[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 240 (Tuesday, December 15, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 77710-77914]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-30690]



[[Page 77709]]

Vol. 80

Tuesday,

No. 240

December 15, 2015

Part II





Regulatory Information Service Center





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





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

  Federal Register / Vol. 80 , No. 240 / Tuesday, December 15, 2015 / 
Regulatory Plan  

[[Page 77710]]


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

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: Publication of the Unified Agenda of Regulatory and 
Deregulatory Actions and the Regulatory Plan represent key components 
of the regulatory planning mechanism prescribed in Executive Order 
12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR 51735) and 
incorporated in Executive Order 13563, ``Improving Regulation and 
Regulatory Review'' issued on January 18, 2011 (76 FR 3821). The fall 
editions of the Unified Agenda include the agency regulatory plans 
required by E.O. 12866, which identify regulatory priorities and 
provide additional detail about the most important significant 
regulatory actions that agencies expect to take in the coming year.
    In addition, the Regulatory Flexibility Act requires that agencies 
publish semiannual ``regulatory flexibility agendas'' describing 
regulatory actions they are developing that will have significant 
effects on small businesses and other small entities (5 U.S.C. 602).
    The Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions (Unified 
Agenda), published in the fall and spring, helps agencies fulfill all 
of these requirements. All federal regulatory agencies have chosen to 
publish their regulatory agendas as part of this publication. The 
complete Unified Agenda and Regulatory Plan can be found online at 
http://www.reginfo.gov and a reduced print version can be found in the 
Federal Register. Information regarding obtaining printed copies can 
also be found on the Reginfo.gov Web site (or below, VI. How Can Users 
Get Copies of the Plan and the Agenda?).
    The fall 2015 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 2015 Unified Agenda contains the Regulatory Plans 
of 30 Federal agencies and 59 Federal agency regulatory agendas.

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), U.S. 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 2015 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
Federal Acquisition Regulation

Independent Regulatory Agencies

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

AGENCY REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY 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 Housing and Urban Development
Department of the Interior
Department of Justice
Department of Labor
Department of Transportation
Department of the Treasury

Other Executive Agencies

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

Independent Agencies

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Consumer Product Safety Commission
Federal Communication Commission
Federal Reserve System
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Securities and Exchange Commission

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

[[Page 77711]]

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://www.reginfo.gov. The online Unified Agenda 
offers flexible search tools and access to the historic Unified Agenda 
database to1995. 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 fall 2015 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. 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://www.reginfo.gov.
    The following agencies have no entries 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 State
Department of Veterans Affairs *
Agency for International Development
Commission on Civil Rights
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled
Corporation for National and Community Service
Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of 
Columbia
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission*
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 National Drug Control Policy
Office of Personnel Management*
Peace Corps
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation*
Railroad Retirement Board
Social Security Administration*
Commodity Futures Trading Commission
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 Council
National Council on Disability
National Credit Union Administration
National Indian Gaming Commission*
National Labor Relations Board
National Transportation Safety Board
Surface Transportation 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, 
``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, ``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, ``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.

Executive Order 13132

    Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' signed August 4, 1999 (64 FR 
43255),

[[Page 77712]]

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, ``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' agendas they want to see. Users have broad 
flexibility to specify the characteristics of the entries of interest 
to them by choosing the desired responses to individual data fields. To 
see a listing of all of an agency's entries, a user can select the 
agency without specifying any particular characteristics of entries.
    Each entry in the Agenda is associated with one of five rulemaking 
stages. The rulemaking stages are:
    1. Prerule Stage--actions agencies will undertake to determine 
whether or how to initiate rulemaking. Such actions occur prior to a 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) and may include Advance Notices of 
Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRMs) and reviews of existing regulations.
    2. Proposed Rule Stage--actions for which agencies plan to publish 
a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking as the next step in their rulemaking 
process or for which the closing date of the NPRM Comment Period is the 
next step.
    3. Final Rule Stage--actions for which agencies plan to publish a 
final rule or an interim final rule or to take other final action as 
the next step.
    4. Long-Term Actions--items under development but for which the 
agency does not expect to have a regulatory action within the 12 months 
after publication of this edition of the Unified Agenda. Some of the 
entries in this section may contain abbreviated information.
    5. Completed Actions -- actions or reviews the agency has completed 
or withdrawn since publishing its last agenda. This section also 
includes items the agency began and completed between issues of the 
Agenda.
    Long-Term Actions are rulemakings reported during the publication 
cycle that are outside of the required 12-month reporting period for 
which the Agenda was intended. Completed Actions in the publication 
cycle are rulemakings that are ending their lifecycle either by 
Withdrawal or completion of the rulemaking process. Therefore, the 
Long-Term and Completed RINs do not represent the ongoing, forward-
looking nature intended for reporting developing rulemakings in the 
Agenda pursuant to Executive Order 12866, section 4(b) and 4(c). To 
further differentiate these two

[[Page 77713]]

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 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

[[Page 77714]]

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.
    E.O.--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 same RIN 
throughout its development but will generally have different sequence 
numbers if it appears in

[[Page 77715]]

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: November 16, 2015.
John C. Thomas,
Executive Director.

[[Page 77716]]

INTRODUCTION TO THE 2015 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, reaffirms the requirements of Executive Order 12866. 
Consistent with these Executive Orders, the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) is providing the 2015 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.
    The Plan provides a list of important regulatory actions that 
agencies are considering for issuance in proposed or final form during 
the 2016 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) can depend on several factors: Regulations may count 
as economically significant because they impose costs, confer large 
benefits, or remove significant burdens.

Executive Orders 13563 and 13610: Regulatory Development, and the 
Retrospective Review of Regulation

    Executive Order 13563 reaffirmed 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 in the regulatory system, 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 also 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 improve ``the actual results of regulatory requirements''--a clear 
reference to the importance of the retrospective review of regulations.
    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 the Office of Management and Budget and to the public twice 
each year (January and July) on the status of their retrospective 
review efforts. In these reports, agencies are 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 approximately $22 billion 
in savings for the American public over the next five years.
    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. 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. In accordance with Executive 
Orders 13610 and 13563, in July 2015, agencies submitted to OIRA the 
latest updates of their retrospective review plans, which are publicly 
available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/oira/regulation-reform. 
Federal agencies will again update their retrospective review plans in 
January 2016. OIRA has asked agencies to continue to emphasize 
regulatory lookbacks in their latest Regulatory Plans.
    Reflecting that focus, the current Agenda lists approximately 
seventy-five rules under active development 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:

--After extensive public engagement and in response to a recent court 
decision, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing 
revisions to the 2007 Exceptional Events rule. These revisions will 
streamline the process that states follow to decide whether air quality 
monitoring data associated with an ``exceptional event'' should be 
included when determining if an area is meeting national air quality 
standards. Exceptional events include natural events such as wildfires, 
stratospheric ozone intrusions, and volcanic and seismic activities. 
Given the possible influence of wildfires on ozone, EPA is also 
releasing draft guidance that provides states with additional 
information on preparing exceptional events demonstrations for 
wildfires as they relate to the ozone standards.
--The Department of Labor (DOL) has taken steps to include 
retrospective analysis requirements in new

[[Page 77717]]

regulations in order to facilitate evaluation of their impacts. For 
example, DOL's Mine Safety and Health Administration announced in its 
2014 Respirable Dust final rule that it will conduct a retrospective 
review in 2017 to evaluate the data collected using continuous personal 
dust monitors. Additionally, the Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration's Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements final rule--
moving from the Standard Industrial Classification System to the North 
American Industry Classification System for determining which 
industries are low-hazard and potentially exempt from recordkeeping 
requirements--includes a commitment to conduct a retrospective review 
of the agency's recordkeeping regulations. Finally, in DOL's Wage and 
Hour Division's recent Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to modernize the 
Fair Labor Standards Act's Overtime Exemptions for Executive, 
Administrative, Professional, Outside Sales and Computer Employees, the 
Division proposed to consider a future retrospective review of the rule 
after it is finalized and implemented.
--The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is working on a 
final rule to streamline, in several ways, the inspection and home 
warranty requirements for the Federal Housing Administration's (FHA) 
single family mortgage insurance. In doing so, FHA would increase 
choice and lower the costs for FHA borrowers. First, HUD is considering 
the removal of 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. Second, this rule 
would also remove the regulations requiring homeowners to purchase 10-
year protection plans from FHA-approved warranty issuers 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. HUD expects the rule to 
increase flexibility for homeowners and reduce the regulatory burden on 
lenders.

Executive Order 13609: International Regulatory Cooperation

    In addition to using regulatory lookback as a tool to make the 
regulatory system more efficient, the Administration has 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 each agency to submit a 
Regulatory Plan that includes ``a summary of its international 
regulatory cooperation activities that are reasonably anticipated to 
lead to significant regulations.'' Further, Executive Order 13609 
requires each agency 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, in the summer of 2014, the United States and Canada 
released the U.S.-Canada Regulatory Cooperation Council (RCC) Joint 
Forward Plan.\1\ The Forward Plan identifies twenty-four areas of 
cooperation where the United States and Canada will work together 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. 
Building on the Forward Plan, in the Spring of 2015, agencies in the 
United States and Canada issued joint work plans to guide focused 
international regulatory cooperation efforts. The Forward Plan and 
related work represent a significant turning point in the 
Administration's regulatory cooperation relationship with Canada, and 
outline new Federal agency-level partnership arrangements to help 
institutionalize the ways in which our regulators work together. The 
Forward Plan will help remove unnecessary 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 Administration also continues to 
work with other countries, including Mexico and Brazil, to identify 
opportunities for regulatory cooperation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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 the careful consideration of costs and benefits, public 
participation, integration, regulatory innovation, flexible regulatory 
approaches, and science. These considerations 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 
21st Century.

                                            Department of Agriculture
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Regulation
         Sequence No.                     Title             Identifier No.             Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.............................  Payment Limitation and            0560-AI31  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Payment Eligibility--
                                 Actively Engaged in
                                 Farming.
2.............................  Importation, Interstate           0579-AE15  Prerule Stage.
                                 Movement, and Release
                                 Into the Environment of
                                 Certain Genetically
                                 Engineered Organisms.
3.............................  General Administrative            0563-AC43  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Regulations;
                                 Catastrophic Risk
                                 Protection Endorsement;
                                 Area Risk Protection
                                 Insurance Regulations;
                                 and the Common Crop
                                 Insurance Regulations,
                                 Basic Provisions.

[[Page 77718]]

 
4.............................  Enhancing Retailer                0584-AE27  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Eligibility Standards in
                                 SNAP.
5.............................  Supplemental Nutrition            0584-AE45  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Assistance Program
                                 (SNAP) Photo Electronic
                                 Benefit Transfer (EBT)
                                 Card Implementation
                                 Requirements.
6.............................  National School Lunch and         0584-AE09  Final Rule Stage.
                                 School Breakfast
                                 Programs: Nutrition
                                 Standards for All Foods
                                 Sold in School, as
                                 Required by the Healthy,
                                 Hunger-Free Kids Act of
                                 2010.
7.............................  Child and Adult Care Food         0584-AE18  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Program: Meal Pattern
                                 Revisions Related to the
                                 Healthy, Hunger-Free
                                 Kids Act of 2010.
8.............................  Requirements for the              0583-AD54  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Disposition of Non-
                                 Ambulatory Disabled Veal
                                 Calves.
9.............................  USDA Local and Regional           0551-AA87  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Food Aid Procurement
                                 Program.
10............................  Program Measures and              0570-AA95  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Metrics.
11............................  Rural Broadband Access            0572-AC34  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Loans and Loan
                                 Guarantees.
12............................  Agricultural Conservation         0578-AA61  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Easement Program.
13............................  Environmental Quality             0578-AA62  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Incentives Program
                                 (EQIP).
14............................  Conservation Stewardship          0578-AA63  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Program.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                              Department of Defense
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Regulation
         Sequence No.                     Title             Identifier No.             Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15............................  Sexual Assault Prevention         0790-AJ40  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 and Response (SAPR)
                                 Program.
16............................  Sexual Assault Prevention         0790-AI36  Final Rule Stage.
                                 and Response Program
                                 Procedures.
17............................  Transition Assistance             0790-AJ17  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Program (TAP) for
                                 Military Personnel.
18............................  Department of Defense             0790-AJ29  Final Rule Stage.
                                 (DoD)-Defense Industrial
                                 Base (DIB) Cybersecurity
                                 (CS) Activities.
19............................  Detection and Avoidance           0750-AI58  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 of Counterfeit
                                 Electronic Parts--
                                 Further Implementation
                                 (DFARS Case 2014-D005).
20............................  Network Penetration               0750-AI61  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Reporting and
                                 Contracting for Cloud
                                 Services (DFARS Case
                                 2013-D018).
21............................  TRICARE: Mental Health            0720-AB65  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 and Substance Use.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                             Department of Education
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Regulation
         Sequence No.                     Title             Identifier No.             Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
22............................  REPAYE...................         1840-AD18  Final Rule Stage.
23............................  Workforce Innovation and          1830-AA21  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Opportunity Act.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                              Department of Energy
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Regulation
         Sequence No.                     Title             Identifier No.             Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
24............................  Coverage Determination            1904-AD04  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 for Computers and
                                 Battery Backup Systems.
25............................  Energy Conservation               1904-AD09  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Standards for General
                                 Service Lamps.
26............................  Energy Conservation               1904-AD20  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Standards for
                                 Residential Non-
                                 Weatherized Gas Furnaces.
27............................  Energy Conservation               1904-AD34  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Standards for Commercial
                                 Water Heating Equipment.
28............................  Energy Conservation               1904-AD37  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Standards for Central
                                 Air Conditioners and
                                 Heat Pumps.
29............................  Energy Conservation               1904-AC54  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Standards for Commercial
                                 and Industrial Pumps.
30............................  Energy Conservation               1904-AC95  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Standards for Small,
                                 Large, and Very Large
                                 Commercial Package A/C
                                 and Heating Equipment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                     Department of Health and Human Services
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Regulation
         Sequence No.                     Title             Identifier No.             Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
31............................  Increase Number of                0930-AA22  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Patients to which Drug
                                 Addiction Treatment Act
                                 (DATA)-Waived Physicians
                                 Can Prescribe
                                 Buprenorphine.
32............................  Food Labeling: Revision           0910-AF22  Final Rule Stage.
                                 of the Nutrition and
                                 Supplement Facts Labels.
33............................  Food Labeling: Serving            0910-AF23  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Sizes of Foods That Can
                                 Reasonably Be Consumed
                                 At One Eating Occasion;
                                 Dual-Column Labeling;
                                 Updating, Modifying, and
                                 Establishing Certain
                                 RACCs.
34............................  Standards for the                 0910-AG35  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Growing, Harvesting,
                                 Packing, and Holding of
                                 Produce for Human
                                 Consumption.

[[Page 77719]]

 
35............................  ``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.
36............................  Reports of Distribution           0910-AG45  Final Rule Stage.
                                 and Sales Information
                                 for Antimicrobial Active
                                 Ingredients Used in Food-
                                 Producing Animals.
37............................  Focused Mitigation                0910-AG63  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Strategies To Protect
                                 Food Against Intentional
                                 Adulteration.
38............................  Foreign Supplier                  0910-AG64  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Verification Program.
39............................  Accreditation of Third-           0910-AG66  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Party Auditors/
                                 Certification Bodies to
                                 Conduct Food Safety
                                 Audits and to Issue
                                 Certifications.
40............................  Supplemental Applications         0910-AG94  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Proposing Labeling
                                 Changes for Approved
                                 Drugs and Biological
                                 Products.
41............................  Sanitary Transportation           0910-AG98  Final Rule Stage.
                                 of Human and Animal Food.
42............................  Programs of All-Inclusive         0938-AR60  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Care for the Elderly
                                 (PACE) Update (CMS-4168-
                                 P).
43............................  Expansion of the CMS              0938-AS66  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Qualified Entity Program
                                 (CMS-5061-P).
44............................  Merit-Based Incentive             0938-AS69  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Payment System (MIPS)
                                 and Alternative Payment
                                 Models (APMs) in
                                 Medicare Fee-for-Service
                                 (CMS-5517-P).
45............................  Hospital Inpatient                0938-AS77  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Prospective Payment
                                 System for Acute Care
                                 Hospitals and the Long-
                                 Term Care Hospital
                                 Prospective Payment
                                 System and FY 2017 Rates
                                 (CMS-1655-P).
46............................  CY 2017 Revisions to              0938-AS81  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Payment Policies Under
                                 the Physician Fee
                                 Schedule and Other
                                 Revisions to Medicare
                                 Part B (CMS-1654-P).
47............................  CY 2017 Hospital                  0938-AS82  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Outpatient PPS Policy
                                 Changes and Payment
                                 Rates and Ambulatory
                                 Surgical Center Payment
                                 System Policy Changes
                                 and Payment Rates (CMS-
                                 1656-P).
48............................  Medicaid Managed Care,            0938-AS25  Final Rule Stage.
                                 CHIP Delivered in
                                 Managed Care, Medicaid
                                 and CHIP Comprehensive
                                 Quality Strategies, and
                                 Revisions related to
                                 Third Party Liability
                                 (CMS-2390-F).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                         Department of Homeland Security
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Regulation
         Sequence No.                     Title             Identifier No.             Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
49............................  Chemical Facility Anti-           1601-AA69  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Terrorism Standards
                                 (CFATS).
50............................  Adjustment of Status to           1615-AA60  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Lawful Permanent
                                 Resident for Aliens in T
                                 and U Nonimmigrant
                                 Status.
51............................  New Classification for            1615-AA67  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Victims of Criminal
                                 Activity; Eligibility
                                 for the U Nonimmigrant
                                 Status.
52............................  Exception to the                  1615-AB89  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Persecution Bar for
                                 Asylum, Refugee, and
                                 Temporary Protected
                                 Status, and Withholding
                                 of Removal.
53............................  Requirements for Filing           1615-AB98  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Motions and
                                 Administrative Appeals.
54............................  Significant Public                1615-AC04  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Benefit Parole for
                                 Entrepreneurs.
55............................  Retention of EB-1, EB-2,          1615-AC05  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 and EB-3 Immigrant
                                 Workers and Program
                                 Improvements Affecting
                                 Highly-Skilled H-1B
                                 Alien Workers.
56............................  Classification for                1615-AA59  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Victims of Severe Forms
                                 of Trafficking in
                                 Persons; Eligibility for
                                 T Nonimmigrant Status.
57............................  Application of                    1615-AB77  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Immigration Regulations
                                 to the Commonwealth of
                                 the Northern Mariana
                                 Islands.
58............................  Special Immigrant                 1615-AB81  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Juvenile Petitions.
59............................  Enhancing Opportunities           1615-AC00  Final Rule Stage.
                                 for H-1B1, CW-1, and E-3
                                 Nonimmigrants and EB-1
                                 Immigrants.
60............................  Expansion of Provisional          1615-AC03  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Unlawful Presence
                                 Waivers of
                                 Inadmissibility.
61............................  Inspection of Towing              1625-AB06  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Vessels.
62............................  Transportation Worker             1625-AB21  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Identification
                                 Credential (TWIC); Card
                                 Reader Requirements.
63............................  Air Cargo Advance                 1651-AB04  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Screening (ACAS).
64............................  Definition of Form I-94           1651-AA96  Final Rule Stage.
                                 to Include Electronic
                                 Format.
65............................  Security Training for             1652-AA55  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Surface Mode Employees.
66............................  Passenger Screening Using         1652-AA67  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Advanced Imaging
                                 Technology.
67............................  Improving and Expanding           1653-AA72  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Training Opportunities
                                 for F-1 Nonimmigrant
                                 Students with STEM
                                 Degrees and Expanding
                                 Cap-Gap Relief for All F-
                                 1 Students With Pending
                                 H-1B Petitions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                   Department of Housing and Urban Development
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Regulation
         Sequence No.                     Title             Identifier No.             Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
68............................  Narrowing the Digital             2501-AD75  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Divide through Broadband
                                 Installation in HUD-
                                 Funded New Construction
                                 and Substantial
                                 Rehabilitation (FR-5890).

[[Page 77720]]

 
69............................  Narrowing the Digital             2506-AC41  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Divide Through Community
                                 Planning: Integrating
                                 Broadband Planning Into
                                 HUD's Consolidated
                                 Planning Process (FR-
                                 5891).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                              Department of Justice
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Regulation
         Sequence No.                     Title             Identifier No.             Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
70............................  Implementation of the ADA         1190-AA60  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Amendments Act of 2008
                                 (Section 504 of the
                                 Rehabilitation Act of
                                 1973).
71............................  Nondiscrimination on the          1190-AA65  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Basis of Disability:
                                 Accessibility of Web
                                 Information and Services
                                 of State and Local
                                 Governments.
72............................  Revision of Standards and         1190-AA71  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Procedures for the
                                 Enforcement of Section
                                 274B of the Immigration
                                 and Nationality Act.
73............................  Implementation of the ADA         1190-AA59  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Amendments Act of 2008
                                 (Title II and Title III
                                 of the ADA).
74............................  Nondiscrimination on the          1190-AA63  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Basis of Disability;
                                 Movie Captioning and
                                 Audio Description.
75............................  Motions To Reopen                 1125-AA68  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Removal, Deportation, or
                                 Exclusion Proceedings
                                 Based Upon a Claim of
                                 Ineffective Assistance
                                 of Counsel.
76............................  Recognition of                    1125-AA72  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Organizations and
                                 Accreditation of Non-
                                 Attorney Representatives.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                               Department of labor
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Regulation
         Sequence No.                     Title             Identifier No.             Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
77............................  Establishing Paid Sick            1235-AA13  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Leave for Contractors,
                                 Executive Order 13706.
78............................  Defining and Delimiting           1235-AA11  Final Rule Stage.
                                 the Exemptions for
                                 Executive,
                                 Administrative,
                                 Professional, Outside
                                 Sales, and Computer
                                 Employees.
79............................  Workforce Innovation and          1205-AB73  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Opportunity Act.
80............................  Savings Arrangements              1210-AB71  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Established by States
                                 for Non-Governmental
                                 Employees.
81............................  Respirable Crystalline            1219-AB36  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Silica.
82............................  Proximity Detection               1219-AB78  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Systems for Mobile
                                 Machines in Underground
                                 Mines.
83............................  Criteria and Procedures           1219-AB72  Final Rule Stage.
                                 for Proposed Assessment
                                 of Civil Penalties.
84............................  Occupational Exposure to          1218-AB70  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Crystalline Silica.
85............................  Improve Tracking of               1218-AC49  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Workplace Injuries and
                                 Illnesses.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                          Department of Transportation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Regulation
         Sequence No.                     Title             Identifier No.             Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
86............................  Use of Mobile Wireless            2105-AE30  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Devices for Voice Calls
                                 on Aircraft.
87............................  Airport Safety Management         2120-AJ38  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 System.
88............................  Pilot Professional                2120-AJ87  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Development.
89............................  Revision of Airworthiness         2120-AK65  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Standards for Normal,
                                 Utility, Acrobatic, and
                                 Commuter Category
                                 Airplanes.
90............................  Operation and                     2120-AJ60  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Certification of Small
                                 Unmanned Aircraft
                                 Systems.
91............................  National Goals and                2125-AF54  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Performance Management
                                 Measures (MAP-21).
92............................  National Goals and                2125-AF49  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Performance Management
                                 Measures (MAP-21).
93............................  National Goals and                2125-AF53  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Performance Management
                                 Measures (MAP-21).
94............................  Carrier Safety Fitness            2126-AB11  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Determination.
95............................  Entry-Level Driver                2126-AB66  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Training.
96............................  Commercial Driver's               2126-AB18  Final Rule Stage.
                                 License Drug and Alcohol
                                 Clearinghouse (MAP-21).
97............................  Rear Seat Belt Reminder           2127-AL37  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 System.
98............................  Fuel Efficiency Standards         2127-AL52  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 for Medium- and Heavy-
                                 Duty Vehicles and Work
                                 Trucks: Phase 2.
99............................  Transit Asset Management.         2132-AB07  Proposed Rule Stage.
100...........................  Public Transportation             2132-AB23  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Agency Safety Plans.
101...........................  Pipeline Safety: Safety           2137-AE66  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 of On-Shore Liquid
                                 Hazardous Pipelines.
102...........................  Pipeline Safety: Gas              2137-AE72  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Transmission.
103...........................  Hazardous Materials: Oil          2137-AF08  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Spill Response Plans and
                                 Information Sharing for
                                 High-Hazard Flammable
                                 Trains.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 77721]]


                                         Environmental Protection Agency
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Regulation
         Sequence No.                     Title             Identifier No.             Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
104...........................  Interstate Transport Rule         2060-AS05  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS.
105...........................  Oil and Natural Gas               2060-AS30  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Sector: Emission
                                 Standards for New and
                                 Modified Sources.
106...........................  Model Trading Rules for           2060-AS47  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
                                 From Electric Utility
                                 Generating Units
                                 Constructed on or Before
                                 January 8, 2014.
107...........................  Proposed Renewable Fuel           2060-AS72  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Volume Standards for
                                 2017 and Biomass Based
                                 Diesel Volume (BBD) for
                                 2018.
108...........................  Polychlorinated Biphenyls         2070-AJ38  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 (PCBs); Reassessment of
                                 Use Authorizations.
109...........................  Trichloroethylene (TCE);          2070-AK03  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Rulemaking Under TSCA
                                 Section 6(a).
110...........................  N-Methylpyrrolidone (NMP)         2070-AK07  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 and Methylene Chloride;
                                 Rulemaking Under TSCA
                                 Section 6(a).
111...........................  Financial Responsibility          2050-AG61  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Requirements Under
                                 CERCLA Section 108(b)
                                 for Classes of
                                 Facilities in the Hard
                                 Rock Mining Industry.
112...........................  User Fee Schedule for             2050-AG80  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Electronic Hazardous
                                 Waste Manifest.
113...........................  Modernization of the              2050-AG82  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Accidental Release
                                 Prevention Regulations
                                 Under Clean Air Act.
114...........................  Review of the National            2060-AQ44  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Ambient Air Quality
                                 Standards for Lead.
115...........................  Greenhouse Gas Emissions          2060-AS16  Final Rule Stage.
                                 and Fuel Efficiency
                                 Standards for Medium-
                                 and Heavy-Duty Engines
                                 and Vehicles--Phase 2.
116...........................  Renewable Fuel Volume             2060-AS22  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Standards, 2014-2016
                                 (Reg Plan).
117...........................  Findings That Greenhouse          2060-AS31  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Gas Emissions From
                                 Aircraft Cause Or
                                 Contribute To Air
                                 Pollution That May
                                 Reasonably Be
                                 Anticipated to Endanger
                                 Public Health And
                                 Welfare Under CAA
                                 Section 231 (Reg Plan).
118...........................  Pesticides; Certification         2070-AJ20  Final Rule Stage.
                                 of Pesticide Applicators.
119...........................  Formaldehyde Emission             2070-AJ44  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Standards for Composite
                                 Wood Products.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                     Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Regulation
         Sequence No.                     Title             Identifier No.             Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
120...........................  The Federal Sector's              3046-AA94  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Obligation To Be a Model
                                 Employer of Individuals
                                 With Disabilities.
121...........................  Federal Sector Equal              3046-AB00  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Employment Opportunity
                                 Process.
122...........................  Amendments to Regulations         3046-AB02  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Under the Genetic
                                 Information
                                 Nondiscrimination Act of
                                 2008.
123...........................  Amendments to Regulations         3046-AB01  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Under the Americans With
                                 Disabilities Act.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                          Small Business Administration
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Regulation
         Sequence No.                     Title             Identifier No.             Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
124...........................  Small Business Innovation         3245-AG64  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Research Program and
                                 Small Business
                                 Technology Transfer
                                 Program Policy Directive.
125...........................  Small Business Investment         3245-AG66  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Company (SBIC) Program;
                                 Impact SBICs.
126...........................  Affiliation for Business          3245-AG73  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Loan Programs and Surety
                                 Bond Guarantee Program.
127...........................  Small Business Mentor-            3245-AG24  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Prot[eacute]g[eacute]
                                 Programs.
128...........................  Small Business Government         3245-AG58  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Contracting and National
                                 Defense Authorization
                                 Act of 2013 Amendments.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                         Social Security Administration
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Regulation
         Sequence No.                     Title             Identifier No.             Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
129...........................  Vocational Factors of             0960-AH74  Prerule Stage.
                                 Age, Education, and Work
                                 Experience in the Adult
                                 Disability Determination
                                 Process.
130...........................  Revised Medical Criteria          0960-AG38  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 for Evaluating
                                 Musculoskeletal
                                 Disorders (3318P).
131...........................  Revised Medical Criteria          0960-AG65  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 for Evaluating Digestive
                                 Disorders (3441P).
132...........................  Acceptable Medical                0960-AH51  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Sources, Evaluating
                                 Evidence, and Treating
                                 Sources (3787P).
133...........................  Returning Evidence at the         0960-AH64  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Appeals Council Level
                                 (3844F).
134...........................  Removal of the Expiration         0960-AH70  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Date for State
                                 Disability Examiner
                                 Authority to Make Fully
                                 Favorable Quick
                                 Disability
                                 Determinations and
                                 Compassionate Allowances.
135...........................  Anti-Harassment and               0960-AH82  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Hostile Work Environment
                                 Case Tracking and
                                 Records System Revised.

