, Guides, and Interpretations 
of any technological, economic, or other industry changes. See 76 FR 
52596. The comment period closed on October 24, 2011. Staff anticipates 
sending a recommendation to the Commission by the fall of 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ The Federal Register Notice also announced the review of 
the related Guides for the Advertising of Warranties and Guarantees, 
16 CFR 239, and the Interpretations of Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 
16 CFR 700.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Cooling-Off Rule, 16 CFR 429. The Cooling-Off Rule requires that a 
consumer be given a 3-day right to cancel certain sales greater than 
$25.00 that occur at a place other than a seller's place of business. 
The rule also requires a seller to notify buyers orally of the right to 
cancel, to provide buyers with a dated receipt or copy of the contract 
containing the name and address of the seller and notice of 
cancellation rights, and to provide buyers with forms which buyers may 
use to cancel the contract. As part of its systematic regulatory review 
process and following public comment, the Commission announced that it 
was retaining the Cooling-Off Rule and proposed increasing its $25 
exclusionary limit to $130 to account for inflation. 78 FR 3855 (Jan. 
17, 2013). The comment period closed on March 4, 2013. Staff reviewed 
the comments, and the Commission is currently reviewing its 
recommendation.
    Unavailability Rule, 16 CFR 424. The Unavailability Rule states 
that it is a violation of section 5 of the FTC Act for retail stores of 
food, groceries, or other merchandise to advertise products for sale at 
a stated price if those stores do not have the advertised products in 
stock and readily available to customers during the effective period of 
the advertisement, unless the advertisement clearly discloses that 
supplies of the advertised products are limited or are available only 
at some outlets. This Rule is intended to benefit consumers by ensuring 
that advertised items are available, that advertising-induced 
purchasing trips are not fruitless, and that store prices accurately 
reflect the prices appearing in the ads. On August 12, 2011, the 
Commission announced an ANPRM and a request for comment on the Rule as 
part of its systematic periodic review of current rules. The comment 
period closed on October 19, 2011. Staff has reviewed the comments and 
expects to submit a recommendation to the Commission by the winter of 
2015.
(b) Guides
    Jewelry Guides, 16 CFR 23. The Commission sought public comments on 
its Guides for the Jewelry, Precious Metals, and Pewter Industries, 
which are commonly known as the Jewelry Guides. 77 FR 39202 (July 2, 
2012). Since completing its last review of the Jewelry Guides in 1996, 
the Commission revised sections of the Guides and addressed other 
issues raised in petitions from jewelry trade associations. The Guides 
explain to businesses how to avoid making deceptive claims about 
precious metal, pewter, diamond, gemstone, and pearl products and when 
they should make disclosures to avoid unfair or deceptive trade 
practices. The comment period initially set to close on August 27, 
2012, was subsequently extended until September 28, 2012. Staff also 
conducted a public roundtable to examine possible modifications to the 
Guides in June 2013. Staff is currently reviewing the record, including 
comments and the roundtable transcript.
    Used Auto Parts Guides, 16 CFR 20. On July 14, 2014, the Commission 
completed its review of the Guides for the Rebuilt, Reconditioned and 
Other Used Automobile Parts Industry (Used Auto Parts Guides or 
Guides), which are designed to prevent the unfair or deceptive 
marketing of used motor vehicle parts and assemblies, such as engines 
and transmissions, containing used parts. 79 FR 40623. 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. In May 2012, the Commission sought public comments on the Used 
Auto Parts Guides. 77 FR 29922. After considering the comments, the 
Commission decided to retain and amend the Guides. Significant 
amendments include providing that the term ``remanufactured,'' like the 
term ``factory rebuilt,'' should be used only if the product was 
rebuilt ``at a factory generally engaged in the rebuilding of such 
products;'' applying the Guides to used tires; and shortening and 
updating the sample list of parts that may be industry products.
Final Actions
    Since the publication of the 2013 Regulatory Plan, the Commission 
has issued the following final rules or taken other actions to close 
other rulemaking proceedings.
    Mail or Telephone Order Merchandise Rule, 16 CFR 435. The Mail or 
Telephone Order Rule requires that, when sellers advertise merchandise, 
they must have a reasonable basis for stating or implying that they can 
ship within a certain time. On September 11, 2014, the Commission 
announced it was adopting final amendments to its Trade Regulation Rule 
previously entitled ``Mail or Telephone Order Merchandise,'' including 
revising its name to ``Mail, Internet, or Telephone Order Merchandise'' 
(the ``Rule''). 79 FR 55615 (Sept. 17, 2014). The final rule is based 
upon the comments received in response to an Advance Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, a Staff Report, and other 
information. Other final amendments clarify that the Rule covers all 
orders placed over the Internet; revise the Rule to allow sellers to 
provide refunds and refund notices by any means at least as fast and 
reliable as first class mail; clarify sellers' obligations when buyers 
use payment systems not enumerated in the Rule; and require that 
refunds be made within seven working days for purchases made using 
third-party credit cards. The final rule is effective on December 8, 
2014.
    Wool Rules, 16 CFR 300. On June 4, 2014, the Commission amended the 
Wool Rules (Rules and Regulations Under The Wool Products Labeling Act 
of 1939) to conform to the 2006 amendments to the Wool Suit Fabric 
Labeling Fairness and International Standards Conforming Act (the Wool 
Act) and the amended Textile Rules. The changes included incorporating 
the Wool Act's new definitions for cashmere and very fine wools, 
clarifying descriptions of products containing virgin or new wool, and 
allowing certain hang-tags disclosing fiber trademarks and performance 
even if they do not disclose the product's full fiber content. The 
amended Rules were effective on July 7, 2014.
    Fur Rules, 16 CFR 301. The Commission published amendments to the 
Fur Rules (or Rules and Regulations under the Fur Products Labeling 
Act) on May 28, 2014, to update the Fur Products Name Guide, provide 
more labeling flexibility, incorporate Truth in Fur Labeling Act 
provisions, and conform the guaranty provisions to those governing the 
Rules under the Textile Fiber Products Identification

