[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