[[Page 77722]]

 
136...........................  Amendment to the                  0960-AH86  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Education Category,
                                 ``Illiterate or Unable
                                 to Communicate in
                                 English'' and
                                 Clarification of
                                 Previous Work Experience
                                 Criterion for Persons
                                 who are ``Illiterate''.
137...........................  Revised Medical Criteria          0960-AF35  Final Rule Stage.
                                 for Evaluating
                                 Neurological Impairments
                                 (806F).
138...........................  Revised Medical Criteria          0960-AF58  Final Rule Stage.
                                 for Evaluating
                                 Respiratory System
                                 Disorders (859F).
139...........................  Revised Medical Criteria          0960-AF69  Final Rule Stage.
                                 for Evaluating Mental
                                 Disorders (886F).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BILLING CODE 6820-27-P

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Fall 2015 Statement of Regulatory Priorities

    The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) provides leadership on 
food, agriculture, natural resources, rural development, nutrition, and 
related issues based on sound public policy, the best available 
science, and efficient management. The Department touches the lives of 
almost every American, every day. Our regulatory plan reflects that 
reality and reinforces our commitment to achieve results for everyone 
we serve.
    The regulatory plan continues USDA efforts to implement several 
important pieces of legislation. The 2014 Farm Bill 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 taxpayers. The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 (HHFKA) allows 
USDA, for the first time in over 30 years, opportunity to make real 
reforms to the school lunch and breakfast programs by improving the 
critical nutrition and hunger safety net for millions of children.
    To assist the country in addressing today's challenges, USDA has 
developed a regulatory plan consistent with five strategic goals that 
articulate the Department's priorities.
1. Assist Rural Communities To Create Prosperity So They Are Self-
Sustaining, Re-Populating, and Economically Thriving
    Rural America is home to a vibrant economy supported by nearly 50 
million Americans. These Americans come from diverse backgrounds and 
work in a variety of industries, including manufacturing, agriculture, 
services, government, and trade. Today, the country looks to rural 
America not only to provide food and fiber, but for crucial emerging 
economic opportunities such as renewable energy, broadband, and 
recreation. Many of the Nation's small businesses are located in rural 
communities and are the engine of job growth and an important source of 
innovation for the country. The economic vitality and quality of life 
in rural America depends on a healthy agricultural production system. 
Farmers and ranchers face a challenging global, technologically 
advanced, and competitive business environment. USDA works to ensure 
that producers are prosperous and competitive, have access to new 
markets, can manage their risks, and receive support in times of 
economic distress or weather-related disasters. Prosperous rural 
communities are those with adequate assets to fully support the well-
being of community members. USDA helps to strengthen rural assets by 
building physical, human and social, financial, and natural capital.
    Enhance rural prosperity, including leveraging capital markets to 
increase Government's investment in rural America.
    USDA is committed to providing broadband to rural areas. Since 
2009, USDA investments have delivered broadband service to 1.5 million 
households, businesses, schools, libraries and community facilities. 
These investments support the USDA goal to create thriving communities 
where people want to live and raise families. Consistent with these 
efforts, the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) published an interim rule on 
July 30, 2015, implementing Rural Broadband Access Loan and Loan 
Guarantee Program provisions included in section 6104 of the 2014 Farm 
Bill. The rule established two funding cycles to review and prioritize 
applications for the program. It also set a minimum level of acceptable 
broadband service at 4 megabits downstream and 1 megabit upstream. RUS 
is currently developing a final rule to implement changes to the 
administration of the Broadband program based on public comments 
received. For more information about this rule, see RIN 0572-AC34.
    USDA also works to increase the effectiveness of the Government's 
investment in rural America. To this end, Rural Development will issue 
a final rule to establish program metrics to measure the economic 
activities created through grants and loans, including any technical 
assistance provided as a component of the grant or loan program, and to 
measure the short and long-term viability of award recipients, and any 
entities to whom recipients provide assistance using the awarded funds. 
The action is required by section 6209 of the 2014 Farm Bill, and will 
not change the underlying provisions of the included programs, such as 
eligibility, applications, scoring, and servicing provisions. For more 
information about this rule, see RIN 0570-AA95.
    Increase agricultural opportunities by ensuring a robust safety 
net, creating new markets, and supporting a competitive agricultural 
system.
    In another step to increase the effectiveness of the Government's 
investment in rural America, the Farm Service Agency (FSA) published a 
proposed rule on March 26, 2015, on behalf of the Commodity Credit 
Corporation (CCC) to specify the requirements for a person to be 
considered actively engaged in farming for the purpose of payment 
eligibility for certain FSA and CCC programs. These changes will ensure 
that farm program payments are going to the farmers and farm families 
that they are intended to help. Specifically, FSA is revising and 
clarifying the requirements for a significant contribution of active 
personnel management to a farming operation. These changes are required 
by the 2014 Farm Bill, and will not apply to persons or entities 
comprised solely of family members. FSA is currently developing a final 
rule to implement changes to the rule based on public comments 
received. For more information about this rule, see RIN 0560-AI31.
    The Federal Crop Insurance Program mitigates production and revenue 
losses from yield or price fluctuations and

[[Page 77723]]

provides timely indemnity payments. The 2014 Farm Bill improved the 
Federal Crop Insurance Program by allowing producers to elect coverage 
for shallow losses, improved options for growers of organic 
commodities, and the ability for diversified operations to insure their 
whole-farm under a single policy. To strengthen further the farm 
financial safety net, the Risk Management Agency (RMA) published an 
interim rule on June 30, 2014, that amended the general administrative 
regulations governing Catastrophic Risk Protection Endorsement, Area 
Risk Protection Insurance, and the basic provisions for Common Crop 
Insurance consistent with the changes mandated by the 2014 Farm Bill. 
RMA is currently developing a final rule to implement changes based on 
public comments received. For more information about this rule, see RIN 
0563-AC43.
2. Ensure Our National Forests and Private Working Lands Are Conserved, 
Restored, and Made More Resilient to Climate Change, While Enhancing 
Our Water Resources
    National forests and private working lands provide clean air, clean 
and abundant water, and wildlife habitat. These lands sustain jobs and 
produce food, fiber, timber, and bio-based energy. Many of our 
landscapes are scenic and culturally important and provide Americans a 
chance to enjoy the outdoors. The 2014 Farm Bill delivered a strong 
conservation title that made robust investments to conserve and support 
America's working lands, and consolidated, and streamlined programs to 
improve efficiency and encourage participation. Farm Bill conservation 
programs provide America's farmers, ranchers and others with technical 
and financial assistance to enable conservation of natural resources, 
while protecting and improving agricultural operations. Seventy percent 
of the American landscape is privately owned, making private lands 
conservation critical to the health of our nation's environment and 
ability to ensure our working lands are productive. To sustain these 
many benefits, USDA has implemented the authorities provided by the 
2014 Farm Bill to protect and enhance 1.3 billion acres of working 
lands. USDA also manages 193 million acres of national forests and 
grasslands. Our partners include Federal, Tribal, and State 
governments; industry; non-governmental organizations, community groups 
and producers. The Nation's lands face increasing threats that must be 
addressed. USDA's natural resource-focused regulatory strategies are 
designed to make substantial contributions in the areas of soil health, 
resiliency to climate change, and improved water quality.
    Improve the health of the Nation's forests, grasslands and working 
lands by managing our natural resources.
    The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) administers the 
Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP), which provides 
financial and technical assistance to help conserve agricultural lands 
and wetlands and their related benefits. The 2014 Farm Bill 
consolidated the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP), the Farm and Ranch 
Lands Protection Program (FRPP), and the Grassland Reserve Program 
(GRP) into ACEP. In fiscal year 2014, an estimated 143,833 acres of 
farmland, grasslands, and wetlands were enrolled into ACEP. Through 
regulation, NRCS established a comprehensive framework to implement 
ACEP, and standardized criteria for implementing the program, provided 
program participants with predictability when they initiate an 
application and convey an easement. On February 27, 2015, NRCS 
published an interim rule to implement ACEP. NRCS is currently 
developing a final rule to implement changes to the administration of 
ACEP based on public comments received. For more information about this 
rule, see RIN 0578-AA61.
    The Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) also helps the 
Department ensure that our national forests and private working lands 
are conserved, restored, and made more resilient to climate change. 
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. NRCS makes funding for CSP 
available nationwide on a continuous application basis. In fiscal year 
2014, NRCS enrolled about 9.6 million acres and now CSP enrollment 
exceeds 60 million acres, about the size of Iowa and Indiana combined. 
On November 5, 2014, NRCS published an interim rule to implement 
provisions of the 2014 Farm bill that amended CSP. Key changes 
included: Limiting eligible land to that in production for at least 4 
of the 6 years preceding February 7, 2014, the date of enactment of the 
2014 Farm Bill; requiring contract offers to meet stewardship threshold 
for at least two priority resource concerns and meet or exceed one 
additional priority resource concern by the end of the stewardship 
contract; allowing enrollment of lands that are protected by an 
agricultural land easement under the newly authorized ACEP; and 
allowing enrollment of lands that are in the last year of the 
Conservation Reserve Program. NRCS is currently developing a final rule 
to implement changes to the administration of CSP based on public 
comments received. For more information about this rule, see RIN 0578-
AA63.
    The Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) is another 
voluntary conservation program that helps agricultural producers in a 
manner that promotes agricultural production and environmental quality 
as compatible goals. Through EQIP, agricultural producers receive 
financial and technical assistance to implement structural and 
management conservation practices that optimize environmental benefits 
on working agricultural land. Through EQIP, producers addressed their 
conservation needs on over 11 million acres in fiscal year 2014. EQIP 
has been instrumental in helping communities respond to drought. On 
December 12, 2014, NRCS published an interim rule that implemented 
changes mandated by 2014 Farm Bill and addressed a few key 
discretionary provisions, including, adding waiver authority to 
irrigation history requirements, incorporation of Tribal Conservation 
Advisory Councils where appropriate, and clarifying provisions related 
to Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plans (CNMP) associated with 
Animal Feeding Operations (AFO). NRCS is currently developing a final 
rule to implement changes to the administration of EQIP based on public 
comments received. For more information about this rule, see RIN 0578-
AA62.
    Contribute to clean and abundant water by protecting and enhancing 
water resources on national forests and working lands.
    The 2014 Farm Bill relinked highly erodible land conservation and 
wetland conservation compliance with eligibility for premium support 
paid under the federal crop insurance program. The Farm Service Agency 
implemented these provisions through an interim rule published on 
April, 24, 2015. Since publication of the interim rule, more than 98.2 
percent of producers met the requirement to certify conservation 
compliance to qualify for crop insurance premium support payments. 
Implementing these provisions for conservation compliance is expected 
to extend conservation provisions for an additional 1.5 million acres 
of highly erodible lands and 1.1 million acres of wetlands, which will 
reduce soil erosion, enhance water quality, and create wildlife 
habitat. Through this action, NRCS modified the existing

[[Page 77724]]

wetlands Mitigation Banking Program to remove the requirement that USDA 
hold easements in the mitigation program. This allows entities 
recognized by USDA to hold mitigation banking easements granted by a 
person who wishes to maintain payment eligibility under the wetland 
conservation provision. FSA is currently developing a final rule to 
implement changes to the interim rule based on public comments 
received. For more information about this rule, see RIN 0560-AI26.
3. Help America Promote Agricultural Production and Biotechnology 
Exports as America Works To Increase Food Security
    Food security is important for sustainable economic growth of 
developing nations and the long-term economic prosperity and security 
of the United States. Unfortunately, global food insecurity is expected 
to rise in the next five years. Food security means having a reliable 
source of nutritious and safe food and sufficient resources to purchase 
it. USDA has a role in curbing this distressing trend through programs 
such as Food for Progress and President Obama's Feed the Future 
Initiative and through new technology-based solutions, such as the 
development of genetically engineered plants, that improves yields and 
reduces post-harvest loss.
    Ensure U.S. agricultural resources contribute to enhanced global 
food security.
    The Foreign Agriculture Service (FAS) will issue a final rule for 
the Local and Regional procurement (LRP) Program as authorized in 
section 3207 of the 2014 Farm Bill. USDA implemented a successful LRP 
pilot program under the authorities of the 2008 Farm Bill. LRP ties to 
the President's 2014 Trade Policy Agenda and works with developing 
nations to alleviate poverty and foster economic growth to provide 
better markets for U.S. exporters. LRP is expected to help alleviate 
hunger for millions of individuals in food insecure countries. LRP 
supports development activities that strengthen the capacity of food-
insecure developing countries, and build resilience and address the 
causes of chronic food insecurity while also supporting USDA's other 
food assistance programs, including the McGovern Dole International 
Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program (McGovern-Dole). In 
addition, the program can be used to fill food availability gaps 
generated by unexpected emergencies. LRP complements ongoing activities 
under the McGovern-Dole Program, improves dietary diversity and 
nutrition, and supports the sustainability of school-feeding programs 
as they transition to full host-government ownership. The final rule 
will enable FAS and its partners to strengthen the capacity of host-
governments to implement their own homegrown school feeding programs. 
For more information about this rule, see RIN 0551-AA87.
    Enhance America's ability to develop and trade agricultural 
products derived from new and emerging technologies.
    USDA uses science-based regulatory systems to allow for the safe 
development, use, and trade of products derived from new agricultural 
technologies. USDA continues to regulate the importation, interstate 
movement, and field-testing of newly developed genetically engineered 
(GE) organisms that qualify as ``regulated articles'' to ensure they do 
not pose a threat to plant health before they can be commercialized. 
These science-based evaluations facilitate the safe introduction of new 
agricultural production options and enhance public and international 
confidence in these products. As a part of this effort, the Animal and 
Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) will publish a proposed rule to 
revise its regulations and align them with current authorizations by 
incorporating the noxious weed authority and regulate GE organisms that 
pose plant pest or weed risks in a manner that balances oversight and 
risk, and that is based on the best available science. The regulatory 
framework being developed will enable more focused, risk-based 
regulation of GE organisms that pose plant pest or noxious weed risks 
and will implement regulatory requirements only to the extent necessary 
to achieve the APHIS protection goal. For more information about this 
rule, see RIN 0579-AE15.
4. 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. Science has established strong links between diet, health, 
and productivity. Even small improvements in the average diet, fostered 
by USDA, may yield significant health and economic benefits. However, 
foodborne illness is still a common, costly--yet largely preventable--
public health problem, even though the U.S. food supply system is one 
of the safest in the world. USDA is committed to ensuring that 
Americans have access to safe food through a farm-to-table approach to 
reduce and prevent foodborne illness. To help ensure a plentiful supply 
of food, the Department detects and quickly responds to new invasive 
species and emerging agricultural and public health situations.
    Improve access to nutritious food.
    USDA's domestic nutrition assistance programs serve one in four 
Americans annually. The Department is committed to making benefits 
available to every eligible person who wishes to participate in the 
major nutrition assistance programs, including the Supplemental 
Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), the cornerstone of the nutrition 
assistance safety net, which helped over 46 million Americans--more 
than half of whom were children, the elderly, or individuals with 
disabilities--put food on the table in 2014. The Department will soon 
propose changes to eligibility requirements for SNAP retail food stores 
to ensure access to nutrition foods for home preparation and 
consumption for the families most vulnerable to food insecurity. While 
the ultimate objective is for economic opportunities to make nutrition 
assistance unnecessary for as many families as possible, we will ensure 
that these vital programs remain ready to serve all eligible people who 
need them.
    The Department is also committed to helping ensure children have 
access to healthy, balanced meals throughout the day, as mandated by 
HHFKA, through the USDA child nutrition programs, including school, 
child care and summer meal programs. The summer meal programs have seen 
a historic increase in participation, with 11 million more meals served 
in 2015 compared to the previous summer, serving a total of more than 
187 million meals at over 50,000 summer meal sites throughout the 
country.
    Promote healthy diet and physical activity behaviors.
    The Administration has set a goal to solve the problem of childhood 
obesity within a generation so that children born today will reach 
adulthood at a healthy weight. On school days, children who participate 
in both the breakfast and lunch programs consume as many as half of 
their calories at school. The Department must ensure that all foods 
served in school contribute to good health, and the HHFKA provided new 
authority to set common-sense nutrition standards for food sold 
throughout the school day. To help accomplish this goal, the Food and 
Nutrition Service (FNS) will publish three rules implementing 
provisions of the HHFKA.

[[Page 77725]]

    FNS published an interim rule on June 28, 2013, for Nutrition 
Standards for All Foods Sold in School, as required by HHFKA. Section 
208 requires the Secretary to promulgate regulations to establish 
science-based nutrition standards for all foods sold in schools, 
outside the school meal programs, on the school campus, and at any time 
during the school day. FNS is currently developing a final rule to 
implement changes to the interim rule based on public comments 
received. For more information about this rule, see RIN 0584-AE09.
    FNS published the proposed rule, Meal Pattern Revisions Related to 
the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, on January 15, 2015, to 
implement section 221 of the HHFKA. This section 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. 
FNS is currently developing a final rule to implement changes to the 
proposed rule based on public comments received. For more information 
about this rule, see RIN 0584-AE18.
    FNS published the proposed rule, Local School Wellness Policy 
Implementation and School Nutrition Environment Information, on 
February 28, 2014, to implement section 204 of the HHFKA. As a result 
of meal pattern changes in the school meals programs, students are now 
eating 16 percent more vegetables and there was a 23 percent increase 
in the selection of fruit at lunch. This Act requires each local 
educational agency participating in Federal child nutrition programs to 
establish, for all schools under its jurisdiction, a local school 
wellness policy to maintain this momentum. The HHFKA 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 HHFKA requires that local 
educational agencies ensure stakeholder participation in development of 
local school wellness policies; periodically assess compliance with the 
policies; and disclose information about the policies to the public. 
FNS is currently developing a final rule to implement changes to the 
proposed rule based on public comments received. For more information 
about this rule, see RIN 0584-AE25.
    Protect agricultural health by minimizing major diseases and pests 
to ensure access to safe, plentiful, and nutritious food.
    The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) continue to enforce 
and improve compliance with the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act. FSIS 
published a proposed rule on May 13, 2015, that would require non-
ambulatory disabled veal calves that are offered for slaughter to be 
condemned and promptly euthanized. Currently, FSIS allows veal calves 
that are unable to rise from a recumbent position to be set aside and 
warmed or rested, and presented for slaughter if they regain the 
ability to walk. FSIS has found that this practice may contribute to 
the inhumane treatment of the veal calves. This rule will improve 
compliance with the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act by encouraging 
improved treatment of veal calves, as well as improve inspection 
efficiency by allowing FSIS inspection program personnel to devote more 
time to activities related to food safety. FSIS is currently developing 
a final rule to implement these changes based on public comments 
received. For more information about this rule, see RIN 0583-AD54.
5. Create a USDA for the 21st Century That Is High Performing, 
Efficient, and Adaptable
    USDA has been a leader in the Federal government at implementing 
innovative practices to rein in costs and increase efficiencies. By 
taking steps to find efficiencies and cut costs, USDA employees have 
achieved savings and cost avoidances of over $1.4 billion in recent 
years. Some of these results came from relatively smaller, common-sense 
initiatives such as the $1 million saved by streamlining the mail 
handling at one of the USDA mailrooms or the consolidation of the 
Department's cell phone contracts, which is saving taxpayers over $5 
million per year. Other results have come from larger-scale activities, 
such as the focus on reducing non-essential travel that has yielded 
over $400 million in efficiencies. Overall, these results have allowed 
us to do more with less during a time when such stewardship of 
resources has been critical to meeting the needs of those that we 
serve.
    While these proactive steps have given USDA the tools to carry out 
our mission-critical work, ensuring that USDA's millions of customers 
receive stronger service, they are matters relating to agency 
management, personnel, public property, and/or contracts, and as such 
they are not subject to the notice and comment requirements for 
rulemaking codified at 5 U.S.C. 553. Consequently, they are not 
included in the Department's regulatory agenda. For more information 
about the USDA efforts to cut costs and modernize operations via the 
Blueprint for Stronger Service Initiative, see http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?contentidonly=true&contentid=blueprint_for_stronger_service.html.
Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations
    In accordance with Executive Order 13563, ``Improving Regulation 
and Regulatory Review,'' and Executive Order 13610, ``Identifying and 
Reducing Regulatory Burdens,'' USDA continues to review its existing 
regulations and information collections to evaluate the continued 
effectiveness in addressing the circumstances for which the regulations 
were implemented. As part of this ongoing review to maximize the cost-
effectiveness of its regulatory programs, USDA will publish a Federal 
Register notice inviting public comment to assist in analyzing its 
existing significant regulations to determine whether any should be 
modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed.
    USDA has identified the following regulatory actions as associated 
with retrospective review and analysis. Some of the regulatory actions 
on the below list are completed actions, which do not appear in the 
Regulatory Agenda. 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. Other entries on this 
list are still in development and have not yet appeared in the 
Regulatory Agenda. You can read more about these entries and the 
Department's strategy for regulation reform at http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?navid=USDA_OPEN.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Agency                                 Title                                RIN
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Animal Plant Health & Inspection Service   Participation in the               TBD.
 (APHIS).                                   International Trade Data System
                                            (ITDS) via the Automated
                                            Commercial Environment (ACE).
Food Safety & Inspection Service (FSIS)..  Electronic Export Application and  0583-AD41.
                                            Certification Fee.
Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS).....  Input Export Form Numbers into     TBD.
                                            the Automated Export System.

[[Page 77726]]

 
AMS......................................  Revisions to the Electronic        0581-AD40.
                                            Submission of the Import Request
                                            of Shell Eggs.
APHIS....................................  Forms for Declaration Mandated by  0579-AD99.
                                            2008 Farm Bill (Lacey Act
                                            amendments).
Farm Service Agency (FSA) and Risk         Acreage and Crop Reporting         0563-0084.
 Management Agency.                         Streamlining Initiative.
FSA......................................  Environmental Policies and         0560-AH02.
                                            Procedures; Compliance with the
                                            National Environmental Policy
                                            Act and Related Authorities.
Natural Resources Conservation Service...  Conservation Delivery              TBD.
                                            Streamlining Initiative (CDSI)--
                                            Conservation Client Gateway
                                            (CCG).
Rural Business Services (RBS)............  Business and Industry Loan         0570-AA85.
                                            Guaranteed Program.
Rural Housing Service....................  Community Facilities Loan and      0575-AC91.
                                            Grants.
FSIS.....................................  Electronic Import Inspection and   0583-AD39.
                                            Certification of Imported
                                            Products and Foreign
                                            Establishments.
Forest Service (FS)......................  National Environmental Policy Act  0596-AD01.
                                            Efficiencies.
FSA......................................  Streamlined Farm Loan Programs     0560-0237.
                                            Direct Loan Making.
Food and Nutrition Service (FNS).........  Direct Certification for School    0584-AE10.
                                            Meals.
FSIS.....................................  Prior Labeling Approval System:    0583-AC59.
                                            Generic Label Approval.
FSIS.....................................  Modernization of Poultry           0583-AD32.
                                            Slaughter Inspection.
FNS......................................  Simplified Cost Accounting and     0584-AD84.
                                            Other Actions to Reduce
                                            Paperwork in the Summer Food
                                            Service Program.
Rural Business Services (RBS)............  Biorefinery, Renewable Chemical,   0570-AA73,
                                            and Biobased Product              0570-0065.
                                            Manufacturing Assistance.
RBS......................................  Rural Energy for America Program.  0570-AA76.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


USDA--FARM SERVICE AGENCY (FSA)

Final Rule Stage

1. Payment Limitation and Payment Eligibility--Actively Engaged in 
Farming

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1308-1 note
    CFR Citation: 7 CFR 1400.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Farm Service Agency (FSA) is revising regulations on 
behalf of the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) to specify the 
requirements for a person to be considered actively engaged in farming 
for the purpose of payment eligibility for certain FSA and CCC 
programs. Specifically, FSA is revising and clarifying the requirements 
for a significant contribution of active personnel management to a 
farming operation. These changes are required by the Agricultural Act 
of 2014 (the 2014 Farm Bill). The provisions of the rule will not apply 
to persons or entities comprised solely of family members. The rule 
will not change the existing regulations as they relate to 
contributions of land, capital, equipment, labor, or the special rules 
related to landowners with a risk in the crop or spouses.
    Statement of Need: This rule is needed to update the FSA 
regulations to implement a provision in the 2014 Farm Bill.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The Agricultural Act of 2014 (Pub. L. 113-
79).
    Alternatives: There are alternatives about how many managers a 
farming operation may be able to have qualify for payments based on 
being actively engaged in farming.
    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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   03/26/15  80 FR 15916
NPRM Comment Period End.............   05/26/15
Final Action........................   12/00/15
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Organizations.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    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-AI31

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

Prerule Stage

2.  Importation, Interstate Movement, and Release Into the 
Environment of Certain Genetically Engineered Organisms

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: Not Yet Determined
    CFR Citation: 7 CFR 340.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: USDA uses science-based regulatory systems to allow for 
the safe development, use, and trade of products derived from new 
agricultural technologies. USDA continues to regulate the importation, 
interstate movement, and field-testing of newly developed genetically 
engineered (GE) organisms that qualify as regulated articles'' to 
ensure they do not pose a threat to plant health before they can be 
commercialized. These science-based evaluations facilitate the safe 
introduction of new agricultural production options and enhance public 
and international confidence in these products. As a part of this 
effort, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) will 
publish a proposed rule to revise its regulations and align them with 
current authorizations by incorporating the noxious weed authority and 
regulate GE organisms that pose plant pest or weed risks in a manner 
that balances oversight and risk, and that is based on the best 
available science. The regulatory framework being developed will enable 
more focused, risk-based regulation of GE organisms that pose plant 
pest or noxious weed risks and will implement regulatory requirements 
only to the extent necessary to achieve the APHIS protection goal.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice of Intent to Prepare an         11/00/15
 Environmental Impact Statement.
NPRM................................   07/00/16

[[Page 77727]]

 
NPRM Comment Period End.............   09/00/16
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Organizations.
    Government Levels Affected: Local, State.
    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: Andrea Huberty, Branch Chief, Policy, Program, and 
Regulatory Consultation Branch, Policy Coordination Program, BRS, 
Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 
4700 River Road, Unit 147, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236, Phone: 301 851-
3880.
    RIN: 0579-AE15

USDA--FEDERAL CROP INSURANCE CORPORATION (FCIC)

Final Rule Stage

3. General Administrative Regulations; Catastrophic Risk Protection 
Endorsement; Area Risk Protection Insurance Regulations; and the Common 
Crop Insurance Regulations, Basic Provisions

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Legal Authority: Pub. L. 113-79
    CFR Citation: 7 CFR 400; 7 CFR 457.
    Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, June 30, 2014, 2015 Contract 
year.
    Abstract: The Federal Crop Insurance Corporation amends the General 
Administrative Regulations--Ineligibility for Programs under the 
Federal Crop Insurance Act, the Catastrophic Risk Protection 
Endorsement, the Area Risk Protection Insurance Regulations, and the 
Common Crop Insurance Regulations, Basic Provisions, to revise those 
revisions affected by changes mandated by the Agricultural Act of 2014 
(commonly referred to as the 2014 Farm Bill), enacted on February 7, 
2014.
    Statement of Need: This Final rule is needed complete the Interim 
Final Rule that updates FCIC regulations required to implement 
provisions of the Agricultural Act of 2014.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The Agricultural Act of 2014.
    Alternatives: N/A.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: A benefit-cost analysis was prepared 
for the Interim Final Rule and no significant changes have been made to 
this Final Rule which would alter the initial analysis which will be 
made available when the rule is published.
    Risks: None.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule Effective........   06/30/14  79 FR 37155
Interim Final Rule Comment Period      09/02/14
 End.
Final Action........................   03/00/16
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Timothy Hoffmann, Director, Product Administration 
and Standards Division, Department of Agriculture, Federal Crop 
Insurance Corporation, 6501 Beacon Drive, Kansas City, MO 64133, Phone: 
816 926-7387.
    RIN: 0563-AC43

USDA--FOOD AND NUTRITION SERVICE (FNS)

Proposed Rule Stage

4. Enhancing Retailer Eligibility Standards in SNAP

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 3 U.S.C. 2012; 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 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................................   03/00/16
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

5. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Photo Electronic 
Benefit Transfer (EBT) Card Implementation Requirements

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: Pub L. 104-193
    CFR Citation: 7 CFR 273; 7 CFR 274; 7 CFR 278.