[[Page 76666]]

Act. 79 FR 30445. The amendments are effective November 19, 2014. More 
specifically, the changes eliminate unnecessary requirements on 
companies that sell fur products to give them more flexibility on 
labeling, update the Fur Products Name Guide that lists common animal 
names allowed on fur labels, incorporate provisions of a fur labeling 
law passed by Congress in 2010, the Truth in Fur Labeling Act of 2010 
(``TFLA''), including the elimination of the Commission's discretion to 
exempt fur products of ``relatively small quantity or value'' from 
disclosure requirements; and providing that the Fur Act would not apply 
to products covered by the hunter/trapper exemption.
    Textile Labeling Rules, 16 CFR 303. These Rules implement Textile 
Fiber Identification Act requirements that apparel and other covered 
household textile articles be marked with (1) the generic names and 
percentages by weight of the constituent fibers present in the textile 
fiber product; (2) the name under which the manufacturer or another 
responsible USA company does business, or in lieu thereof, the 
registered identification number (RIN) of such a company; and (3) the 
name of the country where the textile product was processed or 
manufactured. After notice and comment, the Commission amended the 
Rules on April 4, 2014, to clarify and update its provisions and 
provide more flexibility, giving businesses more compliance options 
without imposing significant new obligations. 79 FR 18766.
    Premerger Notification Rules and Report Form (or HSR Rules), 16 CFR 
801-803. On April 25, 2014, the Commission, in conjunction with the 
Department of Justice's Antitrust Division, issued amendments to the 
HSR Rules, updating the Instructions to the HSR Form with the address 
for the Premerger Office's new location in the Constitution Center. The 
effective date of the new address was May 6, 2014. 79 FR 25662.
    Prenotification Negative Option Rule, 16 CFR 425. On July 25, 2014, 
the Commission announced it was closing the periodic Regulatory Review 
and retaining the Negative Option Rule (the Trade Regulation Rule on 
Prenotification Negative Option Plans) as currently written. 79 FR 
44271 (July 31, 2014). The Negative Option Rule governs the operation 
of prenotification subscription plans. Under these plans, sellers ship 
merchandise automatically to their subscribers and bill them for the 
merchandise within a prescribed time. The Negative Option Rule protects 
consumers by requiring the disclosure of the terms of membership 
clearly and conspicuously and establishes procedures for administering 
the subscription plans.
    Energy Labeling Rule, 16 CFR 305. On April 9, 2014, the Commission 
issued conforming amendments to the Rule requiring a new Department of 
Energy (``DOE'') test procedure for televisions and establishing data 
reporting requirements for those products. 79 FR 19464.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See Ongoing Rule and Guide Reviews for information about a 
separate ongoing rulemaking proceeding for the Energy Labeling Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Telemarketing Sales Rule, 16 CFR 310. Caller ID--After reviewing 
the public comments elicited by an Advance Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, 75 FR 78179 (Dec. 15, 2010) seeking suggestions on ways to 
enhance the effectiveness and enforceability of the caller 
identification (``Caller ID'') requirements of the TSR as well as 
technical presentations at the FTC's 2012 Robocall Summit, the 
Commission determined that amending the TSR would not reduce the 
incidence of the falsification, or ``spoofing,'' of Caller ID 
information in telemarketing calls. The Commission issued a Federal 
Register Notice closing this proceeding, effective December 5, 2013. 78 
FR 77024 (Dec. 20, 2014).
    Fred Meyer Guides, 16 CFR 240. On September 18, 2014, the 
Commission completed its review of the Fred Meyer Guides (officially 
the Guides for Advertising Allowances and Other Merchandising Payments 
and Services) and is retaining the Guides with updates that, among 
other revisions, clarify that the Guides apply to Internet commerce and 
bring the Guides into conformity with current case law regarding the 
applicability of Sections 2(d) and (e) of the Robinson-Patman Act to 
knowing inducement of disproportional promotional allowances. 79 FR 
58245 (Sept. 29, 2014). The Guides assist businesses in complying with 
sections 2(d) and 2(e) of the Robinson-Patman Act, which proscribe 
certain discriminations in the provision of promotional allowances and 
services to customers. Broadly put, the Guides provide that unlawful 
discrimination may be avoided by providing promotional allowances and 
services to customers on ``proportionally equal terms.''
    Vocational Schools Guides, 16 CFR 254. On November 18, 2013, the 
Commission amended the Vocational Schools Guides (or the Private 
Vocational and Distance Education Schools Guides) to address more 
specifically misrepresentations commonly used in recruitment, including 
those regarding completion/dropout rates and post-graduation job 
prospects; about whether completion of a program will qualify students 
to take a licensing exam; concerning a student's score on an admissions 
test, how long it takes to complete a course or program, or a student's 
likelihood of success; and regarding the likelihood of financial aid or 
help with language barriers or learning disabilities, or how much 
credit students will receive for courses completed elsewhere. 78 FR 
68987. The Vocational School Guides address marketing practices by 
businesses that offer vocational training.
Summary
    In both content and process, the FTC's ongoing and proposed 
regulatory actions are consistent with the President's priorities. The 
actions under consideration inform and protect consumers, while 
minimizing the regulatory burdens on businesses. The Commission will 
continue working toward these goals. The Commission's 10-year review 
program is patterned after provisions in the Regulatory Flexibility Act 
and complies with the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness 
Act of 1996. The Commission's 10-year program also is consistent with 
section 5(a) of Executive Order 12866, which directs executive branch 
agencies to develop a plan to reevaluate periodically all of their 
significant existing regulations. 58 FR 51735 (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, inter alia, required by law 
or are made necessary by compelling public need, such as material 
failures of private markets to protect or improve the health and safety 
of the public.
    The Commission continues to identify and weigh the costs and 
benefits of proposed actions and possible alternative actions and to 
receive the broadest practicable array of comment from affected 
consumers, businesses, and the public at large. In sum, the 
Commission's regulatory actions are aimed at efficiently and fairly 
promoting the ability of ``private markets to protect or improve the 
health and safety of the public, the environment, or the well-being of 
the American people.'' Executive Order 12866, section 1.

II. Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions

    The Commission has no proposed rules that would be a ``significant

[[Page 76667]]

regulatory action'' under the definition in Executive Order 12866.\29\ 
The Commission has no proposed rules that would have significant 
international impacts under the definition in Executive Order 13609. 
Also, there are no international regulatory cooperation activities that 
are reasonably anticipated to lead to significant regulations under 
Executive Order 13609.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a regulatory 
action to be ``significant'' if it is likely to result in a rule 
that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more 
or adversely affect in a material way the economy; a sector of the 
economy; productivity; competition; jobs; the environment; public 
health or safety; or State, local, or tribal governments or 
communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with 
an action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, 
grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations 
of recipients thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
this Executive order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

BILLING CODE 6750-01-P

NATIONAL INDIAN GAMING COMMISSION (NIGC)

Statement of Regulatory Priorities

    In 1988, Congress adopted the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) 
(Pub L. 100-497, 102 Stat. 2475) with a primary purpose of providing 
``a statutory basis for the operation of gaming by Indian tribes as a 
means of promoting tribal economic development, self-sufficiency, and 
strong tribal governments.'' IGRA established the National Indian 
Gaming Commission (NIGC or the Commission) to protect such gaming, 
amongst other things, as a means of generating tribal revenue.
    At its core, Indian gaming is a function of sovereignty exercised 
by tribal governments. In addition, the Federal government maintains a 
government-to-government relationship with the tribes--a responsibility 
of the NIGC. Thus, while the Agency is committed to strong regulation 
of Indian gaming, the Commission is equally committed to strengthening 
government-to-government relations by engaging in meaningful 
consultation with tribes to fulfill IGRA's intent. The NIGC's vision is 
to adhere to principles of good government, including transparency to 
promote agency accountability and fiscal responsibility, to operate 
consistently to ensure fairness and clarity in the administration of 
IGRA, and to respect the responsibilities of each sovereign in order to 
fully promote tribal economic development, self-sufficiency, and strong 
tribal governments. The NIGC is fully committed to working with tribes 
to ensure the integrity of the industry by exercising its regulatory 
responsibilities through technical assistance, compliance, and 
enforcement activities.
Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations
    As an independent regulatory agency, the NIGC has been performing a 
retrospective review of its existing regulations well before Executive 
Order 13579 was issued on July 11, 2011. The NIGC, however, recognizes 
the importance of Executive Order 13579 and its regulatory review is 
being conducted in the spirit of Executive Order 13579, to identify 
those regulations that may be outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or 
excessively burdensome and to modify, streamline, expand, or repeal 
them in accordance with input from the public. In addition, as required 
by Executive Order 13175, the Commission has been conducting 
government-to-government consultations with tribes regarding each 
regulation's relevancy, consistency in application, and limitations or 
barriers to implementation, based on the tribes' experiences. The 
consultation process is also intended to result in the identification 
of areas for improvement and needed amendments, if any, new 
regulations, and the possible repeal of outdated regulations.
    The following Regulatory Identifier Numbers (RINs) have been 
identified as associated with the review:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             RIN                                 Title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3141-AA32...................  Amendment of Definitions.
3141-AA55...................  Minimum Internal Control Standards.
3141-AA58...................  Amendment of Approval of Management
                               Contracts.
3141-AA60...................  Class II Minimum Internal Control
                               Standards.
3143-AA61...................  Self-Regulation of Class II Gaming.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    More specifically, 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; (iii) updates or revisions to its 
management contract regulations to address the current state of the 
industry; (iv) updates and revisions to its Self-Regulation of Class II 
Gaming regulations; and (v) the review and revision of the minimum 
internal control standards for Class II gaming. The NIGC anticipates 
that the ongoing consultations with regulated tribes will continue to 
play an important role in the development of the NIGC's rulemaking 
efforts.
BILLING CODE 7565-01-P

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'S FISCAL YEAR 2014 REGULATORY PLAN

A. Statement of Regulatory Priorities

    Under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 
and the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, the U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulates the possession and use of source, 
byproduct, and special nuclear material. The NRC's regulatory mission 
is to 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. As part of its mission, 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

[[Page 76668]]

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: (1) The major 
rules that the NRC expects to publish in final form in fiscal year (FY) 
2014 and FY 2015; (2) the other significant rulemakings that the NRC 
expects to publish in final form in FY 2014; and (3) the other 
significant rulemakings that the NRC expects to publish in final form 
in FY 2015 and beyond. For each rule and rulemaking, the NRC is 
including a citation to an applicable Federal Register notice, which 
provides further information, a summary of the legal basis for the rule 
or rulemaking, an explanation of why the NRC is pursuing the rule or 
rulemaking, the rulemaking's schedule, and contact information.

B.1. Major Rules (FY 2014)

    The NRC will have published one major rule in final form by the end 
of FY 2014.
Revision of Fee Schedules; Fee Recovery for FY 2014 (Regulation 
Identifier Number (RIN) 3150-AJ32)
    Through this rule, the NRC will amend the licensing, inspection, 
and annual fees charged to its applicants and licensees. The amendments 
are necessary to implement the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 
1990, as amended, which requires the NRC to recover through fees 
approximately 90 percent of its budget authority in FY 2014, not 
including amounts appropriated for Waste Incidental to Reprocessing and 
amounts appropriated for generic homeland security activities. These 
fees represent the cost of the NRC's services provided to applicants 
and licensees. The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register 
(FR) on April 14, 2014 (79 FR 21036), and the comment period ended on 
May 14, 2014.

B.2. Major Rules (FY 2015)

    The NRC anticipates publishing one major rule in final form in FY 
2015.
    Revision of Fee Schedules; Fee Recovery for FY 2015--The NRC will 
update its requirement to recover approximately 90 percent of its 
budget authority in FY 2015.

C.1. Other Significant Rulemakings (FY 2014)