[[Page 77728]]

    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: Under section 7(h)(9) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 
2008 (the Act), as amended [7 U.S.C. 2016(h)(9)], States have the 
option to require that SNAP Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) card 
contain a photo of one or more household members. This rule would 
incorporate into regulation and provide additional clarity on the Food 
and Nutrition Service (FNS) guidance developed for State agencies 
wishing to implement the photo EBT card option.
    Statement of Need: The regulation would create a clearer structure 
for those States wishing to exercise the option of placing a photo on 
EBT cards and ensure uniform accessibility for participants in all 
States.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 requires 
that any States choosing to issue a photo on the EBT card establish 
procedures to ensure that all other household members or any authorized 
representative of the household may utilize the card. Furthermore, 
applying this option must also preserve client rights and 
responsibilities afforded by the Act to ensure that all household 
members are able to maintain uninterrupted access to benefits, that 
non-applicants applying on behalf of eligible household members are not 
negatively impacted, and that SNAP recipients using photo EBT cards are 
treated equitably in accordance with Federal law when purchasing food 
at authorized retailers.
    Alternatives: None.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The changes to be proposed are not 
expected to create serious inconsistencies or otherwise interfere with 
actions taken or planned by another agency or materially alter the 
budgetary impacts of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs 
or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof. The requirements 
will not raise novel or legal policy issues.
    Budgetary impact on FNS is expected to be limited. Photo EBT card 
implementation in multiple States may require additional Federal staff 
for review and approval of implementation plans and for on-going 
monitoring via management evaluations.
    As a result of this rule, States that exercise the option to 
implement photos on EBT cards would incur costs associated with 
development of an implementation plan, State staff training, client 
training, and retailer training. It is expected that providing guidance 
or oversight of these requirements would fall under the standard 
purview of these agencies and could be absorbed by existing staff. 
State Agencies are responsible for approximately 50% of SNAP 
administration costs, which would include the costs associated with 
implementing and maintaining photo EBT cards.
    Risks: FNS recognizes the existence of violating retailers and 
others buying and using multiple cards and pins to stock their shelves 
and will propose an alternative to address possession of multiple cards 
and PINs to allow for additional verification at point-of-sale in some 
specific instances.
    Recent attempts to implement photographs on the EBT card have 
proven difficult for some States. This rule will expand on current 
program regulations to provide clarification and more detailed guidance 
to States implementing the photo EBT option and ensure program access 
is protected.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   11/00/15
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: 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].
    RIN: 0584-AE45

USDA--FNS

Final Rule Stage

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

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Unfunded Mandates: This action may affect State, local or tribal 
governments and the private sector.
    Legal Authority: Pub. L. 111-296
    CFR Citation: 7 CFR 210; 7 CFR 220.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This rule codifies the two provisions of the Healthy, 
Hunger-Free Kids Act (Pub. L. 111-296; the Act) under 7 CFR parts 210 
and 220. Section 203 requires schools participating in the National 
School Lunch Program to make available to children free of charge, as 
nutritionally appropriate, potable water for consumption in the place 
where meals are served during meal service. Section 208 requires the 
Secretary to promulgate regulations to establish science-based 
nutrition standards for all foods sold in schools. The nutrition 
standards apply to all food sold outside the school meal programs, on 
the school campus, and at any time during the school day.
    Statement of Need: This rule codifies the two provisions of the 
Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act (Pub. L. 111-296; the Act) under 7 CFR 
parts 210 and 220. Section 203 requires schools participating in the 
National School Lunch Program to make available to children free of 
charge, as nutritionally appropriate, potable water for consumption in 
the place where meals are served during meal service. Section 208 
requires the Secretary to promulgate proposed regulations to establish 
science-based nutrition standards for all foods sold in schools not 
later than December 13, 2011. The nutrition standards apply to all food 
sold outside the school meal programs, on the school campus, and at any 
time during the school day.
    Summary of Legal Basis: There is no existing regulatory requirement 
to make water available where meals are served. Regulations at 7 CFR 
parts 210.11 direct State agencies and school food authorities to 
establish regulations necessary to control the sale of foods in 
competition with lunches served under the NSLP, and prohibit the sale 
of foods of minimal nutritional value in the food service areas during 
the lunch periods. The sale of other competitive foods may, at the 
discretion of the State agency and school food authority, be allowed in 
the food service area during the lunch period only if all income from 
the sale of such foods accrues to the benefit of the nonprofit school 
food service or the school or student organizations approved by the 
school. State agencies and school food authorities may impose 
additional restrictions on the sale of and income from all foods sold 
at any time throughout schools participating in the Program.
    Alternatives: None.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Expected Costs Analysis and 
Budgetary Effects Statement: The Congressional Budget Office has 
determined that these provisions would incur no Federal costs.
    Although the complexity of factors that influence overall food 
consumption and obesity prevent us from defining a level of dietary 
change or disease or cost reduction that is attributable to the rule, 
there is evidence that standards like those in the rule will positively 
influence and perhaps directly improve

[[Page 77729]]

food choices and consumption patterns that contribute to students' 
long-term health and well-being, and reduce their risk for obesity.
    Any rule-induced benefit of healthier eating by school children 
would be accompanied by costs, at least in the short term. Healthier 
food may be more expensive than unhealthy food either in raw materials, 
preparation, or both and this greater expense would be distributed 
among students, schools, and the food industry.
    Risks: None known.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   02/08/13  78 FR 9530
NPRM Comment Period End.............   04/09/13  .......................
Interim Final Rule..................   06/28/13  78 FR 39067
Interim Final Rule Effective........   08/27/13  .......................
Interim Final Rule Comment Period      10/28/13  .......................
 End.
Final Action........................   03/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Governmental Jurisdictions.
    Government Levels Affected: Local, State.
    Federalism: This action may have federalism implications as defined 
in E.O. 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-AE09

USDA--FNS

7. 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 final rule will implement section 221 of the 
Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-296, the Act). It 
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 those 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 
those 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 
establishes 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 the proposed 
rule and its associated Regulatory Impact Analysis that offered 
alternatives for review and comment to the various criteria and 
procedures discussed.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This rule will 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. As described in the Regulatory Impact 
Analysis, the baseline is the current cost of food to CACFP providers. 
The rule more closely aligns the meals served in CACFP with the Dietary 
Guidelines in an essentially cost-neutral manner. USDA estimates that 
the rule will result in a very small decrease in the cost for CACFP 
providers to prepare and serve meals to program participants, and may 
result in a small, temporary increase in labor and administrative costs 
to implement the rule. Therefore, it is projected that no meaningful 
net change in cost will occur as a result of this rule.
    Risks: None identified.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   01/15/15  80 FR 2037
NPRM Comment Period End.............   04/15/15  .......................
NPRM Comment Period Extended........   04/27/15  80 FR 23243
NPRM Comment Period Extended End....   05/27/15  .......................
Final Action........................   03/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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--FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE (FSIS)

Final Rule Stage

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

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 601 et 
seq.)
    CFR Citation: 9 CFR 309.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is developing 
final regulations 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 proposed 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 also 
would improve the Agency's inspection efficiency by eliminating the 
time that FSIS inspection program personnel

[[Page 77730]]

(IPP) spend re-inspecting non-ambulatory disabled 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 rule is adopted, non-
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 rule 
would ensure the humane disposition of the non-ambulatory disabled veal 
calves. It also would increase the efficiency and effective 
implementation of inspection and humane handling requirements at 
official establishments.
    Risks: None.
    Timetable:

 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   05/13/15  80 FR 27269
NPRM Comment Period End.............   08/12/15  .......................
Final Action........................   03/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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--FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL SERVICE (FAS)

Final Rule Stage

9. USDA Local and Regional Food Aid Procurement Program

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: Section 3207 of the Agriculture Act of 2014
    CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: FAS is issuing a final rule with comment for the USDA 
Local and Regional Food Aid Procurement Program (USDA LRP Program), 
authorized in section 3207 of the Agricultural Act of 2014. The USDA 
LRP Program funds may be used to support development activities that 
strengthen the capacity of food-insecure developing countries, and 
build resilience and address the causes of chronic food insecurity and 
support USDA's other food assistance programs, especially the McGovern 
Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program 
(McGovern-Dole). In addition, funds may be used to fill food 
availability gaps generated by unexpected emergencies. USDA LRP Program 
funding used to complement ongoing activities under the McGovern-Dole 
Program will improve dietary diversity and nutrition, and support the 
graduation and sustainability of school-feeding programs as they 
transition to full host-government ownership. LRP funding will enable 
FAS and its partners to build the capacity of host-governments to 
implement their own homegrown school feeding programs. A final rule is 
needed for FAS to begin implementing the program in FY 2016 and will 
establish awardee obligations regarding financial management and 
performance standards specifying applicable Departmental regulations 
and incorporating statutory requirements. The promulgation of a rule to 
administer the USDA LRP program will require the assignment of a new 
CFR number.
    Statement of Need: It is necessary for Local and Regional Food Aid 
Procurement Program (LRP) regulations to be put in place before 
solicitations for application to the LRP program can be made for 
FY2016. The changes to Section 3207 in the 2014 Farm Bill require USDA 
to issue new regulations in order to enact the local and regional 
procurement provisions. The regulations will clarify: Program intent; 
application process; agreements process; payments; transport; 
recordkeeping and reporting; monitoring and evaluation; and 
noncompliance issues. The LRP regulations will be aligned with 
regulations for existing USDA food assistance programs, including Food 
for Progress Program and the McGovern-Dole International Food for 
Education and Child Nutrition Program.
    Summary of Legal Basis: 7 U.S.C. 1726c and Sections 3207 of the 
Agricultural Act of 2014 (Pub. L. 113-79).
    Alternatives: N/A.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: It is anticipated that adopting a 
local and regional procurement program will bring about several 
benefits identified under the local and regional pilot project. 
Primarily, USDA LRP Program will result in cost savings in transport, 
shipping, and handling; better match between recipients needs and 
program commodity availability; and time savings between the 
procurement and delivery of food, which is especially important in 
emergency situations; and providing a means to strengthen or build 
local supply chains.
    In addition, recipients under the LRP Pilot generally prefer 
locally and regionally sourced food over food sourced from other areas 
making it more suitable for food preparation and more accepted by 
school-aged children. This acceptability and availability would also 
impact the small scale producers who would experience an increase in 
demand and help them achieve economies of scale.
    Risks: None.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Rule With Comments............   02/00/16
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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: International Impacts: This regulatory 
action will be likely to have international trade and development 
effects, or otherwise be of international interest.
    Agency Contact: Connie Ehrhart, Management Analyst, Department of 
Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service, 1400 Independence Avenue 
SW., Washington, DC 20250, Phone: 202 690-1578, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 0551-AA87


[[Page 77731]]



USDA--RURAL BUSINESS--COOPERATIVE SERVICE (RBS)

Final Rule Stage

10. Program Measures and Metrics

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: Pub. L. 113-79, sec 6209
    CFR Citation: 7 CFR 4284, subpart J; 7 CFR 4280, subparts A and D; 
7 CFR 4284, subparts E and F; 7 CFR 4279, subparts A and B; 7 CFR 4287, 
subpart B; 7 CFR 4274, subpart D; 7 CFR 1942, subpart A; 7 CFR 3575, 
subpart A; 7 CFR 3570, subpart B.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Agency is proposing to publish an Interim Rule with 
request for comments that will codify certain program measures and 
metrics for included Agency programs and establish the process by which 
the Agency will collect the data. Section 6209 of the Agricultural Act 
of 2014 (2014 Farm Bill) (Pub. L. 113-79) requires the Secretary of 
Agriculture to collect data regarding economic activities created 
through grants and loans, including any technical assistance provided 
as a component of the grant or loan program, and measure the short- and 
long-term viability of award recipients and any entities to whom those 
recipients provide assistance using award funds. The proposed action 
will not change the underlying provisions of the included programs 
(e.g., eligibility, applications, scoring, and servicing provisions).
    Statement of Need: This interim rule implements section 6209, 
Program Measures and Metrics, under the Agricultural Act of 2014 (2014 
Farm Bill). The proposed action will codify the measures and metrics 
identified in section 6209(c)(2)(B) through (D) for each included 
program and establish the process by which the Agency will collect the 
data. The proposed action will not change the underlying provisions of 
the included programs (e.g., eligibility, applications, scoring, and 
servicing provisions).
    To implement section 6209, the Agency plans to publish a single 
rule that will modify each of the included programs accordingly. While 
the specific provisions may vary from program to program, the rule 
will, at minimum, specify for each program:
     The performance measures required to be collected by the 
statute (i.e., percentage of increase of employees, number of business 
starts and clients served, and any benefits such as an increase in 
revenue or customer base) and other measures in addition to these as 
determined by the Agency,
     Who is responsible for providing those metrics, and the 
time frame over which the metrics will be collected (this could vary 
depending on whether a grant or a loan/guaranteed loan is awarded).
    Summary of Legal Basis:
    Alternatives:
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
    Risks:
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule..................   05/00/16
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: MaryPat Dasal, Department of Agriculture, Rural 
Business-Cooperative Service, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, 
DC 20250, Phone: 202 720-7853, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 0570-AA95

USDA--RURAL UTILITIES SERVICE (RUS)

Final Rule Stage

11. Rural Broadband Access Loans and Loan Guarantees

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: Pub. L. 107-171; 7 U.S.C. 901 et seq.
    CFR Citation: 7 CFR 1738.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Rural Utilities Service (RUS) is amending regulations 
for the Rural Broadband Access Loan and Loan Guarantee program to 
implement section 6104 of the Agriculture Act of 2014 (2014 Farm Bill), 
which made changes the Agency must adopt prior to accepting 
applications for future loans. RUS published this regulation as an 
interim rule, which took effect upon publication in the Federal 
Register on July 30, 2015. The rulemaking will allow the Agency to 
begin accepting applications once again.
    In addition, the Agency is seeking comments regarding this interim 
rule to guide its efforts in drafting the final rule for the Broadband 
Loan Program. The Comment Date ends September 28, 2015.
    Statement of Need: The Rural Utilities Service (RUS) is amending 
regulations for the Rural Broadband Access Loan and Loan Guarantee 
program to implement section 6104 of the Agriculture Act of 2014 (2014 
Farm Bill) which made changes the Agency must adopt prior to accepting 
applications for future loans. RUS published this regulation as an 
interim rule, which took effect upon publication in the Federal 
Register on July 30, 2015. The rulemaking will allow the Agency to 
begin accepting applications once again.
    Summary of Legal Basis: On May 13, 2002, the Farm Security and 
Rural Investment Act of 2002, Public Law 107-171 (2002 Farm Bill) was 
signed into law. The 2002 Farm Bill amended the Rural Electrification 
Act of 1936 to include title VI, the Rural Broadband Access Loan and 
Loan Guarantee Program (Broadband Loan Program), to be administered by 
the Agency. Title VI authorized the Agency to approve loans and loan 
guarantees for the costs of construction, improvement, and acquisition 
of facilities and equipment for broadband service in eligible rural 
communities. Under the 2002 Farm Bill, the Agency was directed to 
promulgate regulations without public comment. Implementing the program 
required a different lending approach for the Agency than it employed 
in its earlier telephone program because of the unregulated, highly 
competitive, and technologically diverse nature of the broadband 
market. Those regulations were published on January 30, 2003, at 68 FR 
4684.
    In an attempt to enhance the Broadband Loan Program and to 
acknowledge growing criticism of funding competitive areas, the Agency 
proposed to amend the program's regulations on May 11, 2007, at 72 FR 
26742. As the Agency began analysis of the public comments it received 
on the proposed regulations, the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 
2008 (2008 Farm Bill) was working its way through Congress. On March 
14, 2011, the Agency published an interim rule implementing the 
requirements of the 2008 Farm Bill and started accepting applications. 
The Agency did not receive any significant comments to the interim rule 
and published a final rule on February 6, 2013. With the enactment of 
the Agricultural Act of 2014 (2014 Farm Bill) section 6104, Public Law 
113-79 (Feb. 7, 2014), additional requirements were added to the 
Broadband Loan Program, including the prioritization of approving 
applications, a minimum benchmark of broadband service, a more 
transparent public notice requirement, and the first statutorily 
required reporting standards, all of which are implemented in the rule.
    Alternatives: N/A.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Bringing broadband services to rural 
areas does present some challenges.

[[Page 77732]]

Because rural systems must contend with lower household density than 
urban systems, the cost to deploy fiber-to-the-home (FTTH) and 4G LTE 
systems in urban communities is considerably lower on a per household 
basis, making urban systems more economical to construct. Depending 
upon the technology deployed it can cost three times more, on average, 
to provide service to rural customers than to customers located in 
urban areas. Other associated rural issues, such as environmental 
challenges or providing wireless service through mountainous areas, 
also can add to the cost of deployment.
    Areas with low population size, locations that have experienced 
persistent population loss and an aging population, or places where 
population is widely dispersed over demanding terrain generally have 
difficulty attracting broadband service providers. These 
characteristics can make the fixed cost of providing broadband access 
too high, or limit potential demand, thus depressing the profitability 
of providing service. Clusters of lower service exist in sparsely 
populated areas, such as the Dakotas, eastern Montana, northern 
Minnesota, and eastern Oregon. Other low-service areas, such as the 
Missouri-Iowa border and Appalachia, have aging and declining numbers 
of residents. Nonetheless, rural areas in some States (such as 
Nebraska, Kansas, and Vermont) have higher-than expected broadband 
service, given their population characteristics, suggesting that 
policy, economic, and social factors can overcome common barriers to 
broadband expansion.
    Most employment growth in the U.S. over the last several decades 
has been in the service sector, a sector especially conducive for 
broadband applications. Broadband allows rural areas to compete for 
low- and high-end service jobs, from call centers to software 
development. Rural businesses have been adopting more e-commerce and 
Internet practices, improving efficiency and expanding market reach. 
Some rural retailers use the Internet to satisfy supplier requirements. 
The farm sector, a pioneer in rural Internet use, is increasingly 
comprised of farm businesses that purchase inputs and make sales 
online. Farm household characteristics such as age, education, presence 
of children, and household income are significant factors in adopting 
broadband Internet use, whereas distance from urban centers is not a 
factor. Larger farm businesses are more apt to use broadband in 
managing their operation; the more multifaceted the farm business, the 
more the farm used the Internet.
    The 2015 subsidy rate is 18.69 percent. The available FY 2015 
budget authority for this program is $4.5 million, which will provide a 
program level of $24.077 million in outlays at the current subsidy 
rate. Since the Interim Regulation for the Broadband Program was 
published in March of 2011, 27 applications have been received for an 
average of 7 loan applications per year. The applications range in size 
and may cover requests for funding for many communities. All of the 
pre-loan data collected by the applicant is generally submitted to RUS 
at the same time. The annual burden for preparation and submission per 
respondent for the pre-loan data is estimated to be 400 hours per 
response, response to the public notice filing requirement is 1.5 hours 
per response, and the preparation of loan documents is estimated at 24 
hours per response.
    The Agency estimates the cost to respondents will be at $108,325. 
The overall hours spent per application and cost to respondents did not 
change from the former regulation. The projected change in the overall 
cost to the government is minimal compared with the former projections, 
only $366. The burden of review breaks out into the following fashion: 
It is projected that there will be one more hour for the engineering 
analysis and financial analysis per application. The initial financial 
review and initial engineering review stay the same as it is under the 
previous regulation, as does the loan closing attorney and clerical 
assistance. Finally, it is estimated that the Loan Closing-Analyst time 
per application will increase by a half hour.
    Risks: Without access to advanced telecommunications networks, 
rural areas suffer from declining educational opportunities, inadequate 
health care, depressed economies, and high unemployment. In contrast, 
access to broadband can play a vital role in offsetting the obstacles 
of distances and isolation that have traditionally stifled rural 
progress and living standards. With broadband infrastructure in place 
high volumes of data can be shared easily across distances great and 
small. This technology is not a luxury service but rather a lifeline to 
modern everyday transactions. Without this basic utility rural 
residents do not and will not have adequate medical or educational 
services; rural businesses unable to thrive; and local governments 
disorganized and unconnected. Broadband accessibility is as fundamental 
for the future viability of rural communities today as was the 
telephone in the 20th century, and as railroads and highways were more 
than a century ago.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule..................   07/30/15  80 FR 45397
Interim Final Rule Effective........   07/30/15
Interim Final Rule Comment Period      09/28/15
 End.
Final Rule..........................   07/00/16
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Michele L. Brooks, Director, Program Development 
and Regulatory Analysis, Department of Agriculture, Rural Utilities 
Service, Room 5159 South Building, STOP 1522, 1400 Independence Avenue 
SW., Washington, DC 20250, Phone: 202 690-1078, Fax: 202 720-8435, 
Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 0572-AC34

USDA--NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE (NRCS)

Final Rule Stage

12. Agricultural Conservation Easement Program

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: Pub. L. 113-79
    CFR Citation: 7 CFR 1468.
    Legal Deadline: Other, Statutory, November 4, 2014, 270 days from 
enactment of Pub. L. 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

[[Page 77733]]

programs. NRCS promulgated a consolidated conservation easement 
regulation to reflect the 2014 Act's consolidation of the WRP, FRPP, 
and GRP programs. This action is needed to respond to comments 
received.
    Summary of Legal Basis: NRCS published an interim rule to implement 
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 the 
following:
     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 following:
     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..................   02/27/15  80 FR 11032
Interim Final Rule Comment Period      04/28/15
 End.
Interim Final Rule Comment Period      04/30/15  80 FR 24191
 Reopened.
Interim Final Rule Comment Period      05/28/15
 Reopened End.
Final Rule..........................   04/00/16
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 SW., Washington, DC 20250, Phone: 202 720-5484, 
Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 0578-AA61

USDA--NRCS

13. Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    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 Pub. L. 113-79.
    Abstract: The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 
promulgated the current Environmental Quality Incentives Program (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 one 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 six-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 two years 
thereafter; (4) establishes payment limitation 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 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 5 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 
published 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 updated 
the EQIP regulation to incorporate the 2014 Act changes, including 
consolidation of the

[[Page 77734]]

purposes formerly addressed through the Wildlife Habitat Incentives 
Program (WHIP). This action is needed to respond to comments received.
    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 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 the 
folowing:
     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 are the following:
     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..................   12/12/14  79 FR 73953
Interim Final Rule Effective........   12/12/14
Interim Final Rule Comment Period      02/10/15
 End.
Final Rule..........................   03/00/16
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 SW., Washington, DC 20250, Phone: 202 720-5484, 
Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 0578-AA62

USDA--NRCS

14. Conservation Stewardship Program

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 16 U.S.C. 3838d to 3838g
    CFR Citation: 7 CFR 1470.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: NRCS published an interim rule to incorporate the 
Agriculture Act of 2014 (the 2014 Act) changes to Conservation 
Stewardship Program (CSP) program administration. This regulatory 
action is pursuant to section 1246 of the Food Security Act of 1985 
(1985 Act), 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 1985 Act to establish CSP and authorized the 
program in fiscal years 2009 through 2013. The 2014 Act re-authorized 
and revised 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 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 updated the CSP 
regulation to incorporate the 2014 Act changes. This action is responds 
to comments received.
    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

[[Page 77735]]

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 the 
following:
     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 (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:
    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..........................   03/00/16
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 SW., Washington, DC 20250, Phone: 202 720-5484, 
Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 0578-AA63

BILLING CODE 3410-90-P

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 2016. During the next year, 
NOAA plans to publish eight 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

[[Page 77736]]

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 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 2016, 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

[[Page 77737]]

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 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 eight 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 eight 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 (NMFS) 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, 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. Designation of Critical Habitat for North Atlantic Right Whale 
(0648-AY54): The National Marine Fisheries Service proposes to revise 
critical habitat for the North Atlantic right whale. This proposal 
would modify the critical habitat previously designated in 1994, based 
on improved knowledge derived from a variety of studies, internal 
analysis and surveys since 1994. The improved understanding of right 
whale ecology and habitat needs over the last 20 years supports the 
rule's proposed expansion of critical habitat in areas of the northeast 
important for feeding and in southern calving grounds along the coast 
from southern North Carolina to northern Florida.
    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. Revision to the Definition of Destruction or Adverse 
Modification of Critical Habitat (0648-BB80): The U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service's and the National Marine Fisheries Service's revision 
of the regulatory definition of ``destruction or adverse modification'' 
of critical habitat will establish a binding regulatory definition to 
replace the 1986 definition that was invalidated by Federal courts.
    6. Implementing Changes to the Regulations for Designating Critical 
Habitat (0648-BB79): The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's and the 
National Marine Fisheries Service's rule will amend portions of 50 CFR 
424 to clarify procedures for designating and revising critical 
habitat. The rule makes minor changes to the scope and purpose, alters 
some definitions, and clarifies the criteria for designating critical 
habitat.
    7. Final Policy Regarding Implementation of Section 4(b)(2) of the 
Endangered Species Act (0648-BB82): This policy provides the U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service's and the National Marine Fisheries Service's 
position on how we consider partnerships and conservation plans, 
conservation plans permitted under section 10 of the ESA, tribal lands, 
military lands, Federal lands, national security and homeland security 
impacts, and economic impacts in the exclusion process. The policy will 
complement the amendment to the regulations regarding impact analyses 
of critical habitat designations and clarify

[[Page 77738]]

critical habitat exclusions under section 4(b)(2) of the ESA and 
provide for a credible and predictable critical habitat exclusion 
process.
    8. Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act; 
Seafood Import Monitoring Program (0648-BF09): The Magnuson-Stevens 
Fishery Conservation and Management Act prohibits the importation and 
trade in interstate commerce of fishery products from fish caught in in 
violation of any foreign law or regulation.

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.

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 U.S. persons' participation in certain boycotts administered 
by foreign governments. The National Security 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, 
provide for surveys to assess the capabilities of the industrial base 
to support the national defense 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 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

    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, known as the Export Control Reform 
Initiative (ECRI), 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 are to apply the criteria 
and revise the lists of munitions and dual-use items that are 
controlled for export so that they:
     Distinguish the transactions that should be subject to 
stricter levels of control from those where more permissive levels of 
control are appropriate;
     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.
    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 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 began implementing the ECRI with 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. Additionally, BIS began 
publishing proposed rules to add to its Commerce Control List (CCL), 
military items the President determined no longer warranted control by 
the Department of State. BIS continued to publish such proposed rules 
in FY 2012.
    In FY 2013, BIS crossed an important milestone with publication of 
two final rules that began to put ECRI policies into place. An Initial 
Implementation rule (78 FR 22660, April 16, 2013) set in place the 
structure under which items the President determines no longer warrant 
control on the United States Munitions List are controlled on the 
Commerce Control List. It also revised license exceptions and 
regulatory definitions, including the definition of ``specially 
designed'' to make those exceptions and definitions clearer and to more 
closely align them with the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, 
and added to the CCL certain military aircraft, gas turbine engines and 
related items. A second final rule (78 FR 40892, July 8, 2012) followed 
on by adding to the CCL military vehicles, vessels of war submersible 
vessels, and auxiliary military equipment that President determined no 
longer warrant control on the USML.
    BIS continued its ECRI efforts and by the end of fiscal year 2015 
had published final rules adding to the CCL additional items that the 
President determined no longer warrant control under rules administered 
by the State Department in the following categories: Military training 
equipment; Explosives and energetic materials; Personal protective 
equipment; Launch vehicles and rockets; Spacecraft; and Military 
Electronics. During fiscal year 2015, BIS published proposed rules that 
would add to the CCL items related to: Fire control, range finder, 
optical and guidance and control equipment; Toxicological Agents; and 
Directed energy weapons. BIS expects to continue with publication of 
proposed and final rules to add items to the CCL as part it the ECRI in 
fiscal year 2016.

[[Page 77739]]

    During fiscal year 2015, BIS initiated a process of evaluating the 
effectiveness of its ECRI efforts. The first action in this process was 
publication of a notice seeking public comments on the treatment of 
military aircraft and gas turbine engines, the first two categories of 
items added to the CCL by this initiative. The notice sought public 
input on whether the regulations are clear, do not inadvertently 
control items in normal commercial use as military items, account for 
technological developments, and properly implement the national 
security and foreign policy objectives of the reform effort. BIS 
anticipates that this will be the first in a series of such notices 
that will be published after the public has had time to develop 
experience with each regulation that added categories of items to the 
CCL.

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 
E.O. 13609, the President requires each executive agency to include in 
its Regulatory Plan a summary of its international regulatory 
cooperation activities that are reasonably anticipated to lead to 
significant regulations.
    The Department of Commerce engages with numerous international 
bodies in various forums to promote the Department's priorities and 
foster regulations that do not ``impair the ability of American 
business to export and compete internationally.'' E.O. 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.
    Two rulemakings that are the product of the Agency's retrospective 
review are from BIS and NOAA. BIS' rule streamlining the support 
documentation requirements in the Export Administration Regulations, 
published March 13, 2015, was the first comprehensive revision of these 
requirements in twenty years. The rule reduced the paperwork burden on 
U.S. exporters without compromising regulatory objectives and clarified 
the remaining requirements to aid compliance.
    NOAA continues to demonstrate great success in fishery 
sustainability managed under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, with near-record 
landings and revenue accomplished while rebuilding stocks across the 
country and preventing overfishing. Since the Magnuson-Stevens Act 
reauthorization in 2007, NMFS and the Regional Fishery Management 
Councils have implemented annual catch limits and accountability 
measures in every fishery management plan under National Standard One 
of the act. Informed by a robust public process that gained input 
through a public summit (Managing our Nation's Fisheries), visits to 
each region and Council and multiple public hearings, NMFS took the 
experience gained from 8 years of implementation of National Standard 
One and has proposed multiple substantive, technical changes to the 
National Standard One rule that will improve implementation and 
continue to support healthy fisheries.
    For more information, the most recent E.O. 13563 progress report 
for the Department can be found here: http://open.commerce.gov/news/2015/03/20/commerce-plan-retrospective-analysis-existing-rules-0.

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 1,304,807 military personnel and 866,923 civilians 
assigned as of June 30, 2015, and over 200 large and medium 
installations in the continental United States, U.S. territories, and 
foreign countries. The overall size, composition, and dispersion of 
DoD, coupled with an innovative regulatory program, presents a 
challenge to the management of the Defense regulatory efforts under 
Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' of 
September 30, 1993.
    Because of its diversified nature, DoD is affected by the 
regulations issued by regulatory agencies such as the Departments of 
Commerce, Energy, Health and Human Services, Housing

[[Page 77740]]

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 E.O. 12866.
International Regulatory Cooperation
    As the President noted in E.O. 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 E.O. 
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 Departments of State and 
Commerce, engages with other countries in the Wassenaar Arrangement, 
Nuclear Suppliers Group, Australia Group, and Missile Technology 
Control Regime through which the international community develops a 
common list of items that should be subject to export controls. DoD has 
been a key participant in the Administration's Export Control Reform 
effort that resulted in a complete overhaul of the U.S. Munitions List 
and fundamental changes to the Commerce Control List. New controls have 
facilitated transfers of goods and technologies to allies and partners 
while helping prevent transfers to countries of national security and 
proliferation concern. DoD will continue to assess new and emerging 
technologies to ensure items that provide critical military and 
intelligence capabilities are properly controlled on international 
export control regime lists.
Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations
    Pursuant to section 6 of E.O. 13563 ``Improving Regulation and 
Regulatory Review (January 18, 2011), the following Regulatory 
Identification Numbers (RINs) have been identified as associated with 
retrospective review and analysis in the Department's final 
retrospective review of regulations plan. Several are of particular 
interest to small businesses. The entries on this list are 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 DoD. These rulemakings can also be found on 
Regulations.gov. We will continue to identify retrospective review 
regulations as they are published and report on the progress of the 
overall plan biannually. DoD's 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
                 RIN                    significantly reduce burdens on
                                               small businesses)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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-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--
                                        Transportation (DFARS Case 2012-
                                        D057).
0750-AH94............................  Clauses with Alternates--Foreign
                                        Acquisition (DFARS Case 2013-
                                        D005).
0750-AH95............................  Clauses with Alternates--Quality
                                        Assurance (DFARS Case 2013-
                                        D004).
0750-AI02............................  Clauses with Alternates--Contract
                                        Financing (DFARS Case 2013-
                                        D014).
0750-AI10............................  Clauses with Alternates--Research
                                        and Development Contracting
                                        (DFARS Case 2013-D026).
0750-AI19............................  Clauses with Alternates--Taxes
                                        (DFARS Case 2013-D025).
0750-AI27............................  Clauses with Alternates--Special
                                        Contracting Methods, Major
                                        System Acquisition, and Service
                                        Contracting (DFARS Case 2014-
                                        D004).
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).
0750-AI43............................  Inflation Adjustment of
                                        Acquisition-Related Thresholds.
0790-AI42............................  Personnel Security Program.
0790-AI54............................  Defense Support of Civilian Law
                                        Enforcement Agencies.
0790-AI77............................  Provision of Early Intervention
                                        and Special Education Services
                                        to Eligible DoD Dependents.
0790-AI86............................  Defense Logistics Agency Privacy
                                        Program.
0790-AI87............................  Defense Logistics Agency Freedom
                                        of Information Act Program.

[[Page 77741]]

 
0790-AI88............................  Shelter for the Homeless.
0790-AJ03............................  DoD Privacy Program.
0790-AJ06............................  Voluntary Education Programs.
0790-AJ10............................  Enhancement of Protections on
                                        Consumer Credit for Members of
                                        the Armed Forces and Their
                                        Dependents.
                                       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 following Defense Federal 
Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) rules:
     Requirements Relating to Supply Chain Risk (DFARS case 
2012-D050). This final rule implements 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 
contracting officers to evaluate an offerors supply chain risk when 
purchasing information technology related to national security systems. 
This rule enables agencies to exclude sources identified as having a 
supply chain risk from consideration for award of a covered contract, 
in order to minimize the potential risk for supplies and services 
purchased by DoD to maliciously degrade the integrity and operation of 
sensitive information technology systems. The cost impact will vary by 
solicitation or contract, depending on the level of potential harm to 
DoD systems that may be avoided by excluding a source with an 
unacceptable supply chain risk. However, DoD anticipates significant 
savings to taxpayers by reducing the risk of unsafe products entering 
the supply chain, which pose a serious threat to sensitive government 
information technology systems and put in jeopardy the safety of our 
military forces.
     Network Penetration Reporting and Contracting for Cloud 
Services (DFARS case 2013-D018). This final rule implements section 941 
of the NDAA for FY 2013 and section 1632 of the NDAA for FY 2015. 
Section 941 requires cleared defense contractors to report penetrations 
of networks and information systems and allows DoD personnel access to 
equipment and information to assess the impact of reported 
penetrations. Section 1632 requires that a contractor designated as 
operationally critical must report each time a cyber-incident occurs on 
that contractor's network or information systems. Ultimately, DoD 
anticipates significant savings to taxpayers as a result of this rule, 
by improving information security for DoD information that resides in 
or transits through contractor systems and a cloud environment. Recent 
high-profile breaches of Federal information show the need to ensure 
that information security protections are clearly, effectively, and 
consistently addressed in contracts. This rule will help protect 
covered defense information or other Government data from compromise 
and protect against the loss of operationally critical support 
capabilities, which could directly impact national security.
     Detection and Avoidance of Counterfeit Electronic Parts--
Further Implementation (DFARS case 2014-D005). This final rule further 
implements section 818 of the NDAA for FY 2012, as modified by section 
817 of the NDAA for FY 2015. Section 818, as modified by section 817, 
addresses required sources of electronic parts for defense contractors 
and subcontractors. This rule requires DoD and its contractors and 
subcontractors, except in limited circumstances, to acquire electronic 
parts from trusted suppliers. The rule also requires DoD contractors 
and subcontractors that are not the original component manufacturer, to 
notify the Government if it is not possible to obtain an electronic 
part from a trusted supplier and to be responsible for the inspection, 
test, and authentication of such parts in accordance with existing 
industry standards. Such validation of new parts and new suppliers are 
steps that a prudent contractor would take notwithstanding this rule. 
The benefits associated with avoiding the acquisition of counterfeit 
electronic parts, which could directly impact national security, far 
outweigh the minimal cost impact associated with the notification 
requirement imposed by this rule.
    2. Rulemakings of particular interest to small businesses.
    The Department plans to propose the following DFARS rule--
     Temporary Extension of Test Program for Comprehensive 
Small Business Subcontracting Plans (DFARS case 2015-D013). This 
proposed rule implements section 821 of the NDAA for FY 2015 regarding 
the Test Program for Comprehensive Small Business Subcontracting Plans. 
The Test Program was established under section 834 of the NDAAs for FYs 
1990 and 1992 to determine whether the negotiation and administration 
of comprehensive small business subcontracting plans would result in an 
increase of opportunities provided for small business concerns under 
DoD contracts. A comprehensive subcontracting plan (CSP) can be 
negotiated on a corporate, division, or sector level, rather than 
contract by contract. This rule proposes to amend the DFARS to: (1) 
Extend the Test Program through December 31, 2017; (2) require 
contracting officers to consider an offerors failure to make a good 
faith effort to comply with its CSP in past performance evaluations; 
and (3) inform program participants that a CSP will not be negotiated 
with a contractor that did not meet the small business goals negotiated 
in its prior CSP. This rule is of particular interest to small 
businesses because it holds prime contractors that are participating in 
the program accountable for the small business goals established in 
their CSP, resulting in increased business opportunities for small 
business subcontractors.
    3. Rulemakings that streamline regulations, reduce unjustified 
burdens, and minimize burdens on small businesses.
    The Department plans to finalize the following DFARS rule--
     Warranty Tracking of Serialized Items (DFARS case 2014-
D026). This final rule requires the use of the electronic contract 
attachments to record and track warranty data and source of repair 
information for serialized items in the Product Data Reporting and 
Evaluation Program (PDREP) system. While contracting officers are 
encouraged to use the electronic attachments, currently, it is not 
mandatory in the DFARS. As a result, offerors may propose warranty 
terms in paper form, which are later manually input into the PDREP 
system when a contract is awarded. On the other hand, the electronic 
contract attachments are designed to easily upload to the PDREP system, 
which reduces: (1) The potential burden of manually entering warranty 
terms in multiple places, and (2) inaccuracies in

[[Page 77742]]

the data reported. By making use of these attachments mandatory, the 
rule provides DoD the ability to more effectively track warranty data 
and source of repair information for serialized items in a single 
repository of warranty terms.
    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.
    The Department plans to finalize the following DFARS rule--
     Clauses with Alternates--Small Business Programs (DFARS 
case 2015-D017). This final rule amends those contract clauses 
associated with small business programs that are prescribed for use 
with an ``alternate.'' A contracting officer selects a basic clause for 
inclusion in a contract based on the clause prescription contained in 
the DFARS. Some clause prescriptions require the use of ``alternate'' 
text within a basic clause depending on the circumstances of the 
acquisition. In lieu of listing the basic clause and any alternate text 
separately, this rule proposes to include in the regulation the full 
text of both the basic clause with the alternate clause. This new 
convention will facilitate selection of clauses with alternates using 
automated contract writing systems and ensure paragraphs from the basic 
clause that should be superseded by alternate text are not 
inadvertently included in the solicitation or contract. As a result, 
the terms of a solicitation and contract are clearly communicated to 
offerors and contractors who consider such terms during proposal 
development and contract performance.
    5. Rulemakings that have a significant international impact.
    The Department plans to propose the following DFARS rule--
     Contractors Performing Private Security Functions (DFARS 
case 2015-D021). During contingency operations, humanitarian or peace 
operations, or other military operations or exercises, DoD employs 
private security contractors (PSCs) to guard personnel, facilities, 
designated sites, or property of Federal agencies, the contractor or 
subcontractor, or a third party. Requirements for DoD contractors 
performing private security functions outside the United States are 
currently contained in the Federal Acquisition Regulation, and 
supplemented by the DFARS. This rule proposes to streamline the 
regulation by consolidating all terms and conditions for DoD PSCs in a 
single DFARS clause, which can be updated by DoD in a more efficient 
and timely manner. This rule will also provide an alternative to the 
high-level quality assurance standard required by the DFARS for PSCs. 
Contract quality requirements fall into four general categories, 
depending on the extent of quality assurance needed by the Government 
for the acquisition involved. In the case of PSC's, the high-level 
quality standard, ``Management System for Quality of Private Security 
Company Operations--Requirements with Guidance, ANSI/ASIS PSC.1-2012'' 
is mandatory. The alternative proposed by this rule for PSCs (ISO 
18788: Management System Private Security Operations--Requirements with 
Guidance) is substantially the same as ANSI/ASIS PSC.1-2012 and is more 
widely accepted on an international basis.
    Specific DoD Priorities: For this regulatory plan, there are five 
specific DoD priorities, all of which reflect the established 
regulatory principles. DoD has focused its regulatory resources on the 
most serious 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, transition assistance, and 
cyber security.

1. Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics/Defense Procurement and 
Acquisition Policy (DPAP), Department of Defense

    DPAP continuously reviews the DFARS and continues to lead 
Government efforts to--
     Improve the presentation, clarity, and streamlining of the 
regulation by: (1) Implementing the new convention to construct clauses 
with alternates in a manner whereby the alternate clauses are included 
in full-text; (2) removing guidance that does not have a significant 
effect beyond the internal operating procedure of the Department or 
impose a significant cost or administrative impact on contractors or 
offerors, which is more appropriately addressed in the DFARS 
Procedures, Guidance, and Information; and (3) removing obsolete 
reporting or other requirements imposed on contractors. Such 
improvements ensure that the regulation contracting officers, 
contractors, and offerors have a clear understanding of the rules for 
doing business with the Department of Defense.
     Obtain early engagement with industry on procurement 
topics of high public interest by: (1) Utilizing the DPAP Defense 
Acquisition Regulation System Web site to obtain early public feedback 
on newly enacted legislation that impacts the Department's acquisition 
regulations, prior to initiating rulemaking to draft the implementing 
rules; and (2) holding public meetings to solicit industry feedback on 
proposed rulemakings.
     Employ methods to facilitate and improve efficiency of the 
contracting process such as: (1) Requiring the use of electronic forms; 
and (2) establishing that electronic contract documents contained in 
Electronic Data Access system are official contract documents. Use of 
electronic means to accomplish the contracting process: (1) Reduces the 
burden on both industry and the Department associated with manual and 
duplicative data entry, and (2) removes limitations on access to 
information.

2. Health Affairs, Department of Defense

    The Department of Defense is able to meet its dual mission of 
wartime readiness and peacetime health care for those entitled to DoD 
medical care and benefits by operating an extensive network of military 
medical treatment facilities supplemented by services furnished by 
civilian health care providers and facilities through the TRICARE 
program as administered under DoD contracts. TRICARE is a major health 
care program designed to improve the management and integration of 
DoD's health care delivery system.
    The Department of Defense's Military Health System (MHS) continues 
to meet the challenge of providing the world's finest combat medicine 
and aeromedical evacuation, while supporting peacetime health care for 
those entitled to DoD medical care and benefits at home and abroad. The 
MHS brings together the worldwide health care resources of the 
Uniformed Services (often referred to as ``direct care,'' usually 
within military treatment facilities) and supplements this capability 
with services furnished by network and non-network civilian health care 
professionals, institutions, pharmacies, and suppliers, through the 
TRICARE program as administered under DoD contracts, to provide access 
to high quality health care services while maintaining the capability 
to support military operations. The TRICARE program serves 9.5 million 
Active Duty Service Members, National Guard and Reserve members, 
retirees, their families, survivors, and certain former spouses 
worldwide. TRICARE continues to offer an increasingly integrated and 
comprehensive health care plan, refining and enhancing both benefits 
and programs in a manner consistent with the law, industry

[[Page 77743]]

standard of care, and best practices, to meet the changing needs of its 
beneficiaries. 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--
     Proposed Rule: TRICARE Mental Health and Substance Abuse. 
This rule proposes revisions to the TRICARE regulation to reduce 
administrative barriers to access to mental health benefit coverage and 
to improve access to substance use disorder (SUD) treatment for TRICARE 
beneficiaries, consistent with earlier Department of Defense and 
Institute of Medicine recommendations, current standards of practice in 
mental health and addition medicine, and governing laws. This proposed 
rule has four main objectives: (1) To eliminate of quantitative and 
qualitative treatment limitations on SUD and mental health benefit 
coverage and align beneficiary cost-sharing for mental health and SUD 
benefits with those applicable to medical/surgical benefits; (2) to 
expand covered mental health and SUD treatment under TRICARE, to 
include coverage of intensive outpatient programs and treatment of 
opioid dependence; (3) to streamline the requirements for institutional 
providers to become TRICARE authorized providers; and (4) to develop 
TRICARE reimbursement methodologies for newly recognized mental health 
and SUD intensive outpatient programs and opioid treatment programs. 
DoD anticipates publishing the proposed rule in the second quarter of 
FY 2016.

3. Personnel and Readiness, Department of Defense

    The Department of Defense plans to publish rules regarding 
transition assistance for military personnel and sexual assault 
prevention--
     Interim Final Rule: Transition Assistance for Military 
Personnel (TAP). This rule establishes policy, assigns 
responsibilities, and prescribes procedures for administration of the 
DoD Transition Assistance Program (TAP). The goal of TAP is to prepare 
all eligible members of the Military Services for a transition to 
civilian life, including preparing them to meet Career Readiness 
Standards (CRS). The TAP provides information and training to ensure 
Service members leaving Active Duty and eligible Reserve Component 
Service members being released from active duty are prepared for their 
next step in life whether pursuing additional education, finding a job 
in the public or private sector, starting their own business or other 
form of self-employment, or returning to school or an existing job. 
Service members receive training to meet CRS through the Transition GPS 
(Goals, Plans, Success) curricula, including a core curricula and 
individual tracks focused on Accessing Higher Education, Career 
Technical Training, and Entrepreneurship. All Service members who are 
separating, retiring, or being released from a period of 180 days or 
more of continuous Active Duty must complete all mandatory requirements 
of the Veterans Opportunity to Work (VOW) Act, which includes pre-
separation counseling to develop an Individual Transition Plan (ITP) 
and identify their career planning needs; attend the Department of 
Veterans Affairs (VA) Benefits Briefings I and II to understand what VA 
benefits the Service member earned, how to apply for them, and leverage 
them for a positive economic outcome; and attend the Department of 
Labor Employment Workshop (DOLEW), which focuses on the mechanics of 
resume writing, networking, job search skills, interview skills, and 
labor market research. DoD anticipates publishing the interim final 
rule in the first quarter of FY 2016.
     Interim Final Rule; Amendment: Sexual Assault Prevention 
and Response (SAPR) Program. The purpose of this rule is to implement 
DoD policy and assign responsibilities for the SAPR Program on 
prevention, response, and oversight of sexual assault. The goal is for 
DoD to establish a culture free of sexual assault through an 
environment of prevention, education and training, response capability, 
victim support, reporting procedures, and appropriate accountability 
that enhances the safety and well-being of all persons. DoD anticipates 
publishing the interim final rule in the second quarter of FY 2016.
     Interim Final Rule; Amendment: Sexual Assault Prevention 
and Response (SAPR) Program Procedures. This rule establishes policy, 
assigns responsibilities, and provides guidance and procedures for the 
SAPR Program. It establishes processes and procedures for the Sexual 
Assault Forensic Examination Kit, the multidisciplinary Case Management 
Group, and guidance on how to handle sexual assault, SAPR minimum 
program standards, SAPR training requirements, and SAPR requirements 
for the DoD Annual Report on Sexual Assault in the Military. The DoD 
goal is a culture free of sexual assault through an environment of 
prevention, education and training, response capability, victim 
support, reporting procedures, and appropriate accountability that 
enhances the safety and well-being of all persons. DoD anticipates 
publishing the interim final rule in the second quarter of FY 2016.

4. Chief Information Officer, Department of Defense

    The Department of Defense plans to publish the final rule for the 
Defense Industrial Base (DIB) Cybersecurity (CS) Activities that 
implements statutory requirements for mandatory cyber incident 
reporting while maintaining the voluntary cyber threat information 
sharing program.
     Interim Final Rule: Defense Industrial Base (DIB) Cyber 
Security (CS) Activities. DoD revised its DoD-DIB Cybersecurity (CS) 
Activities regulation to mandate reporting of cyber incidents that 
result in an actual or potentially adverse effect on a covered 
contractor information system or covered defense information residing 
therein, or on a contractor's ability to provide operationally critical 
support, and modify eligibility criteria to permit greater 
participation in the voluntary DoD-Defense Industrial Base (DIB) 
Cybersecurity (CS) information sharing program. DoD anticipates 
publishing the final rule in the fourth quarter of FY 2016.

DOD--OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (OS)

Proposed Rule Stage

15.  Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR) Program

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 10 U.S.C. 113; Pub. L. 109-364; Pub. L. 109-163; 
Pub. L. 108-375; Pub. L. 106-65; Pub. L. 110-417; Pub. L. 111-84; Pub. 
L. 112-81; Pub. L. 113-66; Pub. L. 113-291
    CFR Citation: 32 CFR 103.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This part implements Department of Defense (DoD) policy 
and assigns responsibilities for the Sexual Assault Prevention and 
Response (SAPR) Program on prevention, response, and oversight to 
sexual assault. It is DoD policy to establish a culture free of sexual 
assault through an environment of prevention, education and training, 
response capability, victim support, reporting procedures, and 
appropriate accountability that enhances the safety and wellbeing of 
all persons covered by this regulation.
    Statement of Need: The purpose of this rule is to implement DoD 
policy and assign responsibilities for the Sexual Assault Prevention 
and Response (SAPR) Program on prevention, response, and oversight to 
sexual assault.

[[Page 77744]]

    Summary of Legal Basis: Establishes SAPR minimum program standards, 
SAPR training requirements, and SAPR requirements for the DoD Annual 
Report on Sexual Assault in the Military consistent with title 10, 
United States Code, the DoD Task Force Report on Care for Victims of 
Sexual Assault and pursuant to DoD Directive (DoDD) 5124.02, DoDD 
6495.01, and Public Laws 106-65, 108-375, 109-163, 109-364, 110-417, 
111-84, 111-383, 112-81, 112-239, 113-66, and 113-291.
    Alternatives: The Department of Defense will lack comprehensive 
SAPR program policy guidance on the prevention and response to sexual 
assaults involving members of the U.S. Armed Forces. The DoD will not 
have guidance to establish a culture free of sexual assault through an 
environment of prevention, education and training, response capability, 
victim support, reporting procedures, and appropriate accountability 
that enhances the safety and well being of all persons covered by this 
part (32 CFR 103) and 32 CFR 105. DoD will lack the policy guidance to 
promulgate requirements mandated in the National Defense Authorization 
Acts.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The Fiscal Year 2014 Operation and 
Maintenance funding for DoD SAPRO was $26.798 million with an 
additional Congressional allocation of $25.3 million designated for the 
Special Victims' Counsel program and the Special Victims' Investigation 
and Prosecution capability that was reprogrammed to the Military 
Services and the National Guard Bureau. Additionally, each of the 
Military Services establishes its own SAPR budget for the programmatic 
costs arising from the implementation of the training, prevention, 
reporting, response, and oversight requirements established by this 
rule.
    The anticipated benefits associated with this rule include:
    (1) A complete and up-to-date SAPR Policy consisting of this part 
and 32 CFR 105, to include comprehensive SAPR policy guidance on the 
prevention and response to sexual assaults involving members of the 
U.S. Armed Forces.
    (2) Guidance and policy with which the DoD may establish a culture 
free of sexual assault, through an environment of prevention, education 
and training, response capability, victim support, reporting 
procedures, and appropriate accountability that enhances the safety and 
well being of all persons covered by this part and 32 CFR 105.
    (3) Requirement to provide care that is gender-responsive, 
culturally competent, and recovery-oriented. Sexual assault patients 
shall be given priority, and treated as emergency cases. Emergency care 
shall consist of emergency healthcare and the offer of a Sexual Assault 
Forensic Examination (SAFE). The victim shall be advised that even if a 
SAFE is declined the victim is encouraged (but not mandated) to receive 
medical care, psychological care, and victim advocacy.
    (4) Standardized SAPR requirements, terminology, guidelines, 
protocols, and guidelines for training materials shall focus on 
awareness, prevention, and response at all levels, as appropriate.
    (5) An immediate, trained sexual assault response capability shall 
be available for each report of sexual assault in all locations, 
including in deployed locations.
    (6) Victims of sexual assault shall be protected from coercion, 
retaliation, and reprisal.
    Risks: The rule intends to enable military readiness by 
establishing a culture free of sexual assault. This rule aims to 
mitigate this risk to mission readiness.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   03/00/16
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Additional Information: DoD Directive 6495.01, ``Sexual Assault 
Prevention and Response (SAPR) Program''.
    Agency Contact: Diana Rangoussis, Department of Defense, Office of 
the Secretary, Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301, Phone: 703 696-
9422.
    RIN: 0790-AJ40

DOD--OS

Final Rule Stage

16. Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Program Procedures

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 10 U.S.C. ch 47; Pub. L. 106-65; Pub. L. 108-375; 
Pub. L. 109-163; Pub. L. 109-364; Pub. L. 110-417; Pub. L. 111-84; Pub. 
L. 111-383; Pub. L. 112-81; Pub. L. 112-239; Pub. L. 113-66; Pub. L. 
113-291
    CFR Citation: 32 CFR 105.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The procedures discussed establish a culture of 
prevention, response, and accountability that enhances the safety and 
well-being of all DoD members.
    Statement of Need: The rule establishes the processes and 
procedures for the Sexual Assault Forensic Examination (SAFE) kit; the 
multidisciplinary Case Management Group to include guidance for the 
group on how to handle sexual assault; SAPR minimum program standards; 
SAPR training requirements; and SAPR requirements for the DoD Annual 
Report on Sexual Assault in the Military.
    Summary of Legal Basis: In February of 2004, the former Secretary 
of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld directed Dr. David S. C. Chu, the former 
Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, to review the 
DoD process for treatment and care of victims of sexual assault in the 
Military Services. One of the recommendations emphasized the need to 
establish a single point of accountability for sexual assault policy 
within the Department. This led to the establishment of the Joint Task 
Force for Sexual Assault Prevention and Response, and the naming of 
then Brigadier General K.C. McClain as its commander in October 2004. 
The Task Force focused its initial efforts on developing a new DoD-wide 
sexual assault policy that incorporated recommendations set forth in 
the Task Force Report on Care for Victims of Sexual Assault as well as 
in the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2005 (Pub. L. 108-375). This act directed the Department to have a 
sexual assault policy in place by January 1, 2005. Subsequent National 
Defense Authorization Acts provided additional requirements for the 
Department of Defense sexual assault prevention and response program 
in: Section 113 of title 10, United States Code; and Public Laws 109-
364, 109-163, 108-375, 106-65, 110-417, 111-84, 112-81, 112-239, 113-
66, and 113-291.
    Alternatives: The Department of Defense will lack comprehensive 
Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR) procedures to implement 
the DoD Directive 6495.01, Sexual Assault Prevention and Response 
(SAPR) Program, which is the DoD policy on prevention and response to 
sexual assaults involving members of the U.S. Armed Forces. The DoD 
will not have guidance to establish a culture free of sexual assault 
through an environment of prevention, education and training, response 
capability, victim support, reporting procedures, and appropriate 
accountability that enhances the safety and well-being of all persons 
covered by this part and 32 CFR 103. DoD will lack the implementing 
procedures to

[[Page 77745]]

promulgate requirements mandated in the National Defense Authorization 
Acts.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The preliminary estimate of the 
anticipated cost associated with this rule for the current fiscal year 
is approximately $15.010 million. Additionally, each of the Military 
Services establishes its own SAPR budget for the programmatic costs 
arising from the implementation of the training, prevention, reporting, 
response, and oversight requirements established by this rule.
    The anticipated benefits associated with this rule include:
    (1) A complete SAPR Policy consisting of this part and 32 CFR 103, 
to include comprehensive SAPR procedures to implement the DoD Directive 
6495.01, Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR) Program, which 
is the DoD policy on prevention and response to sexual assaults 
involving members of the U.S. Armed Forces.
    (2) Guidance and procedures with which the DoD may establish a 
culture free of sexual assault, through an environment of prevention, 
education and training, response capability, victim support, reporting 
procedures, and appropriate accountability that enhances the safety and 
well-being of all persons covered by this part (32 CFR 105) and 32 CFR 
103.
    (3) Requirement that medical care and SAPR services are gender-
responsive, culturally competent, and recovery-oriented. A 24 hour, 7 
day per week sexual assault response capability for all locations, 
including deployed areas, shall be established for persons covered in 
this part. An immediate, trained sexual assault response capability 
shall be available for each report of sexual assault in all locations, 
including in deployed locations. Sexual assault victims shall be given 
priority, and treated as emergency cases. Emergency care shall consist 
of emergency medical care and the offer of a SAFE. The victim shall be 
advised that even if a SAFE is declined the victim shall be encouraged 
(but not mandated) to receive medical care, psychological care, and 
victim advocacy.
    (4) Command sexual assault awareness and prevention programs and 
DoD law enforcement and criminal justice procedures that enable persons 
to be held appropriately accountable for their actions, shall be 
supported by all commanders.
    (5) Standardized SAPR requirements, terminology, guidelines, 
protocols, and guidelines for training materials shall focus on 
awareness, prevention, and response at all levels, as appropriate.
    (6) Sexual Assault Response Coordinators (SARC), SAPR Victim 
Advocates (VA), and other responders will assist sexual assault victims 
regardless of Service affiliation.
    (7) Service member and adult military dependent victims of sexual 
assault shall receive timely access to comprehensive medical and 
psychological treatment, including emergency care treatment and 
services, as described in this part and 32 CFR 103.
    (8) Military Service members who file Unrestricted and Restricted 
Reports of sexual assault shall be protected from reprisal, or threat 
of reprisal, for filing a report.
    (9) Service members and military dependents 18 years and older who 
have been sexually assaulted have two reporting options: Unrestricted 
or Restricted Reporting. Unrestricted Reporting of sexual assault is 
favored by the DoD. However, Unrestricted Reporting may represent a 
barrier for victims to access services, when the victim desires no 
command or DoD law enforcement involvement. Consequently, the DoD 
recognizes a fundamental need to provide a confidential disclosure 
vehicle via the Restricted Reporting option. Regardless of whether the 
victim elects Restricted or Unrestricted Reporting, confidentiality of 
medical information shall be maintained in accordance with DoD 6025.18-
R.
    (10) Service members who are on active duty but were victims of 
sexual assault prior to enlistment or commissioning are eligible to 
receive SAPR services under either reporting option. The DoD shall 
provide support to an active duty Military Service member regardless of 
when or where the sexual assault took place.
    (11) Requirement to establish a DoD-wide certification program with 
a national accreditor to ensure all sexual assault victims are offered 
the assistance of a SARC or SAPR VA who has obtained this 
certification.
    (12) Implementing training standards that cover general SAPR 
training for Service members, and contain specific standards for: 
Accessions, annual, professional military education and leadership 
development training, pre- and post-deployment, pre-command, General 
and Field Officers and SES, military recruiters, civilians who 
supervise military, and responders trainings.
    (13) Requires Military Departments to establish procedures for 
supporting the DoD Safe Helpline in accordance with Guidelines for the 
DoD Safe Helpline for the referral database provide timely response to 
victim feedback, publicize the DoD Safe Helpline to SARCs and Service 
members and at military confinement facilities.
    (14) Added additional responsibilities for the DoD SAPRO Director 
(develop metrics for measuring effectiveness, act as liaison between 
DoD and other agencies with regard to SAPR, oversee development of 
strategic program guidance and joint planning objectives, quarterly 
include Military Service Academies as a SAPR IPT standard agenda item, 
semi-annually meet with the Superintendents of the Military Service 
Academies, and develop and administer standardized and voluntary 
surveys for survivors of sexual assault to comply with section 1726 of 
the National Defense Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2014, Public Law 
113-66.
    (15) Updates text throughout the issuance to reflect Defense Sexual 
Assault Incident Database (DSAID) interface with MCIO case management 
systems (rather than Military Service sexual assault case management 
systems) and procedures for entering final case disposition information 
into the database.
    Risks: The rule intends to enable military readiness by 
establishing a culture free of sexual assault. This rule aims to 
mitigate this risk to mission readiness.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule..................   04/11/13  78 FR 21715
Interim Final Rule Effective........   04/11/13
Interim Final Rule Comment Period      06/10/13
 End.
Interim Final Rule..................   03/00/16
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Additional Information: DoD Instruction 6495.02, ``Sexual Assault 
Prevention and Response (SAPR) Program Procedures''.
    Agency Contact: Teresa Scalzo, Department of Defense, Office of the 
Secretary, 4000 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1155, Phone: 703 
696-8977.
    RIN: 0790-AI36

DOD--OS

17. Transition Assistance Program (TAP) for Military Personnel

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

[[Page 77746]]