    The NRC has published four other significant rulemakings in final 
form in FY 2014. All four rules update the NRC's list of approved spent 
fuel storage casks to include amendments to Certificates of Compliance 
(CoC). Final rules were published in the FR as follows:
    Transnuclear, Inc. Standardized NUHOMS[supreg] Cask System; 
Amendment No. 11 to CoC No. 1004 (RIN 3150-AJ10), was published on 
December 27, 2013 (78 FR 78693), and effective on January 7, 2014.
    HI-STORM 100 Cask System; Amendment No. 9 to CoC No. 1014 (RIN 
3150-AJ12), was published on December 26, 2013 (78 FR 78165), and 
effective on March 11, 2014.
    Transnuclear, Inc. Standardized NUHOMS[supreg] Cask System; 
Amendment No. 13 to CoC No. 1004 (RIN 3150-AJ28), was published on 
March 10, 2014 (79 FR 13192). The final rule will be effective on May 
24, 2014.
    Transnuclear, Inc. Standardized Advanced NUHOMS[supreg] Horizontal 
Modular Storage System; Amendment No. 3 to CoC No. 1029 (RIN 3150-
AJ31), was published on April 15, 2014 (79 FR 21121). The NRC is in the 
process of considering comments received on this direct final rule.
    The NRC will have published two CoC rules in final form in FY 2014.
    Two CoC Rulemakings (RIN 3150-AJ30; and RIN 3150-AJ39)--These 
rulemakings allow a power reactor licensee to store spent fuel in 
approved cask designs under a general license.

C.2. Other Significant Rulemakings (FY 2015 and Beyond)

    The other significant rulemakings that the NRC anticipates 
publishing in final form in FY 2015 and beyond are listed below. Some 
of these regulatory priorities are a result of recommendations from the 
Fukushima Dai-ichi Near-Term Task Force. In 2011, the NRC established 
this task force 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 (see ``Recommendations for Enhancing Reactor Safety in the 21st 
Century: The Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima 
Dai-ichi Accident,'' dated July 12, 2011 (Agencywide Documents Access 
and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML111861807)).
Station Blackout Mitigation Strategies (RIN 3150-AJ08)
    This rulemaking addresses Fukushima Dai-ichi Near-Term Task Force 
Recommendations 4 and 7. The NRC published a draft regulatory basis for 
public comment in the Federal Register on April 10, 2013 (78 FR 21275), 
supporting the potential amendment of its regulations for nuclear power 
plant licensees and their station blackout mitigation strategies. The 
NRC issued a final regulatory basis for rulemaking in a document 
published in the Federal Register on July 23, 2013 (78 FR 44035).
Performance-Based Emergency Core Cooling System Acceptance Criteria 
(RIN 3150-AH42)
    The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on March 
24, 2014 (79 FR 16106). 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. The proposed rule addresses two petitions 
for rulemaking (PRMs). On April 22, 2014 (79 FR 22456), a document was 
published in the FR extending the comment period until August 21, 2014.
Strengthening and Integrating Onsite Emergency Response Capabilities 
(RIN 3150-AJ11)
    This rulemaking addresses Fukushima Dai-ichi Near-Term Task Force 
Recommendation 8. The draft regulatory basis for this rulemaking was 
published in the FR on January 8, 2013 (78 FR 1154). The NRC solicited 
stakeholder feedback on why the NRC finds rulemaking necessary to 
revise its regulations governing the integration and enhancement of 
requirements for onsite emergency response capabilities. The final 
regulatory basis for this rulemaking was published in the FR on October 
25, 2013 (78 FR 63901). Preliminary proposed rule language was made 
available in a document published in the FR on November 15, 2013 (78 FR 
68774).
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

[[Page 76669]]

Safety Officers, and nuclear pharmacists; and requirements for the 
testing and reporting of failed molybdenum/technetium and rubidium 
generators. This rule would also 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 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 (ADAMS 
Accession No. ML12072A299), 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 10 CFR 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 was published in the FR on February 2, 2011 (76 
FR 6200). A supplemental proposed rule was published in the FR on 
January 10, 2013 (78 FR 2214). This 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.
Cyber Event Notification Rule (RIN 3150-AJ37)
    This rule would establish a new section in 10 CFR part 73, 
``Physical Protection of Plants and Materials,'' for cyber security 
event notifications. This rule was originally proposed as part of the 
Enhanced Weapons rulemaking (RIN 3150-AI49).
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.'' 
Preliminary proposed rule language was made available in a document 
published in the FR on May 3, 2011 (76 FR 24831). The regulatory basis 
for rulemaking was made available in a document published in the FR on 
December 7, 2012 (77 FR 72997). On January 8, 2013 (78 FR 1155), the 
NRC published a document correcting the title and the ADAMS accession 
number of the regulatory basis document referenced in the document that 
was published on December 7, 2012.
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. The regulatory basis was 
published in the FR on July 1, 2013 (78 FR 39190).