    Legal Authority: 10 U.S.C. 1141; 10 U.S.C. 1142
    CFR Citation: 32 CFR 88.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The DoD is committed to providing military personnel from 
across the Services access to the TAP. The TAP prepares all eligible 
members of the Military Services for a transition to civilian life; 
enables eligible Service members to meet the CRS as required by this 
rule; and is the overarching program that provides transition 
assistance, information, training, and services to eligible 
transitioning Service members to prepare them to be career ready when 
they transition back to civilian life. Spouses of eligible Service 
members are entitled to the DOLEW, job placement counseling, DoD/VA-
administered survivor information, financial planning assistance, 
transition plan assistance, VA-administered home loan services, housing 
assistance benefits information, and counseling on responsible 
borrowing practices.
    Dependents of eligible Service members are entitled to career 
change counseling and information on suicide prevention.
    These revisions will: Institutionalize the implementation of the 
VOW Act of 2011; require mandatory participation in the Department of 
Labor (DOL) Employment Workshop (EW); implement the Transition GPS 
(Goals, Plans, Success) curriculum; require development of an 
Individual Transition Plan (ITP); enhance tracking of attendance at TAP 
events; implement of mandatory Career Readiness Standards (CRS) for 
separating Service members; and, incorporate a CAPSTONE event to 
document transition readiness and reinforce Commanding Officer 
accountability and support for the needs of individual Service members. 
This rule improves the process of conducting transition services for 
eligible separating Service members across the Military Services and 
establishes the data collection foundation to build short-, medium-, 
and long-term program outcomes.
    Statement of Need: In August 2011, President Obama announced his 
comprehensive plan to ensure America's Post 9/11 Veterans have the 
support they need and deserve when they leave the military, look for a 
job, and enter the civilian workforce. A key part of the President's 
plan was his call for a career-ready military. Specifically, he 
directed DoD and Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to work closely 
with other federal agencies and the President's economic and domestic 
policy teams to lead a Veterans Employment Initiative Task Force to 
develop a new training and services delivery model to help strengthen 
the transition readiness of Service members from military to civilian 
life. Shortly thereafter, Congress passed and the President signed the 
VOW to Hire Heroes Act of 2011, Public Law 112-56, sections 201-265, 
125 Stat. 715 (VOW Act), which included steps to improve the existing 
TAP for Service members. Among other things, the VOW Act made 
participation in several components of TAP mandatory for all Service 
members (except in certain limited circumstances).
    The task force delivered its initial recommendations to the 
President in December 2011 which required implementation of procedures 
to document Service member participation, and to demonstrate Military 
Service compliance with 10 U.S.C. chapter 58 requirements. The Veterans 
Opportunity to Work (VOW) Act of 2011 mandated transitioning Service 
member's participation in receiving counseling and training on VA 
Benefits. VA developed VA Benefits I and II Briefings to meet this 
mandate. The VOW Act also mandated transitioning Service members to 
received counseling and informed of services regarding employment 
assistance. The Department of Labor revised its curriculum to meet this 
mandate with the Department of Labor Employment Workshop. The VOW 
requirements have been codified in 10 U.S.C. chapter 58 and attendance 
to all Transition GPS curricula is now documented.
    The redesigned TAP was developed around four core recommendations:
    Adopt standards of career readiness for transitioning Service 
members: Service members should leave the military having met clearly 
defined standards of career readiness.
    Implement a revamped TAP curriculum: Service members should be 
provided with a set of value-added, individually tailored training 
programs and services to equip them with the set of tools they need to 
pursue their post-military goals successfully.
    Implement a CAPSTONE: Service members should be afforded the 
opportunity, shortly before they depart the military, to review and 
verify that they have met the CRS and received the services they desire 
and to be steered to the resources and benefits available to them as 
Veterans.
    Implement a Military Life Cycle (MLC) transition model: Transition 
preparation for Service members should occur over the entire span of 
their military careers not just in the last few months of their 
military service.
    Implementation of these recommendations transforms a Service 
member' experience during separating, retiring, demobilizing, or 
deactivating to make the most informed career decisions by equipping 
them with the tools they need to make a successful transition.
    The rule discusses a redesigned program which implements, the 
transition-related provisions of the VOW Act and recommendations of the 
Task Force to offer a tailored curriculum providing Service members 
with useful and quality instruction with connections to the benefits 
and resources available to them as Veterans. At the heart of the 
redesign is the new set of CRS. Just as Service members must meet 
military mission readiness standards while on Active Duty, Service 
members will meet CRS before their transition to civilian life.
    Spouses of eligible Service members are entitled to the DOLEW, job 
placement counseling, DoD/VA-administered survivor information, 
financial planning assistance, transition plan assistance, VA-
administered home loan services, housing assistance benefits 
information, and counseling on responsible borrowing practices. 
Dependents of eligible service members are entitled to career change 
counseling and information on suicide prevention.
    Summary of Legal Basis: This regulation is proposed under the 
authority of title 10, U.S.C., chapter 58. Title 10, U.S.C., section 
1141 defines involuntary separation; section 1142 provides the time 
period the Secretary concerned shall provide for individual pre-
separation counseling for each member of the armed forces whose 
discharge or release from active duty is anticipated as of a specific 
date; section 1143 requires the Secretary of Defense to provide to 
members of the armed forces a certification or verification of any job 
skills and experience acquired while on active duty, that may have 
application to employment in the civilian sector; section 1143a. 
requires the Secretary of Defense to encourage members and former 
members of the armed forces to enter into public and community service 
jobs; section 1144 requires the Secretary of Labor, in conjunction with 
the Secretaries of Defense, Homeland Security, and Veterans Affairs to 
establish and maintain a program to furnish counseling, assistance in 
identifying employment and training opportunities, help in obtaining 
such employment and training, and other related information and 
services to members of the armed forces and the spouses of such members 
who are transitioning; section 1145

[[Page 77747]]

prescribes transitional health benefits; section 1146 describes 
commissary and exchange benefits for members involuntarily separated 
from active duty; section 1147 prescribes guidance that may permit 
individuals who are involuntarily separated to continue, not more than 
180 days after the date of separation, to reside (along with other 
members of the individual's household) in military housing provided or 
leased by the DoD; section 1148 addresses relocation assistance for 
personnel overseas; section 1149 provides guidance regarding excess 
leave and permissive temporary duty; section 1150 prescribes guidance 
for affiliation with Guard and Reserve units; section 1151 prescribes 
guidance for retention of assistive technology and services provided 
before separation; section 1152 allows the Secretary of Defense to 
enter into an agreement with the Attorney General to establish or 
participate in a program to assist eligible members and former members 
to obtain employment with law enforcement agencies; section 1153 allows 
the Secretary of Defense to provide assistance to separated Service 
members to obtain employment with health care providers; and section 
1154 allows the Secretary of Defense to provide assistance to eligible 
Service members and former members to obtain employment as teachers 
(Troops-to-Teachers Program).
    Alternatives: The DoD considered several alternatives:
    In President Obama's speech in August of 2011 at the Washington 
Navy Yard, he used the term ``Reverse Boot Camp'' to demonstrate his 
vision for a redesigned TAP to increase the preparedness of Service 
members to successfully transition from military service to civilian 
communities. The President's use of language initiated an interagency 
discussion on an approach to mirror the Military Services' basic or 
initial entry training programs. This approach would require the 
Military Services to devote approximately 9 to 13 weeks, depending on 
curriculum development, outcome measures, assessments and individual 
military readiness and cultural differences, to afford Service members 
the opportunity to use all aspects of a rigorous transition preparation 
program.
    While no cost estimates were conducted, this approach was deemed 
both expensive and would jeopardize DoD's ability to maintain mission 
readiness. Approximately 200,000-250,000 Service members leave DOD each 
year. To concentrate on transition preparation during the last 9 to 13 
weeks of an individual's military career would not be workable since 
mission readiness could not absorb the impact of the void. 
Additionally, there would be an increased expense required to activate 
or mobilize Reserve Component or National Guard personnel for the 9 to 
13 weeks prior to transition. Finally, logistical challenges could 
result from Service members dealing with TAP requirements while 
deployed. For example, units scheduled to mobilize would be delayed 
because a returning unit could occupy facilities (such as billeting, 
classrooms, and training areas) that the deploying units needed to 
train and prepare for mobilization.
    A second alternative considered was establishment of regional 
residential transition centers staffed by personnel from all Military 
Services, the Departments of VA, Labor (DOL), and Homeland Security 
(U.S. Coast Guard), the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA), and 
the OPM. Transitioning Service members would be sent on temporary duty 
for a period of four to six weeks, 12 months prior to their separation 
or retirement date to receive transition services. Eligible Reserve 
Component Service members would be assigned to the centers as a 
continuation of their demobilization out-processing. The potential 
costs to build or modify existing facilities, or rent facilities that 
would meet regional residential transition center requirements, as well 
as costs for Service member travel to and from the regional centers, 
reduced the viability of this approach.
    A third, less expensive option would have left the existing TAP 
program intact without increasing counselor and curriculum facilitation 
resources. This option would not have accountability systems and 
procedures to demonstrate compliance with the VOW Act that mandates 
pre-separation counseling, attendance at the DOL's three day Employment 
Workshop (DOLEW), and attendance at two VA briefings. Due to increasing 
Veteran unemployment and homeless percentages at the time of the 
decision, and the rebalancing of the military force, this cost neutral 
approach would not have the outcome based capability intended to 
develop career ready skills in transitioning Service members. This 
option, which would not have met the requirements of the law, would 
cost the Military Services approximately $70M versus the fiscal year 
2013 (FY13) $122M for the implementation of the re-designed TAP.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The VOW Act mandated pre-separation 
counseling, VA Benefits Briefings I and II, and the DOLEW and these 
components were implemented in November 2012. On the same day the VOW 
Act requirements became mandatory, DoD published a policy to make CRS 
and Commanding Officer verification that Service members are meeting 
CRS, mandatory. Vow Act compliance and CRS must be met by all Service 
members after they have served 180 days in active duty status. Service 
members must attend Transition GPS (Goals, Plans, Success) curriculum 
modules that build career readiness if they cannot meet the CRS on 
their own. In cases where Service members receive a punitive or Under 
Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge, Commanding Officers have the 
discretion of determining participation in the other than mandatory 
Transition GPS curricula. By policy, all Service members who do not 
meet the CRS will receive a warm handover to DOL, VA, or other 
resources targeted at improving career readiness in the area where the 
standard was not met.
    The entire Transition GPS curriculum is now available online 
through Joint Knowledge Online (JKO); however, Service members must 
attend pre-separation counseling, VA briefings, and the DOLEW in 
person. All other curriculum can be accessed through the JKO virtual 
platform. The virtual curriculum (VC) was launched at the beginning of 
FY14. DoD expected a cost savings in FY14 due to use of the VC but the 
cost avoidance cannot be calculated as VC utilization is appropriate on 
a Service member-by-Service member basis.
    Further, resource requirements for DoD become more predictable when 
transition assistance is provided at pre-determined points throughout 
the MLC TAP model, mitigating the impacts of surge periods when large 
numbers of Service members separate, demobilize or deactivate.
    The FY13 cost to DoD to implement the TAP redesign was $122M and in 
FY14 DoD costs were $85M. The difference is attributed to both 
implementation costs of the updated program in FY13, and to 
efficiencies discovered as implementation was completed throughout 
FY14. These costs represent only the portion of the interagency program 
that is paid by the DoD. The cost covers Defense civilian and 
contracted staff (FTEs) salaries and benefits at 206 world-wide 
locations. Civilian and contract labor account for approximately 88% of 
total program costs in both fiscal years. The remaining costs include 
equipment, computers (purchase, maintenance and operations), 
Information Technology (IT) and architecture, data collection and 
sharing, Web site development, performance evaluation and assessments, 
curriculum development

[[Page 77748]]

and modifications, materials (audio-visual, CDs, eNotebooks, handouts, 
interactive brick and mortar classroom sessions, virtual curriculum, 
etc.), facilitation training, research, studies, and surveys. Within 
DoD, the re-designed TAP capitalized upon existing resources, e.g., use 
of certified financial planners housed in the Military Services' family 
centers to conduct financial planning or military education counselors 
used to conduct the Accessing Higher Education (AHE) track. Other 
efficiencies include reuse or upgrades to current facilities and 
classrooms used to deliver legacy TAP. Implementation costs in FY13 
included equipping classrooms to allow for individual internet access 
and train-the-trainer workshops to deliver the DoD portions of the 
Transition GPS curriculum. Examples of efficiencies discovered in FY14 
include providing train-the-trainer courses through webinars and 
savings associated with Service members using the VC.
    The DoD provides military spouses the statutory requirements of TAP 
as prescribed in Title 10, United States Code. Other elements of TAP, 
prescribed by DoD policy, are available to spouses if resources and 
space permits. Military spouses can attend the brick and mortar 
Transition GPS curriculum at no cost on a nearby military installation. 
They can also take the entire Transition GPS curriculum online, 
virtually, at any time, from anywhere with a computer or laptop for 
free.
    Many of our Veteran and Military Service Organizations, employers 
and local communities provide transition support services to local 
installations. Installation Commanders are strongly encouraged to 
permit access to Veteran Service Organizations (VSOs) and Military 
Service Organizations (MSOs) to provide transition assistance-related 
events and activities in the United States and abroad at no cost to the 
government. Two memos signed by Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel 
reinforce such access. The memos are effective within 60 days of the 
December 23 signing, and will remain in effect until the changes are 
codified within DoD. Access to installations is for the purpose of 
assisting Service members with their post-military disability process 
and transition resources and services. The costs to VSOs and MSOs would 
be any costs associated with salaries for paid VSO and MSO personnel. 
These organizations will pay for any costs associated with travel to 
and from military installations, as well as any materials they provide 
to separating Service members and their spouses. Costs to employers and 
community organizations supporting transition-related events and 
activities would be similar to those for VSOs and MSOs.
    The DoD is dependent upon other federal agencies to deliver the 
redesigned TAP to transitioning Service members. The VA, DOL, SBA, 
Department of Education (ED), and Office of Personnel Management (OPM) 
have proven to be invaluable partners in supporting the Transition GPS 
curriculum development and delivery, and in providing follow-on 
services required by a warm handover due to unmet CRS. These 
interagency partners strongly support TAP governance and performance 
measurement.
    Although DoD cannot estimate the costs for its interagency 
partners, TAP provides the Service members with resources through the 
contributions of its interagency partners that should be identified as 
factors of total program cost. Transition assistance is a comprehensive 
interagency effort with contributions from every partner leveraged to 
provide support to the All-Volunteer Force as the Service members 
prepare to become Veterans. The interagency partners deliver the 
Transition GPS curriculum and one-on-one services across 206 military 
installations across the globe. DoD can only speak to TAP costs within 
the Defense fence line, but can discuss the value provided by 
interagency partners.
    The DOL provides skilled facilitators that deliver the DOLEW, a 
mandatory element of the Transition GPS standardized curriculum. DOL's 
American Jobs Centers (AJCs) provide integral employment support to 
transitioning Service members and transitioned Veterans. The AJCs are 
identified as resources for the Service members during TAP which may 
increase visits from the informed Service members. The AJCs also 
support warm handovers of Service members who have identified 
employment as a transition goal on their ITP but do not meet the CRS 
for employment. DOL also provides input to the TAP interagency working 
groups and governance boards, and is involved in the data collection, 
performance measurement, and standardization efforts, all of which 
represent costs to the organization.
    The SBA provides the Transition GPS entrepreneurship track, Boots 
to Business, to educate transitioning Service members interested in 
starting their own business about the challenges small businesses face. 
Upon completing the Boots to Business track, the SBA allows Service 
members to access the SBA on-line entrepreneurship course, free of 
charge. The SBA then provides Service members the opportunity to be 
matched to a successful business person as a mentor. This is a 
tremendous commitment that must create additional costs for the SBA. 
The SBA offices continue to provide support to Veterans as they pursue 
business plan development or start up loans; provision of this support 
is in their charter, but the increased awareness provided through the 
Transition GPS curriculum is likely to increase the patronage and 
represent a cost to SBA. The SBA also provides input to the TAP 
interagency working groups and governance boards. The SBA is engaged 
with data collection and sharing efforts to determine program outcomes.
    VA provides facilitators who deliver the mandatory VA Benefits 
Briefings I and II as part of the Transition GPS standardized 
curriculum required to meet VOW Act requirements. The VA facilitators 
also deliver the two-day track for Career Technical Training that 
provides instruction to Service members to discern the best choices of 
career technical training institutions, financial aid, best use of the 
Post 9/11 GI Bill, etc. Benefits counselors deliver one-on-one benefits 
counseling on installations, as space permits. As a primary resource 
for Veterans, VA ensures benefits counselors are able to accept warm 
handovers of transitioning Service members who do not meet CRS and 
require VA assistance post separation. The VA hosts the interagency 
single web portal for connectivity between employers and transitioning 
Service members, Veterans and military spouses the Veterans Employment 
Center (VEC). VA provides input to the TAP interagency working groups 
and governance boards, and is involved in the data collection and 
sharing efforts to determine program outcomes, all of which represent 
costs to the organization.
    ED serves a unique and highly valued role in the interagency 
partnership by ensuring the entire curriculum, both in classroom and 
virtual platform delivery, is based on adult learning principles. Their 
consultative role, tapped daily by the interagency partners, is 
critical to a quality TAP. ED also provides input to the TAP 
interagency working groups and governance boards and keeps a keen eye 
toward meaningful TAP outcomes, all of which represent costs to the 
organization.
    The OPM contributes federal employment information and resources to 
the DOLEW, and enables the connectivity between the VEC and USA Jobs 
Web sites. The OPM also provides input to the TAP interagency working

[[Page 77749]]

groups and governance boards and contributes to performance measures.
    The costs to DoD's interagency partners were not calculated; 
implementation of this rule was mandated by the Vow Act and costs for 
all parties are already incurred. The calculated costs to DoD and 
unmeasured costs to DoD's interagency partners provide significant 
resources to Service members resulting in benefits to the Nation.
    The benefits of the redesigned TAP to the Service members are 
increased career readiness to obtain employment, start their own 
business or enter career technical training or an institution of higher 
learning at the point of separation from military service. The legacy, 
end-of-career TAP is replaced by pre-determined opportunities across 
the MLC for many transition-related activities to be completed during 
the normal course of business.
    Since a direct economic estimate of the value of TAP is difficult 
for DoD to demonstrate as it would require collection of information 
from military personnel after they become private citizens, the value 
of the TAP can be derived by demonstrating qualitatively how Service 
members value the program and then displaying some changes in economic 
variables that can be differentiated between Veterans who have access 
to TAP and non-Veterans who do not have access to the program.

--According to one independent evaluation of the TAP, Service members 
who had participated in the TAP had, on average, found their first 
post-military job three weeks sooner than those who did not participate 
in the TAP.
--An independent survey asked Soldiers who had used the TAP their 
opinions about the curriculum. The Soldiers reported positive opinions 
about the usefulness of the TAP.

    90% of the Soldiers felt that it was a useful resource in searching 
for employment and 88% of them would recommend the TAP to a colleague.
    According to a curriculum assessment completed at the end of each 
TAP module, transitioning Service members gave the TAP positive reviews 
on its usefulness for their job search:

--92% of reported that they found the learning resources useful, 
including notes, handouts, and audio-visuals.
--83% reported that the modules enhanced their confidence in their own 
transition planning.
--81% reported that they now know how to access the necessary resources 
to find answers to transition questions that may arise in the next 
several months.
--79% said that the TAP was beneficial in helping them gain the 
information and skills they needed better to plan their transition.
--79% said that they will use what they learned from the TAP in their 
own transition planning.
--A comparison of unemployment insurance usage suggests that recently 
separated members of the military (2013 & 2014) were more likely to 
apply what they learned in the re-designed TAP and were more involved 
earlier in job training programs than unemployed claimants who did not 
have military experience (8.5% of UCX claimants versus 5.1% of Military 
service claimants).
--According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the unemployment rate 
for Veterans of the current conflict declined by 1.8 percentage points 
from August 2013 to August 2014 coinciding with the time period when 
all Service members were required to take the re-designed TAP.

    The TAP also helps mitigate the adjustment costs associated with 
labor market transition. Military members must prepare for the 
adjustments associated with losing military benefits (e.g. housing, 
health care, child care) to the benefits afforded in private sector or 
nonmilitary public sector jobs. The TAP addresses this very important 
aspect based on a regulatory mandate that they attend both the DOLEW 
and the VA's Veterans Benefits Briefings, and complete a 12 month post-
separation financial plan to meet CRS.
    The early alignment of military skills with civilian workforce 
demands and deliberate planning for transition throughout a Service 
member's career sets the stage for a well-timed flow of Service members 
to our Nation's labor force. Employers state that transitioning Service 
members have critical job-related skills, competencies, and qualities 
including the ability to learn new skills, strong leadership qualities, 
and flexibility to work well in teams or independently, ability to set 
and achieve goals, recognition of problems and implementation of 
solutions, and ability to persevere in the face of obstacles. However, 
application of these skills and attributes must be translated into 
employer friendly language. These issues are addressed by the TAP. The 
rule supports providing private and public sector employers with a 
direct link to profiles and resumes of separating Service members 
through the Veterans Employment Center (VEC), where employers can 
recruit from this talent pipeline.
    The rule benefits communities across the country. Civilian 
communities receive more educated, better trained and more prepared 
citizens when separating Service members return to communities as 
Veterans. Service members learn to align their military skills with 
civilian employment opportunities, which enables the pool of highly 
trained, adaptable, transitioning Service members a more timely 
integration into the civilian workforce and local economies.
    Service members also learn through TAP about the rich suite of 
resources available to them from the interagency partners and have, for 
the asking, one-on-one appointments with interagency partner staff, who 
can provide assistance to Service members and their families both 
before and after the Service member leaves active duty. More 
specifically, the components of the mandatory CRS target deliberate 
planning for financial preparedness as well as employment, education, 
housing and transportation plans and, for those Service members with 
families, child care, schools, and spouse employment. The DoD and 
interagency partners incorporated the warm handover requirement for any 
transitioning Service member who does not meet the CRS. The warm 
handover is meant to serve as an immediate bridge from DoD to the 
federal partners' staffs, which are committed to providing needed 
support, resources and services to Service members post separation in 
the communities to which the Service members are returning. The 
intention is to provide early intervention before Veterans encounter 
the challenges currently identified by some communities, e.g., 
financial struggles, unemployment, lack of social supports that can 
spiral down into homelessness, risk taking behaviors, etc. Families and 
communities benefit.
    Risks: If this rule is not put into effect, approximately 200,000 
Service members per year will return to their local communities ill 
prepared to assimilate into the civilian workforce, effectively use the 
Post 9/11 GI Bill benefits and other VA benefits that they have earned, 
minimize risks to starting small businesses, and will be unaware of 
community resources to assist them with their reintegration. More 
specifically, transitioning Service members will be uninformed as to 
how to best use their Post-9/11 GI Bill benefit--how to apply to a 
degree completion institution, how to choose the best school for degree 
completion, or how to choose a technical training program that leads to 
obtaining a credential--with a negative return on

[[Page 77750]]

their investment such as non-graduation, inability to transfer credits, 
or falling victim to predatory institutions, with an end result of 
wasting valuable taxpayer dollars. Service members, a most 
entrepreneurial population, would be poorly prepared to launch small 
businesses successfully, becoming part of the > 80% statistic of failed 
start-ups within the first year. Service members will be unprepared to 
capitalize upon health care benefits due to them, as well as health 
care mandated by and available through the Affordable Care Act. These 
avoidable information, education and training gaps could produce 
negative outcomes such as increased unemployment, financial 
uncertainty, business bankruptcy, family disruption, and even a 
possible increase in homelessness. These risks would be felt by local 
communities to which transitioning Service members return as 
communities deal with the long term economic and social fallout.
    Timetable:

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

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Additional Information: DoD Instruction 1332.35, ``Transition 
Assistance Program (TAP) for Military Personnel.''
    Agency Contact: Mr. Ronald L. Horne, Director of Policy and 
Programs, DoD Transition to Veterans Program Office, Department of 
Defense, Office of the Secretary, 1700 North Moore Street, Suite 1410, 
Arlington, VA 22209, Phone: 703 614-8631, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 0790-AJ17

DOD--OS

18. Department of Defense (DOD)--Defense Industrial Base (DIB) 
Cybersecurity (CS) Activities

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 10 U.S.C. 391; 10 U.S.C. 2224; 44 U.S.C. 3506; 44 
U.S.C. 3544; and sec 941; Pub. L. 112-239, 126 Stat. 1632
    CFR Citation: 32 CFR 236.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: DoD is revising its DoD-DIB Cybersecurity (CS) Activities 
regulation to mandate reporting of cyber incidents that result in an 
actual or potentially adverse effect on a covered contractor 
information system or covered defense information residing therein, or 
on a contractor's ability to provide operationally critical support, 
and modify eligibility criteria to permit greater participation in the 
voluntary DoD-Defense Industrial Base (DIB) Cybersecurity (CS) 
information sharing program.
    Statement of Need: This rule complies with statutory guidance under 
section 941 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal 
Year (FY) 2013, and section 391 of Title 10, United States Code 
(U.S.C.), requiring defense contractors to rapidly report cyber 
incidents on their unclassified networks or information systems that 
may affect unclassified defense information, or that affect their 
ability to provide operationally critical support to the Department. 
This rule underscores the importance of better protecting unclassified 
defense information against the immediate cyber threat, while 
preserving the intellectual property and competitive capabilities of 
our national defense industrial base. The rule enables DoD to better 
assess, in the near term, when mission critical capabilities and 
services are affected by cyber incidents and reinforces DoD's overall 
efforts to defend DoD information, protect U.S. national interests 
against cyber-attacks, and support military operations and contingency 
plans worldwide. Cybersecurity is a Congressional priority and this 
rule supports the Administration's national cybersecurity strategy 
emphasizing public-private information sharing.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The activities in this rule implement DoD 
statutory authorities to establish programs and activities to protect 
sensitive DoD information, including when such information resides on 
or transits information systems operated by contractors or others in 
support of DoD activities (e.g., 10 U.S.C. 391 and 2224, the Federal 
Information Security Modernization Act (FISMA), codified at 44 U.S.C. 
3551 et seq., section 941 of the NDAA for FY 2013 (Pub. L. 112-239)). 
Activities under this rule also fulfill important elements of DoD's 
critical infrastructure protection responsibilities, as the sector 
specific agency for the DIB sector (see Presidential Policy Directive 
21 (PPD-21), Critical Infrastructure Security and Resilience, available 
at https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/02/12/presidential-policy-directive-critical-infrastructure-security-and-resil).
    Alternatives: None. This is revision to an existing regulation (32 
CFR part 236).
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Under this rule, contractors will 
incur costs associated with requirements for reporting cyber incidents 
of covered defense information on their covered contractor information 
system(s) or those affecting the contractor's ability to provide 
operationally critical support. Costs for contractors include 
identifying and analyzing cyber incidents and their impact on covered 
defense information, or a contractor's ability to provide operationally 
critical support, as well as obtaining DoD-approved medium assurance 
certificates to ensure authentication and identification when reporting 
cyber incidents to DoD. Government costs include onboarding new 
companies under the voluntary DoD-DIB CS information sharing program, 
and collecting and analyzing cyber incident reports, malicious 
software, and media.
    Risks: Cyber threats to DIB unclassified information systems 
represent an unacceptable risk of compromise of DoD information and 
mission and pose an imminent threat to U.S. national security and 
economic security interests. The combination of the mandatory DoD 
contractor cyber incident reporting, combined with the voluntary 
participation in the DIB CS program, will enhance and supplement DoD 
contractor capabilities to safeguard DoD information that resides on, 
or transits, DoD contractor unclassified network or information 
systems.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule..................   10/02/15  80 FR 59581
Interim Final Rule Effective........   10/02/15
Interim Final Rule Comment Period      12/01/15
 End.
Final Action........................   08/00/16
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: 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-AJ29


[[Page 77751]]



DOD--DEFENSE ACQUISITION REGULATIONS COUNCIL (DARC)

Proposed Rule Stage

19.  Detection and Avoidance of Counterfeit Electronic Parts--
Further Implementation (DFARS Case 2014-D005)

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 41 U.S.C. 1303; Pub. L. 112-81, sec 818; Pub. L. 
113-291, sec 817
    CFR Citation: 48 CFR 202; 48 CFR 212; 48 CFR 246; 48 CFR 252.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Department of Defense (DoD) is issuing a proposed 
rule to amend the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement 
(DFARS) to further implement section 818 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2012, as modified by 
section 817 of the NDAA for FY 2015, which requires DoD to issue 
regulations establishing requirements that DoD and DoD contractors and 
subcontractors, except in limited circumstances, shall acquire 
electronic parts from trusted suppliers in order to further address the 
avoidance of counterfeit electronic parts. On May 6, 2014, DoD 
published a final rule under DFARS Case 2012-D055, entitled Detection 
and Avoidance of Counterfeit Electronic Parts (78 FR 26092). That final 
rule constituted the initial partial implementation of section 818. 
Revisions to this rule will be reported in future status updates as 
part of DoD's retrospective plan under Executive Order 13563, completed 
in August 2011. DoD's full plan can be accessed at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=DOD-2011-OS-0036.
    Statement of Need: DoD is required to implement in the DFARS the 
requirement for defense contractors and subcontractors, whenever 
possible, to acquire electronic parts from trusted suppliers, in order 
to avoid acquisition of counterfeit electronic parts.
    Summary of Legal Basis: This regulation is proposed under the 
authorities of section 818 of the NDAA for FY 2012 (Pub. L. 112-81), as 
modified by section 817 of the NDAA for FY 2015 (Pub. L. 113-291).
    Alternatives: No viable alternatives were identified, as this rule 
implements section 818 of the NDAA for FY 2012, as modified by section 
817 of the NDAA for FY 2015.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Cost benefits or burdens associated 
with this rule are not available. The law requires DoD to issue 
regulations establishing requirements that DoD and DoD contractors and 
subcontractors, except in limited circumstances, shall acquire 
electronic parts from trusted suppliers in order to further address the 
avoidance of counterfeit electronic parts. DoD contractors and 
subcontractors that are not the original component manufacturer are 
required by the rule to notify the contracting officer if it is not 
possible to obtain an electronic part from a trusted supplier. For 
those instances where the contractor obtains electronic parts from 
sources other than a trusted supplier, the contractor is responsible 
for inspection, test, and authentication in accordance with existing 
applicable industry standards. Such validation of new parts and new 
suppliers are steps that a prudent contractor would take 
notwithstanding this rule. The additional burden imposed is the 
notification requirement, which should have a minimal cost impact. The 
rule applies only to contractors subject to the Cost Accounting 
Standards. This rule enhances DoD's ability to strengthen the integrity 
of the process for acquisition of electronic parts and benefits both 
the Government and contractors.
    Risks: Failure to implement this rule may cause harm to the 
Government by resulting in the acquisition of counterfeit electronic 
parts which could directly impact national security.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   11/00/15
NPRM Comment Period End.............   01/00/16
Final Action........................   09/00/16
Final Action Effective..............   09/00/16
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal.
    Agency Contact: Jennifer Hawes, Department of Defense, Defense 
Acquisition Regulations Council, 3060 Defense Pentagon, Room 3B941, 
Washington, DC 20301-3060, Phone: 571 372-6115, Email: 
[email protected].
    Related RIN: Related to 0750-AH89
    RIN: 0750-AI58

DOD--DARC

Final Rule Stage

20.  Network Penetration Reporting and Contracting for Cloud 
Services (DFARS Case 2013-D018)

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 41 U.S.C. 1303; 41 U.S.C. 1707; Pub. L. 112-239, 
sec 941; Pub. L. 113-291, sec 1632
    CFR Citation: 48 CFR 202; 48 CFR 204; 48 CFR 212; 48 CFR 239; 48 
CFR 252.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Department of Defense (DoD) is issuing an interim 
rule amending the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement 
(DFARS) to implement section 941 of the National Defense Authorization 
Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 and section 1632 of the NDAA for 
FY 2015, both of which require contractor reporting on network 
penetrations. Section 941 requires cleared defense contractors to 
report penetrations of networks and information systems and allows DoD 
personnel access to equipment and information to assess the impact of 
reported penetrations. Section 1632 requires that a contractor 
designated as operationally critical must report each time a cyber-
incident occurs on that contractor's network or information systems. 
The rule requires contractors and subcontractors to report cyber 
incidents that result in an actual or potentially adverse effect on a 
covered contractor information system or covered defense information 
residing therein, or on a contractor's ability to provide operationally 
critical support. This rule also implements policy on the purchase of 
cloud computing services. The revisions to this rule will be reported 
in future status updates as part of DoD's retrospective plan under 
Executive Order 13563, completed in August 2011. DoD's full plan can be 
accessed at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=DOD-2011-OS-
0036.
    Statement of Need: DoD is required to implement in the DFARS a 
requirement for contractors to report network penetrations. 
Additionally, the DoD Chief Information Officer (CIO) released a Cloud 
Computing Security Requirements Guide on January 13, 2015, which cloud 
service providers must comply with when providing cloud services to 
DoD.
    Summary of Legal Basis: This rule is required under the authorities 
of section 941 of the NDAA for FY 2013 (Pub. L. 112-239) and section 
1632 of the NDAA for FY 2015 (Pub. L. 113-291).
    Alternatives: No viable alternatives were identified, as this rule 
implements section 941 of the NDAA for FY 2013 and section 1632 of the 
NDAA for FY 2015, as well as the guidance established by the DoD CIO on 
security requirements for cloud computing.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Cost benefits or burdens associated 
with this rule are not available. The objective of

[[Page 77752]]

the rule is to improve information security for DoD information stored 
on or transiting through contractor systems as well as in a cloud 
environment. The rule will reduce the vulnerability of DoD information 
via attacks on its systems and networks and those of DoD contractors. 
This rule improves national security benefiting both the Government and 
contractors. This rule is likely to have a cost impact on all 
contractors that have covered defense information on their information 
systems. The cost impact of the rule will vary in relation to the 
capabilities of each affected contractor to adapt their systems to meet 
the new security controls. The benefits of the rule would be the 
potential decrease in the loss or compromise of covered defense 
information; however, this benefit across DoD is not susceptible to 
being quantified or measured. Ultimately, DoD anticipates significant 
savings to taxpayers by improving information security for DoD 
information that resides in or transits through contractor systems and 
a cloud environment.
    Risks: Recent high-profile breaches of Federal information show the 
need to ensure that information security protections are clearly, 
effectively, and consistently addressed in contracts. Failure to 
implement this rule may cause harm to the Government through the 
compromise of covered defense information or other Government data, or 
the loss of operationally critical support capabilities, which could 
directly impact national security.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule..................   08/26/15  80 FR 51739
Interim Final Rule Effective........   08/26/15
Interim Final Rule Comment Period      10/26/15
 End.
Interim Final Rule Comment Period      10/22/15  80 FR 63928
 Extended.
Interim Final Rule Comment Period      11/20/15
 Extended End.
Final Action........................   08/00/16
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal.
    Agency Contact: Jennifer Hawes, Department of Defense, Defense 
Acquisition Regulations Council, 3060 Defense Pentagon, Room 3B941, 
Washington, DC 20301-3060, Phone: 571 372-6115, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 0750-AI61

DOD--OFFICE OF ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR HEALTH AFFAIRS (DODOASHA)

Proposed Rule Stage

21.  TRICARE: Mental Health and Substance Use

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 10 U.S.C. 1073
    CFR Citation: 32 CFR 199.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This rule proposes revisions to the TRICARE regulation to 
reduce administrative barriers to access to mental health benefit 
coverage and to improve access to substance use disorder (SUD) 
treatment for TRICARE beneficiaries, consistent with earlier Department 
of Defense and Institute of Medicine recommendations, current standards 
of practice in mental health and addition medicine, and governing laws. 
This proposed rule has four main objectives: (1) To eliminate of 
quantitative and qualitative treatment limitations on SUD and mental 
health benefit coverage and align beneficiary cost-sharing for mental 
health and SUD benefits with those applicable to medical/surgical 
benefits; (2) to expand covered mental health and SUD treatment under 
TRICARE, to include coverage of intensive outpatient programs and 
treatment of opioid dependence; (3) to streamline the requirements for 
institutional providers to become TRICARE authorized providers; and (4) 
to develop TRICARE reimbursement methodologies for newly recognized 
mental health and SUD intensive outpatient programs and opioid 
treatment programs.
    Statement of Need: This rule is necessary to comply with the 
statutory provisions in section 703 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for FY 2015 which removed TRICARE statutory day 
limitations on inpatient mental health services. It is also necessary 
to adopt the four main objectives listed above. In general, the DoD, 
pursuant to chapter 55 of title 10 U.S.C., covers health care, 
including mental health care, services and supplies, which are 
medically or psychologically necessary to prevent, diagnose, and/or 
treat a mental or physical illness, injury, or bodily malfunction. In 
1996, Congress enacted the Mental Health Parity Act of 1996 (MHPA 1996) 
which required employment-related health insurance coverage offered in 
connection with group health plans to provide parity in aggregate 
lifetime and annual dollar limits for mental health benefits and 
medical and surgical benefits. In October 2008, the Mental Health 
Parity and Addictions Equity Act (MHPAEA) was signed into law as part 
of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. The changes made 
by MHPAEA consists of new standards, including parity for substance use 
disorder benefits, as well as amendments to the existing mental health 
parity provisions exacted in MHPA. This law requires group health 
insurance plans that provide both medical/surgical and mental health 
benefits to provide those benefits at parity. Specifically, financial 
requirements (e.g., deductibles, co-payments, or coinsurance) and 
treatment limitations (e.g., days of coverage and number of visits) 
cannot be more restrictive for mental health benefits than they are for 
medical/surgical benefits. The MHPAEA was amended by the Patient 
Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and 
Reconciliation Act of 2010, to also apply to individual health 
insurance coverage. TRICARE is not a group health plan subject to the 
MHPA 1996, the MHPAEA of 2008, or the Health Care and Reconciliation 
Act. However, the provisions of these acts serve as a model for TRICARE 
in proposing changes to existing benefit coverage so as to reduce 
administrative barriers to treatment and increase access to medically 
or psychologically necessary mental health care consistent with TRICARE 
statutory authority.
    Summary of Legal Basis: This regulation is proposed under the 
authorities of 10 U.S.C., section 1073, which authorizes the Secretary 
of Defense to administer the medical and dental benefits provided in 
chapter 55 of title 10 U.S.C. The Department is authorized to provide 
medically necessary and appropriate medical care for mental and 
physical illnesses, injuries and bodily malfunctions, including 
hospitalization, outpatient care, drugs, and treatment of mental 
conditions under 10 U.S.C. 1077(a)(1)-(3) and (5). Although section 
1077 identifies the types of health care to be provided in military 
treatment facilities, these types of health care are incorporated by 
reference as the types of health care benefits authorized for coverage 
within the civilian health care sector for active duty family members 
and retirees and their dependents through sections 1079 and 1086, 
respectively. In general, the scope of TRICARE benefits covered within 
the civilian health care sector and the TRICARE authorized providers of 
those benefits are found at 32 CFR part 199.4

[[Page 77753]]

and 199.6, respectively. Reimbursement is addressed in 32 CFR 199.14.
    Alternatives: To the extent this rule implements statutorily 
required provisions, no alternatives are applicable. Further, any 
alternative that fails to address administrative barriers to mental 
health and SUD treatment and increasing access to medically or 
psychologically necessary mental health care consistent with TRICARE 
statutory authority is inconsistent with principles of mental health 
parity and ignores well-validated evidence and current standards of 
practice in mental health and SUD treatment.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This rule is not anticipated to have 
an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. Thus, 
economically, it is not a substantive, significant rule under the 
Executive Order and the Congressional Review Act. All services and 
supplies authorized under the TRICARE Basic Program must be determined 
to be medically necessary in the treatment of an illness, injury or 
bodily malfunction before the care can be cost shared by TRICARE. For 
this reason, DoD anticipates that TRICARE will have a marginal increase 
in cost associated with increased access to authorized mental health 
and SUD treatment within the TRICARE Basic Program. Failure to prevent 
or treat these conditions results in severe and widespread 
consequences, including increased risk of suicide and exacerbation of 
mental and physical health disorders. Short-term treatments usually are 
followed by relapses. These proposed revisions will increase access to 
mental health and SUD treatment, including long-term outpatient care 
and other systemic supports, resulting in more comprehensive care and 
hopefully a greater incentive for beneficiaries to seek the care they 
need.
    Risks: This proposed rule implements statutorily required 
provisions for adoption and implementation. No risk to the public is 
applicable as this proposed rule expands access to care, and 
streamlines requirements for TRICARE authorized provider approval.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   01/00/16
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Patricia Moseley, Department of Defense, Office of 
Assistant Secretary for Health Affairs, Defense Pentagon, Washington, 
DC 22301, Phone: 703 681-0064.
    RIN: 0720-AB65

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 and other services nationwide in order to ensure 
that all Americans, including those with disabilities, receive a high-
quality education and are prepared for high-quality employment. We 
provide leadership and financial assistance pertaining to education and 
related services 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 or employment, and that students attending postsecondary 
institutions are prepared for a profession or career.
    We also vigorously monitor and enforce the implementation of 
Federal civil rights laws in educational programs and activities that 
receive Federal financial assistance, and support innovative programs, 
research and evaluation activities, technical assistance, and the 
dissemination of research and evaluation findings to improve the 
quality of education.
    Overall, the laws, regulations, and programs that the Department 
administers will affect nearly every American during his or her life. 
Indeed, in the 2015-2016 school year, about 55 million students will 
attend an estimated 130,000 elementary and secondary schools in 
approximately 13,500 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; other Federal agencies; 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. Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as Amended

    We are working with Congress to reauthorize the ESEA. As we do so, 
we continue to provide flexibility on certain provisions of current law 
for States that are embracing 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. The ESEA, when enacted, will likely require the Department 
to promulgate conforming regulations.

[[Page 77754]]

B. 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 six ``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. The Department issued four 
NPRMs in April, 2015, one joint rule with the Department of Labor (DOL) 
and three ED-specific packages. We plan to issue final rules for each 
of the four packages in April, 2016.

C. Borrower Defense Issues

    In August 2015, the Department announced its intent to convene a 
committee to develop proposed regulations for determining which acts or 
omissions of an institution of higher education (``institution'') a 
borrower may assert as a defense to repayment of a loan made under the 
William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan (Federal Direct Loan) Program 
(``borrower defenses'') and the consequences of such borrower defenses 
for borrowers, institutions, and the Secretary. Specifically, the 
Department intends to address: (1) The procedures to be used for a 
borrower to establish a defense to repayment; (2) the criteria that the 
Department will use to identify acts or omissions of an institution 
that constitute defenses to repayment of Federal Direct Loans to the 
Secretary; (3) the standards and procedures that the Department will 
use to determine the liability of the institution participating in the 
Federal Direct Loan Program for amounts based on borrower defenses; and 
(4) the effect of borrower defenses on institutional capability 
assessments. The Department is holding public hearings for interested 
parties to discuss the rulemaking agenda during September 2015, and 
anticipates that any committee established after the public hearings 
will begin negotiations in January 2016.

D. Higher Education Act of 1965, as Amended

    The Higher Education Act expired at the end of 2013, and its 
reauthorization, when enacted, will likely require the Department to 
promulgate conforming regulations. In the meantime, we are continuing 
to work on several regulatory activities under the Title IV Federal 
Student Aid programs to improve protections for students and safeguard 
Federal dollars invested in postsecondary education.

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)

Final Rule Stage

22. Repaye

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Legal Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1078; 20 U.S.C. 1087e
    CFR Citation: 34 CFR 682.202; 34 CFR 685.202; 34 CFR 685.208; 34 
CFR 685.209.
    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.
    In addition, the notice of proposed rulemaking will propose the 
establishment of procedures for Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) 
Program loan holders to use the Department of Defense's Defense 
Manpower Data Center (DDMC) database to identify U.S. military 
servicemembers who may be eligible for a lower rate on their FFEL 
Program loans under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA).
    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.
    These final regulations will amend the Student Assistance General 
Provisions regulations governing Direct Loan cohort default rates 
(CDRs) to expand the circumstances under which an institution may 
challenge or appeal the potential consequences of a draft or final CDR 
based on the institution's participation rate index (PRI).

[[Page 77755]]

    Alternatives: These will be discussed in the final regulations.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: These will be discussed in the final 
regulations.
    Risks: These will be discussed in the final regulations.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice of Intent to Establish          09/03/14  79 FR 52273
 Negotiated Rulemaking Committee.
NPRM................................   07/09/15  80 FR 39608
NPRM Comment Period End.............   08/10/15
Final Action........................   11/00/15
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Barbara Hoblitzell, Department of Education, Office 
of Postsecondary Education, Room 8019, 1990 K Street NW., Washington, 
DC 20006, Phone: 202 502-7649, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 1840-AD18

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

Final Rule Stage

23. Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Legal Authority: Pub. L. 113-128; 29 U.S.C. 3101
    CFR Citation: 34 CFR 361; 34 CFR 463.
    Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, January 22, 2016.
    Abstract: The Departments of Education (ED) and Labor (DOL) are 
implementing, through final regulations, jointly-administered 
activities authorized by title I of the Workforce Innovation and 
Opportunity Act (WIOA) (Pub. L. 113-128). Through these regulations, 
the Departments will implement job training system reforms and 
strengthen the nation's workforce development system to put Americans 
back to work and make the United States more competitive in the 21st 
century. This joint rule provides guidance for State and local 
workforce development systems that increase the skill and credential 
attainment, employment, retention, and earnings of participants, 
especially those with significant barriers to employment, thereby 
improving the quality of the workforce, reducing welfare dependency, 
and enhancing the productivity and competitiveness of the nation.
    WIOA strengthened the alignment of the workforce development 
system's six core programs by imposing unified strategic planning 
requirements, common performance accountability measures, and 
requirements governing the one-stop delivery system. In so doing, WIOA 
placed heightened emphasis on coordination and collaboration at the 
Federal, State, and local levels to ensure a streamlined and 
coordinated service delivery system for job seekers, including those 
with disabilities, and employers. To that end, ED and DOL are issuing 
final regulations to implement jointly-administered activities under 
title I of WIOA. These regulations lay the foundation, through 
coordination and collaboration at the Federal level, for implementing 
the vision and goals of WIOA.
    Statement of Need: WIOA mandates that the Department issue final 
regulations by January 2016.
    Summary of Legal Basis: WIOA mandates that the Department issue 
final regulations by January 2016.
    Alternatives: These will be discussed in the final regulations.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: These will be discussed in the final 
regulations.
    Risks: These will be discussed in the final regulations.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   04/16/15  80 FR 20573
NPRM Comment Period End.............   06/15/15  .......................
Final Action........................   04/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Mary Louise Dirrigl, Department of Education, 
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Room 5156, 400 
Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20202, Phone: 202 245-7324, Email: 
[email protected].
    Cheryl Keenan, Department of Education, Office of Career, 
Technical, and Adult Education, Room 11-151, PCP, 550 12th Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20202, Phone: 202 245-7810, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 1830-AA21

BILLING CODE 4000-01-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.

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 retrospective review of regulations plan. 
Some of the entries on this list may be completed actions, which do not 
appear in the Regulatory Plan. However, more information can be found 
about these completed rulemakings in past publications of the Unified 
Agenda on www.Reginfo.gov in the Completed Actions section. These 
rulemakings can also be found on www.Regulations.gov. The final agency 
plan can be found at

[[Page 77756]]

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.

Estimate of Combined Aggregate Costs and Benefits

    In 2014, the Department published final rules that adopted new or 
amended energy conservation standards for ten different products, 
including furnace fans, motors, commercial refrigeration equipment, 
metal halide lamp fixtures, external power supplies, commercial clothes 
washers; general service fluorescent lamps, and automatic commercial 
ice makers. The ten standards finalized in 2014 are estimated to reduce 
carbon dioxide emissions by over 400 million metric tons and save 
American families and businesses $78 billion in electricity bills 
through 2030.
    Since 2009, the Energy Department has finalized new efficiency 
standards for more than 30 household and commercial products, including 
dishwashers, refrigerators and water heaters, which are estimated to 
save consumers several hundred billion dollars through 2030. To build 
on this momentum, the Department is committed to continuing to 
establish new efficiency standards that--when combined with the 
progress already made through previously finalized standards--will 
reduce carbon pollution by approximately 3 billion metric tons in total 
by 2030, equal to more than a year's carbon pollution from the entire 
U.S. electricity system.
    As part of the President's Climate Action Plan, the Energy 
Department has committed to an ambitious goal of finalizing at least 20 
additional energy efficiency standards by the end of 2016. The overall 
plan for implementing the schedule is contained in the Report to 
Congress pursuant to section 141 of EPACT 2005, which was released on 
January 31, 2006. This plan was last updated in the August 2015 report 
to Congress and now includes the requirements of the Energy 
Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007), the American Energy 
Manufacturing Technical Corrections Act (AEMTCA), and the Energy 
Efficiency Improvement Act of 2015. The reports to Congress are posted 
at: http://energy.gov/eere/buildings/reports-and-publications. While 
each of these high priority rules will build on the progress made to 
date, and will continue to move the U.S. closer to a low carbon future, 
DOE believes that seven rulemakings are the most important of its 
significant regulatory actions and, therefore, comprise the 
Department's Regulatory Plan. However, because of the current stage of 
four of the rulemakings, DOE has not yet proposed candidate standard 
levels for these products and cannot provide an estimate of combined 
aggregate costs and benefits for this action. DOE will, however, in 
compliance with all applicable law, issue standards that provide the 
maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically 
feasible and economically justified. Estimates of energy savings will 
be provided when DOE issues the notice of proposed rulemakings for 
central air conditioners and heat pumps, computers and battery backup 
systems, commercial water heaters, and general service fluorescent 
lamps. For small, large, and very large commercial package air 
conditioning and heating equipment, DOE estimates that energy savings 
from electricity will be 11.7 quads over 30 years and the benefit to 
the Nation will be between $16.5 billion to $50.8 billion. For non-
weatherized gas furnaces, DOE estimates that energy savings from 
electricity will be 2.78 quads over 30 years and the benefit to the 
Nation will be between $3.1 billion and $16.1 billion. For commercial 
and industrial pumps, DOE estimates that the energy savings from 
electricity will be 0.28 quads over 30 years and the benefit to the 
Nation will be between $0.41 billion and $1.11 billion.

DOE--ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY (EE)

Proposed Rule Stage

24. Coverage Determination for Computers and Battery Backup Systems

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 
is undetermined
    Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(20) and (b)
    CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: DOE has tentatively determined that computer and battery 
backup systems (computer systems) qualify as covered products under 
Part A of Title III of EPCA, as amended. DOE has not previously 
conducted an energy conservation standard rulemaking for computers 
systems. If, after public comment, DOE issues a final determination of 
coverage for computer systems, DOE may prescribe both test procedures 
and energy conservation standards for computer systems.
    Statement of Need: EPCA authorizes DOE to establish minimum energy 
efficiency standards for certain appliances and commercial equipment, 
including computer systems. EPCA further requires that DOE review such 
standards and determine whether to amend them within six years after 
promulgation.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Title III, Part B of the Energy Policy and 
Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA or the Act), Pub. L. 94-163 (42 U.S.C. 
6291-6309, as codified) established the Energy Conservation Program for 
Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles, a program covering most major 
household appliances (collectively referred to as covered products). In 
addition to specifying a list of covered products, EPCA contains 
provisions that enable the Secretary to classify additional types of 
consumer products as covered products. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(20)). For a 
given product to be classified as a covered product, the Secretary must 
determine that certain criteria are met. (42 U.S.C. 6292(b)(1). For the 
Secretary to prescribe an energy conservation standard pursuant to 42 
U.S.C. 6295(o) and (p) for covered products added pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 
6295(b)(1), he must also determine that certain additional criteria are 
met. (42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(1).
    Alternatives: The statute requires DOE to conduct rulemakings to 
establish standards to achieve the maximum improvement in energy 
efficiency that the Secretary determines is technologically feasible 
and economically justified. In making this determination, DOE conducts 
a thorough analysis of the alternative standard levels, including the 
existing standard, based on the criteria specified by the statute.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Because DOE has not yet proposed 
amended energy efficiency standards, DOE cannot provide an estimate of 
combined aggregate costs and benefits. DOE will, however, in compliance 
with all applicable laws, issue standards that provide for increased 
energy efficiency that are economically justified.

[[Page 77757]]

Estimates of energy savings will be provided when DOE issues the notice 
of proposed rulemaking.
    Risks:
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice of Proposed Determination....   02/28/14  79 FR 11345
NOPD Comment Period End.............   03/31/14  .......................
NOPD Comment Period Extended........   04/03/14  79 FR 18661
NOPD Comment Period Extended End....   04/15/14  .......................
Framework Document..................   07/17/14  79 FR 41656
Framework Document Comment Period      09/02/14  .......................
 End.
Framework Document Comment Period      08/05/14  79 FR 45377
 Extended.
Framework Document Comment Period      10/02/14  .......................
 Extended End.
NPRM................................   11/00/15  .......................
Final Determination.................   07/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: Local, State.
    Federalism: Undetermined.
    URL for More Information: www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/rulemaking.aspx/ruleid/78.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-
2013-BT-DET-0035.
    Agency Contact: Jeremy Dommu, Office of Building Technologies 
Program, EE-2J, Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable 
Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585, Phone: 202 
586-9870, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 1904-AD04

DOE--EE

25. 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 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. EPCA specifically states that the scope of the rulemaking is not 
limited to incandescent lamp technologies. EPCA also states that DOE 
must consider in the first rulemaking cycle the minimum backstop 
requirement of 45 lumens per watt for general service lamps (GSLs) 
effective January 1, 2020. 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. 
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 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 Availability;       12/09/13  78 FR 73737
 Public Meeting.
Framework Document Comment Period      01/23/14  .......................
 End.
Framework Document Comment Period      01/23/14  79 FR 3742
 Extended.
Framework Document Comment Period      02/07/14  .......................
 Extended End.
Preliminary Analysis; Notice of        12/11/14  79 FR 73503
 Public Meeting; Date 01/20/15.
Preliminary Analysis Comment Period    02/09/15  .......................
 End.
Preliminary Analysis Comment Period    01/30/15  80 FR 5052
 Extended.
Preliminary Analysis Comment Period    02/23/15  .......................
 Extended End.
NPRM................................   11/00/15  .......................
Final Action........................   10/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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-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

26. Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Non-Weatherized Gas 
Furnaces

    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. 6295(f)(4)(e); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1); 42 
U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)
    CFR Citation: 10 CFR 430.

[[Page 77758]]

    Legal Deadline: NPRM, Judicial, April 24, 2015. Final, Judicial, 
April 24, 2016, One year after issuance of the proposed rule.
    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 DOE issues the notice of 
proposed rulemaking.
    Risks:
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice of Public Meeting............   10/30/14  79 FR 64517
NPRM and Public Meeting Date 03/27/    03/12/15  80 FR 13120
 15.
NPRM Comment Period Extended........   05/20/15  80 FR 28851
NPRM Extended Comment Period End....   07/10/15  .......................
Notice of Data Availability (NODA)..   09/14/15  80 FR 55038
NODA Comment Period End.............   10/14/15  .......................
NODA Comment Period Reopened........   10/23/15  80 FR 64370
NODA Comment Period Reopened End....   11/06/15  .......................
Final Action........................   01/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: Local, State.
    URL for More Information: www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/product.aspx/productid/72.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-
2014-BT-STD-0031.
    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

DOE--EE

27. Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial Water Heating 
Equipment

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
    Legal Authority: 412 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(i) and (vi)
    CFR Citation: 10 CFR 431.
    Legal Deadline: NPRM, Statutory, December 31, 2013, Either proposed 
rule or determination not to amend standards.
    Abstract: Once completed, this rulemaking will fulfill DOE's 
statutory obligation to either propose amended energy conservation 
standards for commercial water heaters, hot water supply boilers, and 
unfired hot water storage tanks or determine that the existing 
standards do not need to be amended. DOE must determine whether 
national standards more stringent than those that are currently in 
place would result in a significant additional amount of energy savings 
and whether such amended national standards would be technologically 
feasible and economically justified.
    Statement of Need: EPCA requires minimum energy efficiency 
standards for certain appliances and commercial equipment, including 
commercial water heating equipment. EPCA further requires that DOE 
review such standards and determine whether to amend them within six 
years after promulgation.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Title III, Part C of EPCA, Public Law 
94163, (42 U.S.C. 62916309, as codified) sets forth a variety of 
provisions designed to improve energy efficiency and established the 
Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment, a program 
covering commercial and industrial equipment, including commercial 
water heating (CWH) equipment that is the subject of this rulemaking. 
(42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(K)).
    EPCA requires DOE to evaluate and consider amending its energy 
conservation standards for certain commercial and industrial equipment 
(i.e., specified heating, air-conditioning, and water heating 
equipment) each time ASHRAE Standard 90.1 is updated with respect to 
such equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)) Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 
6313(a)(6)(A), for CWH equipment, EPCA directs that if ASHRAE Standard 
90.1 is amended, DOE must publish in the Federal Register an analysis 
of the energy savings potential of amended energy conservation 
standards within 180 days of the amendment of ASHRAE Standard 90.1. (42 
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(i)) EPCA further directs that DOE must adopt 
amended standards at the new efficiency level in ASHRAE Standard 90.1, 
unless clear and convincing evidence supports a determination that 
adoption of a more-stringent level would produce significant additional 
energy savings and be technologically feasible and economically 
justified. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)) If DOE decides to adopt as a 
national standard the efficiency levels specified in the amended ASHRAE 
Standard 90.1, DOE must establish such standard not later than 18 
months after publication of the amended industry standard. (42 U.S.C.

[[Page 77759]]

6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(I)) If DOE determines that a more-stringent standard 
is appropriate under the statutory criteria, DOE must establish such 
more-stringent standard not later than 30 months after publication of 
the revised ASHRAE Standard 90.1. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(i)).
    In addition, EPCA requires DOE to periodically review its already-
established energy conservation standards for covered ASHRAE equipment 
and publish either a notice of proposed rulemaking with amended 
standards or a determination that the standards do not need to be 
amended. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(i)) DOE's periodic review of ASHRAE 
equipment must occur [e]very six years. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(i)) 
EPCA also specifies that any amendments to the design requirements with 
respect to the ASHRAE equipment would trigger DOE review of the 
potential energy savings under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(i). EPCA also 
requires DOE to initiate a rulemaking to consider amending the energy 
conservation standards for any covered equipment for which more than 6 
years has elapsed since the issuance of the most recent final rule 
establishing or amending a standard for the product as of December 18, 
2012, in which case DOE must publish either: (1) A notice of 
determination that the current standards do not need to be amended, or 
(2) a notice of proposed rulemaking containing proposed standards. (42 
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(vi)).
    Alternatives: The statute requires DOE to conduct rule makings 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 
amended 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 DOE issues 
the notice of proposed rulemaking.
    Risks:
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Request for Information.............   10/21/14  79 FR 62899
RFI Comment Period End..............   11/20/14  .......................
NPRM................................   11/00/15  .......................
Final Action........................   07/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
    Federalism: Undetermined.
    URL for More Information:www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/product.aspx/productid/51.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-
2014-BT-STD-0042.
    Agency Contact: Ashley Armstrong, General Engineer, EE-5B, 
Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 1000 
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585, Phone: 202 586-6590, 
Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 1904-AD34

DOE--EE

28. Energy Conservation Standards for Central Air Conditioners and Heat 
Pumps

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 
is undetermined.
    Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)
    CFR Citation: 10 CFR 430.
    Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, June 6, 2017, Final rule or final 
determination.
    Abstract: DOE must determine whether to amend the current energy 
conservation standards for residential central air conditioner and heat 
pump products. According to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act's 
six-year review requirement (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)), DOE must publish a 
notice of proposed rulemaking to propose new standards for residential 
central air conditioner and heat pump products, or a notice of 
determination that the existing standards do not need to be amended, by 
June 6, 2017. This rulemaking is to determine whether amended standards 
for residential central air conditioner and heat pump products would 
result in a significant amount of additional energy savings, and 
whether those standards would be technologically feasible and 
economically justified. On July 14, 2015, DOE announced its intention 
to establish a negotiated rulemaking working group to negotiate 
proposed federal standards for the energy efficiency requirements of 
central air conditioners and heat pumps.
    Statement of Need: EPCA requires minimum energy efficiency 
standards for certain appliances and commercial equipment, including 
residential central air conditioner and heat pump products. EPCA 
further requires that DOE review such standards and determine whether 
to amend them six years after promulgation.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Title III, Part B of the Energy Policy and 
Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA or the Act), Public Law 94163, (42 
U.S.C. 62916309, as codified) sets forth a variety of provisions 
designed to improve energy efficiency and established the Energy 
Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles, a 
program covering major household appliances (collectively referred to 
as ``covered products''), including residential central air 
conditioners and heat pumps that are the subject of this rulemaking. 
(42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(3)) Further, EPCA requires that, not later than six 
years after the issuance of a final rule establishing or amending a 
standard, DOE publish a NOPR proposing new standards or a notice of 
determination that the existing standards do not need to be amended. 
(42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)).
    Alternatives: The statute requires DOE to conduct rule makings 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 
amended 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 DOE issues 
the notice of proposed rulemaking.
    Risks:
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Request for Information.............   11/05/14  79 FR 65603

[[Page 77760]]

 
RFI Comment Period End..............   12/05/14  .......................
Notice of Public Meeting of Working    07/14/15  80 FR 40938
 Group.
NODA Provisional Analysis Tools.....   08/28/15  80 FR 52206
Notice of Public Meeting............   09/10/15  80 FR 54444
NPRM................................   11/00/15  .......................
NODA Comment Period End.............   12/31/15  .......................
Final Action........................   05/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
    Federalism: Undetermined.
    URL for More Information: www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/rulemaking.aspx?ruleid=104.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-
2014-BT-STD-0048.
    Agency Contact: Ashley Armstrong, General Engineer, EE-5B, 
Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 1000 
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585, Phone: 202 586-6590, 
Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 1904-AD37