NRC

Proposed Rule Stage

159.  Revision of Fee Schedules: Fee Recovery for FY 2015 [NRC-
2014-0200]

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 2201; 42 U.S.C. 5841
    CFR Citation: 10 CFR 170; 10 CFR 171.
    Legal Deadline: NPRM, Statutory, September 30, 2015.
    The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (OBRA-90), as 
amended, requires that the NRC recover approximately 90 percent of its 
budget authority in Fiscal Year (FY) 2015, less the amounts 
appropriated from the Waste Incidental to Reprocessing, and generic 
homeland security activities. The OBRA-90 requires that the fees for FY 
2015, must be collected by September 30, 2015.
    Abstract: This proposed rulemaking would amend the licensing, 
inspection, and annual fees that the Commission charges its applicants 
and licensees. These amendments would implement the Omnibus Budget 
Reconciliation Act of 1990 (OBRA-90) as amended, which requires that 
the NRC recover approximately 90 percent of its budget authority in 
Fiscal Year (FY) 2015, less the amounts appropriated from the Waste 
Incidental to Reprocessing, and generic homeland security activities.
    Statement of Need: This rulemaking would amend the licensing 
inspection, and annual fees charged to the NRC's licensees and 
applicants for an NRC license. The amendments are necessary to recover 
approximately 90 percent of the NRC's budget authority for FY 2015 less 
the amounts appropriated for non-fee items. The OBRA-90, as amended, 
requires that the NRC accomplish the 90 percent recovery through the 
assessment of fees. The NRC assesses two types of fees to recover its 
budget authority. License and inspection fees are assessed under the 
authority of the Independent Offices Appropriation Act of 1952 (IOAA) 
to recover the costs of providing individually identifiable services to 
specific applicants and licensees (10 CFR part 170). IOAA requires that 
the NRC recover the full cost to the NRC of all identifiable regulatory 
services that each applicant or licensee receives. The NRC recovers 
generic and other regulatory costs not recovered from fees imposed 
under 10 CFR part 170 through the assessment of annual fees under the 
authority of OBRA-90 (10 CFR part 171). Annual fee charges are 
consistent with the guidance in the Conference Committee Report on 
OBRA-90. The NRC assesses annual charges under the principle that 
licensees who require the greatest expenditure of the Agency's 
resources should pay the greatest annual fee.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The OBRA-90, as amended, requires that the 
fees for FY 2015 must be collected by September 30, 2015.
    Alternatives: Because this action is mandated by statute and the 
fees must be assessed through rulemaking, the NRC did not consider 
alternatives to this action.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The cost to the NRC's licensees is 
approximately 90 percent of the NRC FY 2015 budget authority less the 
amounts appropriated for non-fee items. The estimated dollar amount to 
be billed to licensees as fees to the NRC's applicants and licensees 
for FY 2015 is approximately $925.2 million.
    Risks: Not applicable.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   03/00/15  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, 
Organizations.

[[Page 76670]]

    Government Levels Affected: Local, State.
    Federalism: Undetermined.
    Agency Contact: Arlette P. Howard, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Office of the Chief Financial Officer, Washington, DC 20555-0001, 
Phone: 301 415-1481, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 3150-AJ44
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION (FAR)

I. Mission and Overview

    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 
Department of Defense (DoD), GSA, and National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration (NASA). The FAR Council formulated a plan for a 
retrospective analysis of existing rules and a paperwork burden plan in 
response to the President's Executive Orders 13563 and 13610. The plan 
conducts a periodic review of existing significant regulations and also 
focuses on reducing the paperwork burdens on small business. The plan 
is located at http://www.acquisition.gov.