DOE--EE

Final Rule Stage

29. Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial and Industrial Pumps

    Priority: Economically Significant.
    Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A)
    CFR Citation: 10 CFR 431.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: EPCA, as amended, authorizes the Secretary to determine 
whether establishing energy conservation standards for commercial and 
industrial pumps is technically feasible and economically justified and 
would save a significant amount of energy. On June 13, 2013, DOE 
published a notice of intent to establish a negotiated rulemaking 
working group for the commercial and industrial pumps 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 commercial and industrial pumps 
(78 FR 44036). The purpose of the working group was to discuss and, if 
possible, reach consensus on a proposed rule for the energy efficiency 
of commercial and industrial pumps. The working group negotiated 
standard levels that were accepted by ASRAC on July 7, 2014. As a 
result, DOE has proposed to adopt the working groups' recommendations.
    Statement of Need: EPCA authorizes DOE to establish minimum energy 
efficiency standards for certain appliances and commercial equipment, 
including Commercial and Industrial Pumps.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Title III, Part C of EPCA, Public Law 94-
163 (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317), established the Energy Conservation Program 
Certain Industrial Equipment. Pursuant to EPCA, any new or amended 
energy conservation standard that DOE prescribes for certain equipment, 
such as commercial and industrial pumps, shall be designed to achieve 
the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically 
feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II)). 
Furthermore, the new or amended standard must result in a significant 
conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II)).
    Alternatives: EPCA requires DOE, in conducting a rulemaking to 
consider standards for commercial and industrial equipment, including 
pumps, to establish standards that achieve the maximum improvement in 
energy efficiency that the Secretary determines is technologically 
feasible and economically justified. In making this determination, DOE 
conducts a thorough analysis of the alternative standard levels, 
including the existing standard, based on the criteria specified by the 
statute.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: DOE finds that the benefits to the 
Nation of the proposed energy standards for Commercial and Industrial 
Pumps (such as energy savings, consumer average lifecycle cost savings, 
an increase in national net present value, and emission reductions) 
outweigh the burdens (such as loss of industry net present value). DOE 
estimates that energy savings from electricity will be 0.28 quads over 
30 years and the benefit to the Nation will be between $0.41 billion to 
$1.11 billion.
    Risks:
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Request for Information.............   06/13/11  76 FR 34192
Availability of Framework Document..   02/01/13  78 FR 7304
NPRM................................   04/02/15  80 FR 17826
NPRM Comment Period End.............   06/01/15  .......................
Final Action........................   11/00/15  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
    URL for More Information: www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/rulemaking.aspx/ruleid/14.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-
2011-BT-STD-0031.
    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-AC54

DOE--EE

30. Energy Conservation Standards for Small, Large, and Very Large 
Commercial Package A/C and Heating Equipment

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)
    CFR Citation: 10 CFR 431.
    Legal Deadline: NPRM, Statutory, December 31, 2013, Either proposed 
rule or determination.
    Abstract: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, as 
amended, requires DOE to periodically review its standards for small, 
large, and very large commercial package air conditioners and heating 
equipment (which includes commercial unitary air conditioners and heat 
pumps--or CUACs). Under recent amendments to EPCA made by the American 
Efficient Manufacturing Technical Corrections Act of 2012 Pub. L. 112-
210 (Dec. 18, 2012), DOE must review its standards for this equipment 
every six years and determine whether they need amending. It also 
requires that, for those equipment types for which more than six years 
have elapsed since the most recent final rules establishing or amending 
a standard for that equipment, DOE must publish a proposal to amend the 
applicable standard. More than six years has elapsed since the 
standards for this

[[Page 77761]]

equipment were last amended. After reviewing these standards and the 
available data, DOE has determined that amending the current energy 
conservation standards for this equipment would be technologically 
feasible and economically justified. Accordingly, DOE proposed amending 
the current standards for this equipment. On April 1, 2015, DOE 
published a notice announcing that a working group was created to 
potentially develop negotiated standards. 80 FR 17363.
    Statement of Need: EPCA requires minimum energy efficiency 
standards for certain appliances and commercial equipment, including 
Small, Large, and Very Large Commercial Package A/C and Heating 
Equipment.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Title III, Part B 1 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 DOE prescribes for 
certain equipment, such as small, large, and very large air-cooled 
commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment (also known 
as commercial unitary air conditioners and heat pumps), shall be 
designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that 
is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 
6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II)). Furthermore, the new or amended standard must 
result in a significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 
6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II)).
    Alternatives: The statute requires DOE to conduct rulemakings to 
review and revise standards to achieve the maximum improvement in 
energy efficiency that the Secretary determines is technologically 
feasible and economically justified. In making this determination, DOE 
conducts a thorough analysis of the alternative standard levels, 
including the existing standard, based on the criteria specified by the 
statute.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: DOE finds that the benefits to the 
Nation of the proposed energy standards for Small, Large, and Very 
Large Commercial Package A/C and Heating Equipment (such as energy 
savings, consumer average lifecycle cost savings, an increase in 
national net present value, and emission reductions) outweigh the 
burdens (such as loss of industry net present value). DOE estimates 
that energy savings from electricity will be 11.7 quads over 30 years 
and the benefit to the Nation will be between $16.5 billion to $50.8 
billion.
    Risks:
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Request for Information (RFI);         02/01/13  78 FR 7296
 Document Availability.
RFI Comment Period End..............   03/04/13  .......................
NPRM and Public Meeting.............   09/09/14  79 FR 58948
NPRM Comment Period End.............   12/01/14  .......................
NPRM Comment Period Reopened........   12/03/14  79 FR 71710
NPRM Comment Period Reopened End....   12/22/14  .......................
Notice of Public Meeting for Working   05/07/15  80 FR 26199
 Group.
Final Action........................   12/00/15  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
    Federalism: Undetermined.
    International Impacts: This regulatory action will be likely to 
have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise be of 
international interest.
    URL for More Information: www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/rulemaking.aspx/ruleid/59.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-
2013-BT-STD-0007.
    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-AC95

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Statement of Regulatory Priorities for Fiscal Year 2016

    As the federal agency with principal responsibility for protecting 
the health of all Americans and for providing essential human services, 
especially to those most vulnerable, the Department of Health and Human 
Services (HHS) implements programs that strengthen the health care 
system; advance scientific knowledge and innovation; and improve the 
health, safety, and well-being of the American people.
    The Department's regulatory priorities for Fiscal Year 2016 reflect 
this complex mission through planned rulemakings structured to 
implement the Department's six arcs for implementation of its strategic 
plan: Leaving the Department Stronger; Keeping People Healthy and Safe; 
Reducing the Number of Uninsured and Providing Access to Affordable 
Quality Care; Leading in Science and Innovation; Delivering High 
Quality Care and Spending Our Health Care Dollars More Wisely; and, 
Ensuring the Building Blocks for Success at Every Stage of Life. This 
overview highlights forthcoming rulemakings exemplifying these 
priorities.
I. Leaving the Department Stronger
    The Department's work to improve the efficiency and accountability 
includes its innovation agenda, program integrity and key human 
resources initiatives. In particular, the Department plans to issue a 
regulation revising administrative appeal procedures for Medicare claim 
appeals to increase efficiency in the Medicare claims review and 
appeals process. Additionally, 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. A full listing of HHS's retrospective review initiatives 
can be found at http://www.hhs.gov/retrospectivereview.
II. Keeping People Healthy and Safe
    This HHS strategic priority encompasses the Department's work to 
enhance health, wellness and prevention; detect and respond to a 
potential disease outbreak or public health emergency; and prevent the 
spread of disease across borders. 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

[[Page 77762]]

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. Other 
representative regulations include:

Labeling and Nutrition Information

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) plans to issue two 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, include:
    [ssquf] Food Labeling--Nutrition Information: FDA plans a rule, 
which, if finalized, revises 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
    [ssquf] Food Labeling--Serving Sizes: FDA plans a rule, which, if 
finalized, requires 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.

Food Safety

    FDA will maintain HHS'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. 
Recently, FDA finalized its preventive controls in the manufacture and 
distribution of human foods and of animal feeds. This additional suite 
of regulations, if finalized, constitutes 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, including, 
Sanitary Transportation of Human and Animal Food and Focused Mitigation 
Strategies to Protect Food Against Intentional Adulteration.

Preventing Death and Disease From 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. Over the next fiscal year, FDA's 
planned tobacco regulations include proposing requirements that govern 
the methods used in the pre-production design manufacture, packing, and 
storage of tobacco products, a proposed rule that would establish a 
process for the submission of applications for new tobacco products, 
and finalizing the regulation deeming other tobacco products that meet 
the statutory definition of ``tobacco product'' to also be subject to 
the FD&C Act. This final regulation, known as the ``deeming rule,'' 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.

Addressing Substance Use Disorders and Opioid Misuse, Abuse, and 
Overdose Death Prevention

    HHS plans to undertake a number of regulations designed to fight 
misuse and abuse of prescription opioids and heroin and encourage 
individuals to seek needed treatment for substance use disorders. These 
initiatives include an update to the regulation regarding 
confidentiality of substance abuse treatment records to align with 
advances in health information technology while maintaining appropriate 
patient privacy protections. HHS also will undertake an update of the 
current regulation around prescribing for buprenorphine to increase 
access to this Food and Drug Administration-approved, evidence-based 
treatment for opioid dependence and help more people get the treatment 
necessary for their recovery.

Drugs and Medical Devices

    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. HHS is updating 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, if 
finalized, 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.
III. Reducing the Number of Uninsured and Providing Access to 
Affordable Quality 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. In implementing the Affordable 
Care Act over the next fiscal year, HHS will pursue regulations 
transforming the way our nation delivers care. This includes creating 
better ways to pay providers, incentivize quality of care and 
distribute information to build a health care system that is better, 
smarter and healthier with an engaged, educated, and empowered consumer 
at the center.

Streamlining Medicaid Eligibility Determinations

    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.

Parity for Mental Health Treatment

    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. Finalization of this 
rule will implement MHPAEA by proposing standards for Medicaid 
alternative benefit plans, Medicaid managed care organizations, and the 
Children's Health Insurance Program.

Equitable and Non-Discriminatory Treatment

    Finalization of the rule implementing the Affordable Care Act's 
Section 1557 nondiscrimination provisions will ensure access to 
affordable, quality health care for all Americans--regardless of race, 
color, national origin, sex, age and ability.

[[Page 77763]]

IV. Leading in Science and Innovation
    HHS continues to expand on early successes of more precise 
approaches in a few areas of medicine with the Precision Medicine 
Initiative (PMI), and work on 21st Century Cures. In particular, HHS, 
in collaboration with the President's Office of Science and Technology 
Policy will finalize 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 
codified in the final rule will aim to better protect human subjects 
while facilitating research, and also reducing burden, delay, and 
ambiguity for investigators.
V. Delivering High Quality Care and Spending Our Health Care Dollars 
More Wisely
    HHS continues work to build a health care delivery system that 
results in better care, smarter spending, and healthier people by 
finding better ways to pay providers, deliver care, and distribute 
information all while keeping the individual patient at the center. In 
the coming fiscal year, the department will complete a number of 
regulations to accomplish this strategic objective:

Medicare Payment Rules

    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.

Medicaid Managed Care

    This final rule modernizes the Medicaid managed care regulations to 
reflect changes in the usage of managed care delivery systems. The rule 
aligns the rules governing Medicaid managed care with those of other 
major sources of coverage, including coverage through Qualified Health 
Plans and Medicare Advantage plans, implements statutory provision; 
strengthens actuarial soundness payment provisions to promote the 
accountability of Medicaid managed care program rates; ensures 
appropriate beneficiary protections and enhances expectations for 
program integrity. The rule also implements provisions of the 
Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009 
(CHIPRA) and addresses third party liability for trauma codes.

Improvements to Long-Term Care

    This final rule would revise the requirements that long-term care 
facilities must meet to participate in the Medicare and Medicaid 
programs. The changes are necessary to reflect advances in the theory 
and practice of service delivery and safety for patients in long-term 
care settings. The rule is 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.
VI. Ensuring the Building Blocks for Success at Every Stage of Life
    Over the coming year, the Department will continue its support at 
critical stages of people's lives, from infancy to old age, and topics 
including early learning, Alzheimer's and dementia. A forthcoming 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 rule, when finalized, 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 
rule would also streamline existing regulations to eliminate 
unnecessary or duplicative requirements.
    Both rules are part of the Department's retrospective review 
initiative and highlight HHS's commitment to protecting the public 
health and effective human services while pursuing smarter, more 
efficient regulation over the next fiscal year.

HHS--SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES ADMINISTRATION (SAMHSA)

Proposed Rule Stage

31.  Increase Number of Patients to Which Drug Addiction 
Treatment Act (DATA)--Waived Physicians Can Prescribe Buprenorphine

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Legal Authority: 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(2)
    CFR Citation: 42 CFR 8.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This rule is needed to improve the national response to 
the rise in prescribed opioid misuse and heroin use and related 
morbidity and mortality by proposing an approach to increasing access 
to buprenorphine treatment while protecting against diversion. 
Medication assisted treatment (MAT) using buprenorphine, in combination 
with counseling and other support services, is one important tool for 
treating opioid addiction. To address this need and help close the gap 
in treatment services, SAMHSA would propose to address restrictions in 
the use of buprenorphine imposed by the Drug Addiction Treatment Act 
(DATA 2000).
    Statement of Need: The Drug Addiction Treatment Act of 2000 (DATA) 
provided the means for physicians to obtain a waiver from the 
Controlled Substances Act in order to treat opioid use disorders with 
buprenorphine, an opioid partial opioid-agonist, without certification 
from SAMHSA as an Opioid Treatment Program (OTP). However, since the 
implementation of this act, the nation finds itself in the midst of a 
public health crisis of prescribed opioid misuse and heroin use and 
related morbidity and mortality. Every day in the United States 105 
people die as a result of drug overdose and another 6,748 are treated 
in emergency departments for the misuse or abuse of drugs.
    Responses to this public health problem include: Education of 
physicians in the appropriate management of pain and the role of opioid 
analgesics; implementation of effective prescription drug monitoring 
programs and other strategies to promote patient safety while reducing 
fraud and abuse; and promoting access to effective treatment for opioid 
use disorders. Medical and clinical evidence indicates medication-
assisted treatment with pharmacotherapies approved for the treatment of 
substance use disorders are most effective for the treatment of opioid 
use disorders in particular. The medication-assisted treatment of 
opioid

[[Page 77764]]

use disorders reduces all-cause mortality and reduces the morbidity, 
social dysfunction and criminality often associated with this 
condition. However, access to effective treatment has always 
encountered significant concrete obstacles such as: Lack of awareness 
of substance use disorders, lack of coverage for needed services, and 
inadequate treatment capacity. To help close this gap, SAMHSA would 
like to address restrictions in the use of buprenorphine imposed by the 
Drug Addiction Treatment Act (DATA 2000).
    Summary of Legal Basis: 21 U.S.C. 823(g)(2).
    Alternatives: OTPs expansion of buprenorphine, use of naltrexone, 
expansion of methadone; dose limitations, formulation limitations.
    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: As we move toward publication, risks of these provisions 
will be included in the rule.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   04/00/16  .......................
NPRM Comment Period End.............   06/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State, Tribal.
    Agency Contact: Brian Altman, Legislative Director, Department of 
Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 
Administration, 1 Choke Cherry Road, Rockville, MD 02857, Phone: 240 
276-2009, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 0930-AA22

HHS--FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION (FDA)

Final Rule Stage

32. Food Labeling: Revision of the Nutrition and Supplement Facts 
Labels

    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: 21 CFR 101.9; 21 CFR 101.36.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: FDA is amending the labeling regulations for conventional 
foods and dietary supplements to provide updated nutrition information 
on the label to assist consumers in maintaining healthy dietary 
practices. The rule would modernize the nutrition information found on 
the Nutrition Facts label, as well as the format and appearance of the 
label. On July 27, 2015, FDA issued a supplemental notice of proposed 
rulemaking accepting comments on limited additional provisions until 
October 13, 2015. Also on July 27, 2015, FDA reopened the comment 
period on the proposed rule as to specific documents until September 
25, 2015.
    Statement of Need: Almost all of the regulations for the nutrition 
labeling of foods and dietary supplements have not been amended since 
mandatory nutrition labeling was first required in 1993. New scientific 
evidence and consumer research has become available since 1993 that can 
be used to update the content and appearance of information on the 
Nutrition Facts and Supplement Facts labels. Consumers can use the 
updated information to select foods that will assist them to maintain 
healthy dietary practices.
    Summary of Legal Basis: FDA's legal basis derives from sections 
201, 403, and 701(a) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
    Alternatives: The Agency will consider different options for the 
amount of time that manufacturers have to come into compliance with the 
requirements of this regulation, when finalized, so that the economic 
burden to industry can be minimized.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This rule will affect all foods that 
are currently required to bear nutrition labeling. It will have a 
significant cost to industry because all food labels will have to be 
updated. Much of the information currently provided on the Nutrition 
Facts and Supplement Facts labels is based on old reference values and 
scientific information. The changes would provide more current 
information to assist consumers in constructing a healthful diet. The 
potential economic benefit from the final rule stems from the 
improvement in diet among the U.S. population. Diet is a significant 
factor in the reduction in risk of chronic diseases such as coronary 
heart disease, certain types of cancer, stroke, diabetes, and obesity.
    Risks: If information on the Nutrition Facts and Supplement Facts 
label is not updated, reference values that serve as the basis for the 
percent daily value will continue to be based on old scientific 
evidence, and consumers could believe that they are consuming an 
appropriate amount of nutrients when, in fact, they are not. In 
addition, consumers would not be able to determine the amount of 
specific nutrients in a food product because mandatory declaration of 
those nutrients is not currently required. Furthermore, consumers may 
overlook information on the label because it is not displayed 
prominently on the label. Changes to the reference values, nutrients 
declared on the label, and changes to the format and appearance of the 
label would reduce the risk of consumers not having information 
necessary to assist them in maintaining healthy dietary practices.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM...............................   07/11/03  68 FR 41507
ANPRM Comment Period End............   10/09/03  .......................
Second ANPRM........................   04/04/05  70 FR 17008
Second ANPRM Comment Period End.....   06/20/05  .......................
Third ANPRM.........................   11/02/07  72 FR 62149
Third ANPRM Comment Period End......   01/31/08  .......................
NPRM................................   03/03/14  79 FR 11879
NPRM Comment Period End.............   06/02/14  .......................
Reopening of Comment Period as to      07/27/15  80 FR 44302
 Specific Documents.
NPRM Comment Period End as to          09/25/15  .......................
 Specific Documents.
Supplemental NPRM to Solicit Comment   07/27/15  80 FR 44303
 on Limited Additional Provisions.
Supplemental NPRM to Solicit Comment   10/13/15  .......................
 on Limited Additional Provisions
 Comment Period End.
Administrative Docket Update;          09/10/15  80 FR 54446
 Extension of Comment Period.
Administrative Docket Update;          10/13/15  .......................
 Comment Period End.
NPRM Reopening of Comment Period for   10/20/15  80 FR 63477
 Certain Documents.
NPRM Reopening of Comment Period for   10/23/15  .......................
 Certain Documents Comment Period
 End.
Final Action........................   03/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 77765]]

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local.
    Federalism: This action may have federalism implications as defined 
in E.O. 13132.
    International Impacts: This regulatory action will be likely to 
have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise be of 
international interest.
    Additional Information: Includes Retrospective Review under E.O. 
13563.
    Agency Contact: Blakeley Fitzpatrick, Interdisciplinary Scientist, 
Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, 
Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-830), HFS-830, 5100 
Paint Branch Parkway, College Park, MD 20740, Phone: 240 402-5429, 
Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 0910-AF22

HHS--FDA

33. Food Labeling: Serving Sizes of Foods That Can Reasonably Be 
Consumed at one Eating Occasion; Dual-Column Labeling; Updating, 
Modifying, and Establishing Certain RACCS

    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; Pub. 
L. 101-535, sec 2(b)(1)(A)
    CFR Citation: 21 CFR 101.9; 21 CFR 101.12.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: FDA is amending its labeling regulations for foods to 
provide updated Reference Amounts Customarily Consumed (RACCs) for 
certain food categories. This rule would provide consumers with 
nutrition information based on the amount of food that is customarily 
consumed, which would assist consumers in maintaining healthy dietary 
practices. In addition to updating certain RACCs, FDA is also amending 
the definition of single-serving containers; amending the label serving 
size for breath mints; and providing for dual-column labeling, which 
would provide nutrition information per serving and per container or 
unit, as applicable, under certain circumstances.
    Statement of Need: The regulations for serving sizes for the 
nutrition labeling of foods have not been amended since mandatory 
nutrition labeling was first promulgated in 1993. New scientific 
evidence, consumption data, and consumer research has become available 
since 1993 that can be used to update the serving size information on 
Nutrition Facts labels to reflect the amount of food customarily 
consumed. This could allow consumers to use the serving size 
information more effectively by giving them information to help them 
select foods that will promote maintenance of healthy dietary 
practices.
    Summary of Legal Basis: FDA's legal basis is derived from sections 
201, 403 and 701(a) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act and 
section 2(b)(1) of the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990.
    Alternatives: The Agency will consider different options for the 
amount of time that manufacturers have to come into compliance with the 
requirements of this regulation, so that the economic burden to 
industry can be minimized. The Agency also intends to publish this 
regulation simultaneously with other regulations requiring changes to 
Nutrition Fact labels to ease the economic burden on manufacturers.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This rule will affect most foods 
that are currently required to bear nutrition labeling. It will have a 
significant cost to industry because food labels on all affected foods 
will have to be updated. These changes would provide more current 
information to assist consumers in constructing a healthful diet.
    Risks: If the RACCs are not updated, RACCs that serve as the basis 
for serving sizes will continue to be based on old consumption data. 
These updates to the RACCs will be based, in part, on current 
nationwide consumption data. Without these updates, consumers will not 
have current information to assist them in constructing a healthy diet.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM...............................   04/04/05  70 FR 17010
ANPRM Comment Period End............   06/20/05  .......................
NPRM/Comment Period Extended........   03/03/14  79 FR 11989
NPRM Comment Period End.............   06/02/14  .......................
NPRM Comment Period Extended........   05/27/14  79 FR 29699
NPRM Comment Period End.............   08/01/14  .......................
Final Action........................   03/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, State.
    Federalism: This action may have federalism implications as defined 
in E.O. 13132.
    International Impacts: This regulatory action will be likely to 
have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise be of 
international interest.
    Agency Contact: Cherisa Henderson, Nutritionist, Department of 
Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, HFS-830, 5100 
Paint Branch Parkway, College Park, MD 20740, Phone: 240 402-5429, Fax: 
301 436-1191, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 0910-AF23

HHS--FDA

34. 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 31, 2015, To the Office of 
the Federal Register for publication.
    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 Food Safety Moderhnization Act (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.

[[Page 77766]]

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 FSMA (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 FSMA 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  .......................
Draft Environmental Impact Statement   01/14/15  80 FR 1852
Draft Environmental Impact Statement   03/13/15  .......................
 Comment Period End.
Final Rule..........................   11/00/15  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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: Samir Assar, Supervisory Consumer Safety Officer, 
Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, 
Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Office of Food Safety, 
5100 Paint Branch Parkway, College Park, MD 20740, Phone: 240 402-1636, 
Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 0910-AG35

HHS--FDA

35. ``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

[[Page 77767]]

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 
co-proposals, 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 
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........................   11/00/15  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

36. 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); 21 U.S.C. 371
    CFR Citation: 21 CFR 514.80.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This final 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 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 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

[[Page 77768]]

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 included. 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  .......................
Final Rule..........................   05/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    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, Room 2620, HFV-212, 
7519 Standish Place, Rockville, MD 20855, Phone: 240 402-5761, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 0910-AG45

HHS--FDA

37. Focused Mitigation Strategies to Protect Food Against Intentional 
Adulteration

    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. 331; 21 U.S.C. 342; 21 U.S.C. 350g; 21 
U.S.C. 350i; 21 U.S.C. 371; 21 U.S.C. 374; Pub. L. 111-353
    CFR Citation: 21 CFR 121.
    Legal Deadline: Final, Judicial, May 31, 2016, To the Office of the 
Federal Register for publication.
    Abstract: This rule would require domestic and foreign food 
facilities that are required to register under the Federal Food, Drug, 
and Cosmetic Act to address hazards that may be intentionally 
introduced by acts of terrorism. These food facilities would be 
required to identify and implement focused mitigation strategies to 
significantly minimize or prevent significant vulnerabilities 
identified at actionable process steps in a food operation.
    Statement of Need: FDA is taking this action to meet the 
requirements of the FSMA and to protect food from intentional 
adulteration when the intent is to cause large-scale public harm.
    Summary of Legal Basis: FDA's authority for issuing this rule is 
provided by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) as 
amended by sections 103, 105, and 106 of the Food Safety Modernization 
Act (FSMA). Section 418 of the FD&C Act addresses intentional 
adulteration in the context of facilities that manufacture, process, 
pack, or hold food and are required to register under section 415 of 
the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 350g). Section 419 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 
350h) addresses intentional adulteration in the context of fruits and 
vegetables that are raw agricultural commodities. Section 420 of the 
FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 350i) addresses intentional adulteration in the 
context of high risk foods and exempts farms except for farms that 
produce milk. FDA is implementing the intentional adulteration 
provisions in sections 418, 419, and 420 of the FD&C Act in this 
rulemaking.
    Alternatives: Section 103, 105 and 106 of the FDA, Food Safety 
Modernization Act require FDA to conduct this rulemaking.
    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 
defense plans, setting up training programs, etc.) and recurring costs 
(e.g., training employees, and completing and maintaining records used 
throughout the facility). FDA anticipates that the benefits would be a 
reduction in the possibility of illness, death, and economic disruption 
resulting from intentional adulteration of food.
    Risks: This regulation will directly and materially advance the 
Federal Government's substantial interest in reducing the risk for 
illness and death associated with intentional adulteration of food.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   12/24/13  78 FR 78014
NPRM Comment Period Extended........   03/25/14  79 FR 16251
NPRM Comment Period End.............   03/31/14  .......................
NPRM Comment Period Extended End....   06/30/14  .......................
Final Rule..........................   06/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    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: Jody Menikheim, Supervisory General Health 
Scientist, Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug 
Administration, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-005), 
5100 Paint Branch Parkway, College Park, MD 20740, Phone: 240 402-1864, 
Fax: 301 436-2633, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 0910-AG63

HHS--FDA

38. 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, Judicial, October 31, 2015, To the Office of 
the Federal Register for publication.
    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 rule is needed to help improve the safety of 
food that is imported into the United States.