II. Statement of Regulatory and Deregulatory Priorities

Federal Acquisition Regulation Priorities

    Specific FAR cases that the FAR Council plans to address in Fiscal 
Year 2015 include:
Regulations of Concern to Small Businesses
    Small Business Subcontracting Improvements--This case implements 
statutory requirements from the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 aimed 
at protecting small business subcontractors and increasing 
subcontracting opportunities for small business. (FAR Case 2014-003)
    Set-Asides under Multiple Award Contracts--This case implements 
statutory requirements from the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 and is 
aimed at providing agencies with clarifying guidance on how to use 
multiple award contracts as a tool to increase Federal contracting 
opportunities for small businesses. (FAR Case 2014-002)
    Payment of Subcontractors--This case implements section 1334 of the 
Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 and the Small Business Administration's 
(SBA) Final Rule 78 FR 42391, Small Business Subcontracting. The rule 
requires prime contractors of contracts requiring a subcontracting plan 
to notify the contracting officer in writing if the prime contractor 
pays a reduced price to a subcontractor or if payment is more than 90 
days past due. A contracting officer will then use his or her best 
judgment in determining whether the late or reduced payment was 
justified and if not the contracting officer will record the identity 
of a prime contractor with a history of unjustified untimely payments 
to subcontractors in the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity 
Information System (FAPIIS) or any successor system. (FAR Case 2014-
004)
    Consolidation of Contract Requirements--This case implements 
section 1313 of the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 and SBA's final 
rule to ensure that decisions made by Federal agencies regarding 
consolidation of contract requirements are made with a view to 
providing small businesses with appropriate opportunities to 
participate as prime and subcontractors. (FAR Case 2014-015)
    Clarification of Requirement for Justifications for 8(a) Sole-
Source Contracts--This case amends the FAR in response to GAO Report to 
the Chairman, Subcommittee on Contracting Oversight, Committee on 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate, entitled 
Federal Contracting: Slow Start to Implementation of Justifications for 
8(a) Sole-Source Contracts (GAO-13-118 dated December 2012). The GAO 
report indicated that the FAR is not clear on whether a justification 
is required and suggested that clarifying guidance is needed to help 
ensure that agencies are applying the justification requirement 
consistently. Based on GAO's recommendation, this case further 
clarifies the processes and procedures in the FAR to ensure uniform, 
consistent, and coherent guidance regarding the use of sole-source 8(a) 
justifications. (FAR Case 2013-018)
    Contracts under the Small Business Administration 8(a) Program--
This case clarifies FAR subpart 19.8, ``Contracting with the Small 
Business Administration (The 8(a) Program).'' Clarifications include 
the evaluation, offering, and acceptance process for requirements under 
the 8(a) program, procedures for acquiring SBA's consent to procure an 
8(a) requirement outside the 8(a) program, and the impact of exiting 
the 8(a) program in terms of the firm's ability to receive future 8(a) 
requirements and its current contractual commitments. (FAR Case 2012-
022)

Regulations Which Promote Fiscal Responsibility

    Notification of Pass-Through Contracts--This case implements 
section 802 of the NDAA for FY 2013. Section 802 requires in those 
instances where an offeror for a contract, task order, or delivery 
order informs the agency pursuant to FAR 52.215-22 of their intention 
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, 
the contracting officer is required to (1) consider the availability of 
alternative contract vehicles and the feasibility of contracting 
directly with a subcontractor or subcontractors that will perform the 
bulk of the work; (2) make a written determination that the contracting 
approach selected is in the best interest of the Government; and (3) 
document the basis for such determination. (FAR Case 2013-012)
    Limitation on Allowable Government Contractor Compensation Costs--
This interim rule implements section 702 of the Bipartisan Budget Act 
of 2013. In accordance with section 702, the interim rule revises the 
allowable cost limit relative to the compensation of contractor and 
subcontractor employees. Also, in accordance with section 702, this 
interim rule implements the possible exception to this allowable cost 
limit for scientists, engineers, or other specialists upon an agency 
determination that such exceptions are needed to ensure that the 
executive agency has continued access to needed skills and 
capabilities. (FAR Case 2014-012)

Regulations Which Promote Ethics and Integrity in Contractor 
Performance

    Information on Corporate Contractor Performance and Integrity--This 
case implements section 852 of the NDAA for FY 2013 (Pub. L. 112-239). 
Section 852 requires that the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity 
Information System (FAPPIIS) include, to the extent practicable, 
identification of any immediate owner or subsidiary, and all 
predecessors of an offeror that held a Federal contract or grant within 
the last three years. The objective is to provide a more comprehensive 
understanding of the performance and integrity of a

[[Page 76671]]

contractor in awarding a Federal contract. (FAR Case 2013-020)
    Trafficking in Persons--This case implements Executive Order 13627, 
and title XVII of the NDAA for FY 2013, to strengthen protections 
against trafficking in persons in Federal contracts. The case creates a 
stronger framework and additional requirements related to awareness, 
compliance, and enforcement. Contractors and subcontractors must 
disclose to employees the key conditions of employment, starting with 
wages and work location. (FAR Case 2013-001)
    Prohibition on Contracting with Corporations with Delinquent Taxes 
or a Felony Conviction--This case implements multiple sections of the 
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (Pub. L. 113-76) to prohibit 
using any of the funds appropriated by the Act to enter into a contract 
with any corporation with a delinquent Federal tax liability or a 
felony conviction. (FAR case 2014-019)
    Prohibition On Contracting with Inverted Domestic Corporations--
This case implements section 733 of Division E of the Consolidated 
Appropriations Act, 2014 (Pub. L. 113-76), which prohibits expenditure 
of appropriated funds for contracts with a foreign incorporated entity 
that is treated as an inverted domestic corporation or any subsidiary 
of such entity. The FAR is being updated to (1) revise the methods used 
to implement the inverted domestic corporation contracting prohibition; 
(2) amend the definition to clarify entities considered to be an 
inverted domestic corporation; (3) revise the representation to require 
two affirmative yes/no representations with respect to inverted 
domestic corporation status; and require a contractor to promptly 
inform the contracting officer, in writing, in the event the contractor 
becomes either an inverted domestic corporation or a subsidiary of an 
inverted domestic corporation during the performance of the contract. 
(FAR Case 2014-017)

Regulations Which Promote Accountability and Transparency

    Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) Code--This case requires 
the use of CAGE codes, an alpha-numeric identifier used extensively 
throughout the Government, for awards valued greater than the 
micropurchase threshold. The case also requires 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 as means of 
promoting increased traceability and transparency. (FAR Case 2012-014)
    Uniform Procurement Identification--This case requires 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)
    Uniform Use of Line Items--This case establishes a requirement for 
use of a standardized uniform line item numbering structure in Federal 
procurement. This case is one component of the effort to implement 
Federal spending data standards in Federal procurement. This effort 
will help improve analysis and management decision that can reduce 
duplication in Federal spending, reduce costs for recipients of Federal 
dollars by reducing variations in standards for reporting and billing 
purposes, and provide greater transparency on outcomes of spending. 
(FAR Case 2013-014)
    Privacy Training--This case creates a FAR clause to require 
contractors that (1) need access to a system of records, (2) handle 
personally identifiable information, or (3) design, develop, maintain, 
or operate a system of records on behalf of the Government have their 
personnel complete privacy training. This addition complies with 
subsections (e) (agency requirements) and (m) (Government contractors) 
of the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a). (FAR Case 2010-013)

Regulations That Promote Protection of Government Information and 
Systems

    Basic Safeguarding of Contractor Information Systems--This case 
amends the FAR to implement procedures for safeguarding contractor 
information systems that contain information provided by or generated 
for the Government. The purpose of these safeguards is to provide the 
Government with the necessary assurance that contractors are taking 
basic security measures on their information systems containing 
Government information. (FAR Case 2011-020)
    Expanded Reporting of Nonconforming Items--This case expands 
Government and contractor requirements for reporting of nonconforming 
items. A nonconforming item includes items that are likely to result in 
failure of the supplies or services, or materially reduces the 
usability of the supplies or services for their intended purpose. It is 
a partial implementation of section 818 of the NDAA for FY 2012. (FAR 
Case 2013-002)
    Higher-Level Contract Quality Requirements--This case clarifies 
when to use higher-level quality standards in solicitations and 
contracts. The rule also updates the examples of higher-level quality 
standards by removing obsolete standards and adding new industry 
standards that pertain to quality assurance for avoidance of 
counterfeit items. (FAR Case 2012-032)

Regulations Which Promote Fair Labor Practices

    Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces--This rule implements Executive Order 
13673, Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces, seeks to increase efficiency in 
the work performed by Federal contractors by ensuring that they 
understand and comply with labor laws designed to promote safe, 
healthy, fair and effective workplaces. (FAR Case 2014-025)
    Minimum wage for contractors--This rule implements Executive Order 
13658, Establishing a Minimum Wage for Contractors, requires agencies, 
to the extent permitted by law, to include a clause in new 
solicitations and resultant contract specifying, as a condition of 
payment, that the minimum wage to be paid to workers, in the 
performance of the contract or any subcontract there under, shall be at 
least $10.10 per hour beginning January 1, 2015.
    Equal Employment and Affirmative Action for Veterans and 
Individuals with Disabilities--This rule implements DOL regulations at 
41 CFR 60-250 and 60-300 designed to promote equal opportunity for 
veterans and individuals with disabilities. (FAR case 2014-013)

Regulations That Promote Environmental Goals

    EPEAT Items--This case expands the Federal requirement to procure 
EPEAT[supreg]-registered products beyond personal computer products to 
cover imaging equipment (i.e., copiers, digital duplicators, facsimile 
machines, mailing machines, multifunction devices, printers, and 
scanners) and televisions and modify the existing FAR requirements to 
recognize the revised standard applicable to computer products. (FAR 
Case 2013-016)
    High Global Warming Potential Hydrofluorocarbons-- This case 
implements the President's Climate Action Plan by setting forth 
policies and procedures for the acquisition of items that contain, use, 
or are manufactured with ozone-depleting substances; or contain or use 
high global warming potential hydrofluorocarbons.

[[Page 76672]]

Contractors shall refer to EPA's Significant New Alternatives Policy 
(SNAP) program (available at http://www.epa.gov/ozone/snap) which has 
additional information and a list of alternatives to ozone-depleting 
substances and lower global warming hydrofluorocarbons. (FAR Case 2014-
026)

    Dated: September 19, 2014
Jeffrey A. Koses,
Senior Procurement Executive/Deputy CAO, Office of Acquisition Policy, 
U.S. General Services Administration.
[FR Doc. 2014-28927 Filed 12-19-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-EP-P