[[Page 77769]]

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 one 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 producing food in accordance with 
applicable U.S. requirements, we will seek to give importers the 
flexibility to choose verification procedures that are appropriate to 
adequately address the risks associated with the importation of a 
particular food.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: We are still estimating the cost and 
benefits for this rule. However, the available information suggests 
that the costs will be significant. Our preliminary analysis of FY10 
OASIS data suggests that this rule will cover about 60,000 importers, 
240,000 unique combinations of importers and foreign suppliers, and 
540,000 unique combinations of importers, products, and foreign 
suppliers. These numbers imply that provisions that require activity 
for each importer, each unique combination of importer and foreign 
supplier, or each unique combination of importer, product, and foreign 
supplier will generate significant costs. An example of a provision 
linked to combinations of importers and foreign suppliers would be a 
requirement to conduct a verification activity, such as an onsite 
audit, under certain conditions. The cost of onsite audits will depend, 
in part, on whether foreign suppliers can provide the same onsite audit 
results to different importers, or whether every importer will need to 
take some action with respect to each of their foreign suppliers. The 
benefits of this 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.
    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..........................   11/00/15  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

39. 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; 21 U.S.C. 371; 21 U.S.C. 381; 21 U.S.C. 384b; 
. . .
    CFR Citation: 21 CFR 1.
    Legal Deadline: Final, Judicial, October 31, 2015, To the Office of 
the Federal Register for publication.
    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

[[Page 77770]]

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 or food certification 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 two years after the date of enactment, a 
system for the recognition of accreditation bodies that accredit third-
party auditors, who, in turn, certify that eligible entities are in 
compliance with the provisions of the FD&C Act. If within two 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 the degree to which the standards in the 
requirements 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 auditor program, as well as assembling renewal applications 
and required reports and notifications. The compliance costs associated 
with certification will be accounted for separately under the costs 
associated with participation in the Voluntary Qualified Importer 
Program. The third-party program is funded through revenue neutral-user 
fees, which will be developed by FDA through rulemaking.
    Risks: FDA is proposing this rule to provide greater assurance that 
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 
food or facility certifications. 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 with the FD&C Act as a food risk-
related consideration. The food certifications could be used when FDA 
makes decisions regarding the importation of foods with safety risks. 
The rule would apply to any foreign or domestic accreditation body 
seeking FDA recognition, any foreign or domestic third-party auditor 
seeking accreditation, any foreign food entity, that chooses to be 
audited by an accredited third party auditor 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........................   11/00/15  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
Enforcement, Office of Compliance, Department of Health and Human 
Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Food Safety and 
Applied Nutrition, 5100 Paint Branch Parkway, Room 2C019, College Park, 
MD 20740, Phone: 240 402-3708, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 0910-AG66

HHS--FDA

40. 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 changes being effected (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 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 
301 et seq.) and the Public Health Service 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

[[Page 77771]]

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:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   11/13/13  78 FR 67985
NPRM Comment Period Extended........   12/27/13  78 FR 78796
NPRM Comment Period End.............   01/13/14  .......................
NPRM Comment Period Extended End....   03/13/14  .......................
NPRM Comment Period Reopened........   02/18/15  80 FR 8577
NPRM Comment Period Reopened End....   04/27/15  .......................
Final Rule..........................   07/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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, 10903 New Hampshire Avenue, 
Building 51, Room 6268, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, Phone: 301 796-
3601, Fax: 301 847-8440, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 0910-AG94

HHS--FDA

41. Sanitary Transportation of Human and Animal 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. 350e; 21 U.S.C. 373; 21 U.S.C. 331; 21 
U.S.C. 342; 21 U.S.C. 371; . . .
    CFR Citation: 21 CFR 1.
    Legal Deadline: Final, Judicial, March 31, 2016, To the Office of 
the Federal Register for publication.
    Abstract: This rule would establish requirements for parties 
including shippers, carriers by motor vehicle or rail vehicle, and 
receivers engaged in the transportation of food, including food for 
animals, to use sanitary transportation practices to ensure that food 
is not transported under conditions that may render the food 
adulterated.
    Statement of Need: There have been concerns over the past few 
decades about the need to ensure that food is transported in the United 
States in a sanitary manner. Congress responded to these concerns by 
passing the Sanitary Food Transportation Act of 1990 (1990 SFTA) which 
directed the Department of Transportation (DOT) to establish 
regulations to prevent food or food additives transported in certain 
types of bulk vehicles from being contaminated by nonfood products that 
were simultaneously or previously transported in those vehicles. 
Following the passage of the 1990 SFTA it became clear that potential 
sources of food contamination during transport were not just limited to 
nonfood products. Most notably, a 1994 outbreak of salmonellosis 
occurred in which ice cream mix became contaminated during transport in 
tanker trucks that had previously hauled raw liquid eggs. That outbreak 
affected an estimated 224,000 persons nationwide. In 2005, Congress 
reallocated authority for food transportation safety to the Food and 
Drug Administration, Department of Transportation and the United States 
Department of Agriculture by passing the 2005 Sanitary Food 
Transportation Act (2005 SFTA), a broader food transportation safety 
law than the 1990 SFTA in that its focus was not limited only to 
preventing food contamination from nonfood sources during 
transportation. The 2005 SFTA amended the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 
(the FD&C Act), in part, by creating a new section, 416 of the FD&C Act 
(21 U.S.C. 350e). Section 416(b) of the FD&C Act directed us to issue 
regulations to require shippers, carriers by motor vehicle or rail 
vehicle, receivers, and other persons engaged in the transportation of 
food to use prescribed sanitary transportation practices to ensure that 
food is not transported under conditions that may render the food 
adulterated. In addition, section 111(a) of Food Safety Modernization 
Act (FSMA), directed us to issue these sanitary transportation 
regulations not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of 
FSMA. This action is part of FDA's larger effort to focus on prevention 
of food safety problems throughout the food chain.
    Summary of Legal Basis: FDA's authority for issuing this rule is 
provided in the Sanitary Food Transportation Act (Pub. L. 109-59) which 
amended the FD&C Act by establishing section 416 which directed FDA to 
issue regulations to require shippers, carriers by motor vehicle or 
rail vehicle, receivers, and other persons engaged in the 
transportation of food to use prescribed sanitary transportation 
practices to ensure that food is not transported under conditions that 
may render the food adulterated. FDA is also issuing this rule under 
section 111(a) of the Food Safety Modernization Act (Pub. L. 111-353), 
which directed FDA to promulgate these sanitary transportation 
regulations. In addition, section 701(a) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 
371(a)) authorizes the Agency to issue regulations for the efficient 
enforcement of the Act.
    Alternatives: FSMA requires FDA to promulgate regulations to 
establish sanitary transportation practices under the authority of the 
2005 SFTA.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Because no complete data exist to 
precisely quantify the likelihood of food becoming adulterated during 
its transport, we are unable to estimate the effectiveness of the 
requirements of the proposed rule to reduce potential adverse health 
effects in humans or animals. Furthermore, while we expect small 
changes in behavior (in the form of safer practices), we do not 
anticipate large scale changes in practices as a result of the 
requirements of this proposed rule. Nevertheless, improving food 
transportation systems could reduce the number of recalls, reduce the 
risk of adverse health effects related to such contaminated human and 
animal food and feed, and reduce the losses of contaminated human and 
animal food and feed ingredients and products. The

[[Page 77772]]

compliance costs of the proposed rule would result from the additional 
labor and capital required to carry out sanitary transportation 
practices during transportation operations and the costs to train 
personnel and keep the required records.
    Risks: FDA is proposing this rule to establish sanitary 
transportation practices to provide greater assurance that food will 
not become adulterated during transportation and will not cause illness 
or injury to humans or animals. The rule would apply to food 
transported in the United States by motor vehicle or rail vehicle.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM...............................   04/30/10  75 FR 22713
ANPRM Comment Period End............   08/30/10  .......................
NPRM................................   02/05/14  79 FR 7005
NPRM Comment Period Extended........   05/23/14  79 FR 29699
NPRM Comment Period End.............   05/31/14  .......................
NPRM Comment Period Extended End....   07/30/14  .......................
Final Rule..........................   04/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: State.
    Federalism: This action may have federalism implications as defined 
in E.O. 13132.
    Agency Contact: Michael E. Kashtock, 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: 
240 402-2022, Fax: 301 346-2632, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 0910-AG98

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

Proposed Rule Stage

42. Programs of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE) Update (CMS-
4168-P)

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1302; 42 U.S.C. 1395; 42 U.S.C. 
1395eee(f); 42 U.S.C. 1396u-4(f)
    CFR Citation: 42 CFR 460.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This proposed rule would update the PACE regulations 
published on December 8, 2006. The rule would improve the quality of 
the existing regulations, provide operational flexibility and 
modifications, and remove redundancies and outdated information. These 
updates are intended to ensure the health and safety of PACE 
participants.
    Statement of Need: We are proposing to revise and update policies 
to reflect subsequent changes in the practice of caring for PACE 
participants and changes in technology based on our experience 
implementing and overseeing the PACE program. PACE has proven 
successful in keeping frail elderly individuals, some of whom are 
eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid benefits (dual eligibles), in 
the community. However, we believe that we should revise certain 
regulatory provisions to afford more flexibility as a means to 
encourage the expansion of the PACE program to more states, increasing 
access for participants, and further enhancing the program's 
effectiveness at providing care while reducing costs.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Sections 1894(f)(2) and 1934(f)(2) of the 
Act state that the Secretary shall incorporate the requirements applied 
to PACE demonstration waiver programs under the PACE Protocol when 
issuing interim final or final regulations, to the extent consistent 
with the provisions of sections 1894 and 1934 of the Act, but allow the 
Secretary to modify or waive these provisions under certain 
circumstances. Sections 1894(a)(6) and 1934(a)(6) of the Act define the 
PACE Protocol as the Protocol for PACE as published by On Lok, Inc., as 
of April 14, 1995, or any successor protocol that may be agreed upon 
between the Secretary and On Lok, Inc. We issued the 1999 and 2002 
interim final rules and the 2006 final rule under this authority.
    Alternatives: The requirements for the PACE program 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 
participants receive care that maintains or enhances quality of life 
and enable them to remain in the community.
    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. The proposals in this rule would update the existing 
requirements to reflect current standards of practice. In addition, 
proposed changes would provide added flexibility to providers, improve 
efficiency and effectiveness, and enhance participant quality of care 
and life.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   02/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: Organizations.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, State.
    Additional Information: Includes Retrospective Review under E.O. 
13563.
    Agency Contact: Martha Hennessy, Health Insurance Specialist, 
Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare & 
Medicaid Services, Centers for Medicare, MS: C4-21-26, 7500 Security 
Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244, Phone: 410 786-0575, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 0938-AR60

HHS--CMS

43.  Expansion of the CMS Qualified Entity Program (CMS-5061-P)

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: Pub. L. 114-10, sec 105
    CFR Citation: 42 CFR 401.
    Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, July 1, 2016, MACRA requires rule 
be effective by July 1, 2016.
    Abstract: Under the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act 
(MACRA), this proposed rule would implement statutory requirements that 
expand the permissible uses of Medicare claims data that is obtained by 
qualified entities in accordance with applicable information, privacy, 
security and disclosure laws. In doing so, this rule would explain how 
qualified entities may create non-public analyses and provide or sell 
such analyses to authorized users, as well as how qualified entities 
may provide or sell combined data, or provide Medicare claims data 
alone at no cost, to certain authorized users. This rule would also 
implement certain privacy and security requirements and impose 
assessments on qualified entities in the case of a violation of a data 
use agreement.
    Statement of Need: The Qualified Entity Program, established by 
Section 10332 of the Affordable Care Act,

[[Page 77773]]

authorizes the disclosure of Medicare claims data to qualified entities 
for use in public provider performance reporting. New legislation in 
MACRA expands the use of Medicare data by qualified entities to include 
additional analyses and access to certain data. Effective July 1, 2016, 
qualified entities may use the combined Medicare and other claims data 
to conduct non-public analyses and provide or sell these analyses to 
select users for non-public use. In addition, qualified entities may 
sell the combined data or provide the Medicare data at no cost to 
providers, suppliers, hospital associations, and medical societies for 
non-public use. While qualified entities are allowed to use the CMS 
data for other purposes than public reporting, the legislation also 
includes an assessment on the qualified entity for a breach of a data 
use agreement and new requirements for annual reporting by the 
qualified entities. These changes to the qualified entity program are 
important in driving higher quality, lower cost care in Medicare and 
the health system in general. Additionally, these changes are expected 
to drive renewed interest in the qualified entity program, leading to 
more transparency of provider and supplier performance while ensuring 
beneficiary privacy.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Section 105 of MACRA requires proposed and 
final rules to be published and effective by July 1, 2016. This 
legislation expands both the uses of Medicare data by Qualified 
Entities as well as the data made available to them.
    Alternatives: None. This is a statutory requirement.
    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: The rule would require qualified entities to provide 
sufficient evidence of data privacy and security protection 
capabilities in order to avoid increased risks related to the 
protection of beneficiary identifiable data.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   11/00/15  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Organizations.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Allison Oelschlaeger, Special Assistant, Department 
of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 
Office of Enterprise Data and Analytics, MS: 339D, 7500 Security Blvd., 
Baltimore, MD 21244, Phone: 202 690-8257, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 0938-AS66

HHS--CMS

44.  Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) and 
Alternative Payment Models (APMS) in Medicare Fee-for-Service (CMS-
5517-P) (Section 610 Review)

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Legal Authority: Pub. L. 114-10, sec 101
    CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
    Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, November 1, 2016, MACRA deadline 
for establishing physician-focused payment model criteria. Final, 
Statutory, January 1, 2017, MACRA deadline for requirements and 
policies for MIPS.
    Abstract: This proposed rule would implement provisions of the 
Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA) related to MIPS 
and APMs. Section 101 of MACRA authorizes a new MIPS, which repeals the 
Medicare sustainable growth rate and improves Medicare payments for 
physician services. MACRA consolidates the current programs of the 
Physician Quality Reporting System, the Value-Based Modifier, and the 
Electronic Health Records Incentive Program into one program, MIPS, 
that streamlines and improves on the three distinct incentive programs. 
Additionally, MACRA authorizes incentive payments for providers who 
participate in eligible APMs.
    Statement of Need: Under MACRA, payment adjustments to eligible 
professional (EP) payments through MIPS and incentive payments for 
qualifying APM participants will be applied beginning January 1, 2019. 
EPs under MIPS will be assessed a payment adjustment using four 
performance categories: quality, resource use, clinical practice 
improvement activities, and meaningful use of certified electronic 
health record (EHR) technology. Qualifying APM participants must have a 
specified amount of their Medicare expenditures or patients through an 
eligible APM that meets legislative criteria that include quality 
measures comparable to those in MIPS, required use of certified EHR 
technology, and either more than nominal financial risk or a structure 
as a medical home model. Additionally, specific to physician-focused 
APMs, the legislation creates a Technical Advisory Committee whose role 
is to receive and evaluate proposed APMs from the public and requires 
that the Secretary establish criteria for physician-focused payment 
models, including models for specialist physicians, by November 1, 
2016.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Section 101 of MACRA requires proposed and 
final rules be published by November 1, 2016, for release of criteria 
for publicly submitted physician-focused payment models and for the 
release of the MIPS quality measure list.
    Alternatives: None. This is a statutory requirement.
    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: If this regulation is not published timely, physicians would 
not have adequate time to prepare for the MIPS.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   03/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, 
Organizations.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, Tribal.
    Agency Contact: James Sharp, Health Insurance Specialist, 
Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare & 
Medicaid Services, Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation Center, 
MS: WB-06-05, 7500 Security Blvd., Baltimore, MD 21244, Phone: 410 786-
7388, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 0938-AS69

HHS--CMS

45.  Hospital Inpatient Prospective Payment System for Acute 
Care Hospitals and the Long-Term Care Hospital Prospective Payment 
System and FY 2017 Rates (CMS-1655-P) (Section 610 Review)

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1302; 42 U.S.C. 1395hh
    CFR Citation: 42 CFR 412.
    Legal Deadline: NPRM, Statutory, April 1, 2016. Final, Statutory, 
August 1, 2016.
    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 rule would 
implement changes arising

[[Page 77774]]

from our continuing experience with these systems.
    Statement of Need: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (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 2017 IPPS and LTCHs at least 60 
days before October 1, 2016.
    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, 2016.
    Alternatives: None. This implements a statutory requirement.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Total expenditures will be adjusted 
for FY 2017.
    Risks: If this regulation is not published timely, inpatient 
hospital and LTCH services will not be paid appropriately beginning 
October 1, 2016.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   04/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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-AS77

HHS--CMS

46.  CY 2017 Revisions to Payment Policies Under the Physician 
Fee Schedule and Other Revisions to Medicare Part B (CMS-1654-P) 
(Section 610 Review)

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1302; 42 U.S.C. 1395hh; Pub. L. 114-10
    CFR Citation: 42 CFR 409; 42 CFR 410; 42 CFR 414.
    Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, November 1, 2016.
    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, 2017.
    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, 2016, and an implementation date of January 1, 2017.
    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 rule implements a statutory requirement.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Total expenditures will be adjusted 
for CY 2017.
    Risks: If this regulation is not published timely, physician 
services will not be paid appropriately, beginning January 1, 2017.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   06/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal.
    Agency Contact: Ryan Howe, Director, Division of Practitioner 
Services, Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare 
& Medicaid Services, Center for Medicare, MS: C4-01-15, 7500 Security 
Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244, Phone: 410 786-3355, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 0938-AS81

HHS--CMS

47.  CY 2017 Hospital Outpatient PPS Policy Changes and Payment 
Rates and Ambulatory Surgical Center Payment System Policy Changes and 
Payment Rates (CMS-1656-P) (Section 610 Review)

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1302; 42 U.S.C. 1395hh
    CFR Citation: 42 CFR 416; 42 CFR 419.
    Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, November 1, 2016.
    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 rule describes changes to the amounts and factors used 
to determine payment rates for services. In addition, the rule would 
change 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 enters (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 2017 OPPS and ASC payment system at least 60 days before January 1, 
2017.
    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

[[Page 77775]]

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, 2017.
    Alternatives: None. This rule is a statutory requirement.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Total expenditures will be adjusted 
for CY 2017.
    Risks: If this regulation is not published timely, outpatient 
hospital and ASC services will not be paid appropriately beginning 
January 1, 2017.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   06/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal.
    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-AS82

HHS--CMS

Final Rule Stage

48. Medicaid Managed Care, CHIP Delivered in Managed Care, Medicaid and 
CHIP Comprehensive Quality Strategies, and Revisions Related to Third 
Party Liability (CMS-2390-F)

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1302
    CFR Citation: 42 CFR 430; 42 CFR 431; 42 CFR 438.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This final rule modernizes the Medicaid managed care 
regulations to reflect changes in the usage of managed care delivery 
systems. The rule aligns the rules governing Medicaid managed care with 
those of other major sources of coverage, including coverage through 
Qualified Health Plans and Medicare Advantage plans; implements 
statutory provisions; strengthens actuarial soundness payment 
provisions to promote the accountability of Medicaid managed care 
program rates; ensures appropriate beneficiary protections; and, 
enhances expectations for program integrity. This rule also implements 
provisions of the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization 
Act (CHIPRA) and addresses third party liability for trauma codes.
    Statement of Need: This rule modernizes the Medicaid managed care 
regulations recognizing changes in the usage of managed care delivery 
systems since the release of the final rule in 2002. As Medicaid 
managed care programs have developed and matured in the intervening 
years, States have taken various approaches to implementation. This has 
resulted in inconsistencies and, in some cases, less than optimal 
results. To improve consistency and adopt policies and practices from 
States that have proven the most successful, we include revisions in 
this rule to strengthen beneficiary protections, support alignment with 
rules governing managed care in other public and private sector 
programs, strengthen actuarial soundness and the accountability of 
rates paid in the Medicaid managed care program, improve quality of 
care, and implement statutory provisions issued since 2002. The rule 
also applies some of the Medicaid managed care regulations to the 
Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP).
    Summary of Legal Basis: Congress enacted specific standards for 
Medicaid managed care programs in sections 4701 through 4709 of the 
Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA). The BBA represented the first 
comprehensive revision to Federal statutes governing Medicaid managed 
care since the early 1980s. These standards are codified in sections 
1903 and 1932 of the Act and implemented in a final rule published June 
14, 2002 (67 FR 40989). The Children's Health Insurance Reauthorization 
Act of 2009 and the Affordable Care Act applied some of the Medicaid 
managed care statutory provisions to CHIP.
    Alternatives: We could choose not to make any regulatory changes; 
however, while the 2002 final rule has been the guiding regulation for 
Medicaid managed care, many questions and issues have arisen in the 
intervening years due to the current version's lack of clarity or 
detail in some areas. With no guidance in these areas, States have 
created various standards, leading to inconsistency and, in some cases, 
less than optimal program performance. Additionally, many issues have 
arisen from the evolution of managed care that have rendered some 
provisions nearly obsolete. For example, the existing version gives 
little acknowledgement to the use of electronic means of communication 
and no recognition to the recently created health care coverage options 
offered through the Federal and State marketplaces. This creates gaps 
that leave States and managed care plans with unclear, non-existent, or 
confusing guidance and standards for program operation. We believe that 
with consistent standards and clearly defined flexibilities for States, 
programs can develop in ways that not only transform the healthcare 
delivery system and fulfill the mission of the Medicaid program, but 
can improve the health and wellness of Medicaid enrollees.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The overall economic impact for this 
rule is estimated to be $112 million in the first year of 
implementation. Additionally, non-quantifiable benefits include 
improved health outcomes, reduced unnecessary services, improved 
beneficiary experience, improved access, and improved program 
transparency which facilitates better decisionmaking.
    Risks: None. It is necessary to modernize the Medicaid and CHIP 
managed care and quality regulations to support health care delivery 
system reform, improve population health outcomes, and improve the 
beneficiary experience in a cost effective and consistent manner in all 
states.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   06/01/15  80 FR 31097
NPRM Comment Period End.............   07/27/15  .......................
Final Action........................   04/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, 
Organizations.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, State, Tribal.
    Additional Information: Includes Retrospective Review under E.O. 
13563.
    Agency Contact: Nicole Kaufman, Technical Director, Department of 
Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 
Center for Medicaid and CHIP Services, MS: S2-14-16, 7500 Security 
Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244, Phone: 410 786-6604, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 0938-AS25

BILLING CODE 4150-24-P


[[Page 77776]]



DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (DHS)

Fall 2015 Statement of Regulatory Priorities

    The Department of Homeland Security (DHS or Department) was created 
in 2003 pursuant to the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Public Law 107-
296. DHS has a vital mission: To secure the Nation from the many 
threats we face. This requires the dedication of more than 225,000 
employees in jobs that range from aviation and border security to 
emergency response, from cybersecurity analyst to chemical facility 
inspector. Our duties are wide-ranging, but our goal is clear--keeping 
America safe.
    Our mission gives us six main areas of responsibility:
    1. Prevent Terrorism and Enhance Security,
    2. Secure and Manage Our Borders,
    3. Enforce and Administer Our Immigration Laws,
    4. Safeguard and Secure Cyberspace,
    5. Ensure Resilience to Disasters, and
    6. Mature and Strengthen DHS
    In achieving these goals, we are continually strengthening our 
partnerships with communities, first responders, law enforcement, and 
government agencies--at the State, local, tribal, Federal, and 
international levels. We are accelerating the deployment of science, 
technology, and innovation in order to make America more secure, and we 
are becoming leaner, smarter, and more efficient, ensuring that every 
security resource is used as effectively as possible. For a further 
discussion of our main areas of responsibility, see the DHS Web site at 
http://www.dhs.gov/our-mission.
    The regulations we have summarized below in the Department's fall 
2015 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-AB95.................................  Immigration Benefits
                                             Business Transformation,
                                             Increment II; Nonimmigrants
                                             Classes.
1615-AC00.................................  Enhancing Opportunities for
                                             H-1B1, CW-1, and E-3
                                             Nonimmigrants and EB-1
                                             Immigrants.
1625-AB38.................................  Updates to Maritime
                                             Security.
1625-AB80.................................  Revision to Transportation
                                             Worker Identification
                                             Credential (TWIC)
                                             Requirements for Mariners.
1625-AC15.................................  Seafarers' Access to
                                             Maritime Facilities.
1651-AA96.................................  Definition of Form I-94 to
                                             Include Electronic Format.
1651-AB05.................................  Freedom of Information Act
                                             (FOIA) Procedures.
1653-AA63.................................  Adjustments to Limitations
                                             on Designated School
                                             Official Assignment and
                                             Study By F-2 and M-2
                                             Nonimmigrants.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

[[Page 77777]]



------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 2015 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 2015 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 and 
Entrepreneurs

    Employment-Based Immigration Modernization. USCIS will propose to 
implement certain provisions of the American Competitiveness and 
Workforce Improvement Act of 1998 and the American Competitiveness in 
the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000, Public Law 106-313, as amended by 
the Twenty-First Century Department of Justice Appropriations 
Authorization Act of 2002, Public Law 107-273. USCIS will seek public 
feedback in codifying its interpretation of these statutes. 
Additionally, USCIS will propose to amend its regulations to provide 
greater stability and job flexibility to certain beneficiaries of 
approved employment-based immigrant petitions during their transition 
from nonimmigrant to lawful permanent residence status and to enable 
U.S. businesses to hire and retain highly-skilled foreign-born workers.
    Significant Public Benefit Parole for Entrepreneurs. USCIS will 
propose to establish conditions for paroling foreign entrepreneurs into 
the United States based on case-by-case discretionary determinations 
that their entrepreneurial activities in the United States will provide 
the United States with a significant public benefit. Parole under these 
conditions would allow individuals who have been awarded substantial 
U.S. investor financing or otherwise hold the promise of innovation and 
job creation through the development of new technologies or the pursuit 
of cutting edge research to pursue development of startup businesses in 
the United States. This would provide an opportunity for much needed 
innovation and job creation in the United States.
    Enhancing Opportunities for High-Skilled Workers. DHS will issue a 
final rule following its May 2014, proposed rule designed to encourage 
and facilitate the employment and retention of certain high-skilled and 
transitional workers. As proposed, the rule would amend regulations 
affecting high-skilled workers within 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. The rule would also 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, the rule would 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. These changes would encourage and 
facilitate the employment and retention of these high-skilled workers.

Improvements to the Immigration System

    Provisional Unlawful Presence Waivers. DHS will issue a final rule 
following its July 2015, proposed rule regarding the provisional 
unlawful presence waiver process. As proposed,

[[Page 77778]]

this rule would expand access to the provisional unlawful presence 
waiver program to additional aliens for whom an immigrant visa is 
immediately available and who can show extreme hardship to a qualifying 
U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident spouse or parent.
    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

    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 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). USCIS hopes to provide 
greater consistency in eligibility, application, and procedural 
requirements for these vulnerable groups, their advocates, and the 
community through these regulatory initiatives. 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 the 
amendments mandated by Congress. It will enable child aliens who have 
been abused, neglected, or abandoned and placed under the jurisdiction 
of a juvenile court or placed with an individual or entity, to obtain 
classification as Special Immigrant Juvenile. 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 2015 
Regulatory Plan below, contribute to the fulfillment of those 
responsibilities and reflect our regulatory policies.
    Inspection of Towing Vessels. The Coast Guard has proposed 
regulations governing the inspection of towing vessels, including an 
optional safety management system. 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 also sets 
standards for the optional towing safety management system (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 create 46 CFR, subchapter M, 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 or other biometric sample with a biometric template 
stored on the credential. By promulgating these rules, the Coast Guard 
is complying with the statutory requirement in the SAFE Port Act, 
improving security at the highest risk vessels and facilities, and 
making full use of the electronic and biometric security features 
integrated into the TWIC and mandated by Congress in MTSA.

[[Page 77779]]

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 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 two of these rules below.
    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 earlier in the process. In 
most cases, the information would have to be submitted as early as 
practicable but no later than prior to the loading of cargo onto an 
aircraft at the last foreign port of departure to 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.
    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 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 2016, expects to continue to issue 
regulatory documents that will facilitate legitimate trade and 
implement trade benefit programs. 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 2016.

Federal Law Enforcement Training Center

    The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) does not have 
any significant regulatory actions planned for fiscal year 2016.

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 2016, ICE will focus rulemaking efforts on 
improvements in the area of student and exchange visitor programs and 
to advance initiatives related to F-1 nonimmigrant students:
    Improving and Expanding Training Opportunities for F-1 Nonimmigrant 
Students with STEM Degrees and Expanding Cap-Gap Relief for All F-1

[[Page 77780]]

Students With Pending H-1B Petitions. The Department of Homeland 
Security will propose a rule to enhance opportunities for F-1 
nonimmigrant students graduating with a science, technology, 
engineering, or mathematics (STEM) degree to further their courses of 
study through an extension of optional practical training (OPT) with 
employers enrolled in USCIS's E-Verify employment verification program. 
DHS anticipates that the rule would replace a 2008 interim final rule 
(IFR) that was recently held to be procedurally invalid, and that is 
the subject of a temporarily stayed vacatur. The proposed rule would 
enhance the academic benefit of the STEM extension and would help 
ensure that the nation's colleges and universities remain globally 
competitive in attracting international STEM students to study in the 
United States prior to returning to their home countries.

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.
    Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards. Recognizing both the 
importance of the nation's chemical facilities to the American way of 
life and the need to secure high-risk chemical facilities against 
terrorist attacks, in December 2014 Congress passed and the President 
signed into law the Protecting and Securing Chemical Facilities from 
Terrorist Attacks Act of 2014, Pub. L. 113-254. This legislation 
provides the Department continuing authority to implement the Chemical 
Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) regulatory program, a unique 
regulatory program mandating that high-risk chemical facilities in the 
United States draft and implement security plans satisfying risk-based 
performance standards established by DHS.
    CFATS has been in effect since 2007, and on August 18, 2014, the 
Department published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) 
in order to seek public comment on ways to make the program more 
effective. The Department will continue the rulemaking effort that 
commenced with the publication of that ANPRM, and intends to publish a 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) proposing a number of changes to 
the CFATS program. The NPRM will propose substantive modifications to 
CFATS based on public comments received on the ANPRM and based on 
program implementation experience the Department has gained since 2007. 
The NPRM will also propose modifications to CFATS in order to align its 
regulatory text with the requirements of the Protecting and Securing 
Chemical Facilities from Terrorist Attacks Act of 2014. Accordingly, 
the Department anticipates that the NPRM will propose both 
discretionary and non-discretionary modifications to CFATS, with the 
goals of harmonizing the regulation with its statutory authority and of 
making the CFATS program more efficient and effective.

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 2016, TSA will promote the DHS mission by 
emphasizing regulatory efforts that will 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). TSA published 
an NPRM on March 26, 2013, 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.
    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 (Over-the-Road 
Buses) of the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act 
of 2007 (9/11 Act), Public Law 110-53, August 3, 2007. In compliance 
with the definitions of frontline employees in the pertinent provisions 
of the 9/11 Act, the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) would propose 
to define which employees are required to undergo training. The NPRM 
would also propose definitions for transportation security-sensitive 
materials, as required by section 1501 of the 9/11 Act.
    Standardized Vetting, Adjudication, and Redress Process and Fees. 
TSA is developing a proposed rule to establish and update fees, and 
revise and standardize the procedures and adjudication criteria for 
most of the security threat assessments (STAs) of individuals that TSA 
conducts. The proposal would improve 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 consistent and equitable fees to cover the cost of the STAs. 
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 IFR 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 2016.

DHS Regulatory Plan for Fiscal Year 2016

    A more detailed description of the priority regulations that 
comprise DHS's fall 2015 regulatory plan follows.


[[Page 77781]]



DHS--OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (OS)

Proposed Rule Stage

49. Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS)

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: sec 550 of the Department of Homeland Security 
Appropriations Act of 2007 Pub. L. 109-295, as amended
    CFR Citation: 6 CFR 27.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) previously 
invited public comment on an advance notice of proposed rulemaking 
(ANPRM) for potential revisions to the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism 
Standards (CFATS) regulations. The ANPRM provided an opportunity for 
the public to provide recommendations for possible program changes. DHS 
is reviewing the public comments received in response to the ANPRM, 
after which DHS intends to publish a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
    Statement of Need: DHS intends to propose several potential program 
changes to the CFATS regulation. These changes have been identified in 
the five years since program implementation.
    In addition, in December 2014, a new law (the Protecting and 
Securing Chemical Facilities from Terrorist Attacks Act of 2014) was 
enacted which provides DHS continuing authority to implement CFATS. DHS 
must make several modifications and additions to conform the CFATS 
regulation with the new law.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The Protecting and Securing Chemical 
Facilities from Terrorist Attacks Act of 2014 (Pub. L. 113-254) added 
Title XXI to the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (HSA) to authorize in 
permanent law a Chemical Facility Anti-terrorism Standards (CFATS) 
program. See 6 U.S.C. 621 et seq. Title XXI supersedes section 550 of 
the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2007, Pub. L. 
109-295, under which the CFATS program was originally established in 
April 2007. Section 2107(a) of the HSA specifically authorizes DHS to 
``promulgate regulations or amend existing CFATS regulations to 
implement the provisions under [Title XXI]. 6 U.S.C. 627(a). In 
addition, section 2107(b)(2) of the HSA requires DHS to repeal any 
existing CFATS regulation that [DHS] determines is duplicative of, or 
conflicts with, [Title XXI]. 6 U.S.C. 627(b)(2).
    Alternatives:
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The ANPRM provided an opportunity 
for the public to provide recommendations for possible program changes. 
DHS is reviewing the public comments received in response to the ANPRM, 
after which DHS intends to publish a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
(NPRM).
    Risks:
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM...............................   08/18/14  79 FR 48693
ANPRM Comment Period End............   10/17/14  .......................
NPRM................................   07/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State.
    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 20528-0610, Phone: 703 235-5263, 
Fax: 703 603-4935, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 1601-AA69

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

Proposed Rule Stage

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

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552; 5 U.S.C. 552a; 8 U.S.C. 1101 to 
1104; 8 U.S.C. 1182; 8 U.S.C. 1184; 8 U.S.C. 1187; 8 U.S.C. 1201; 8 
U.S.C. 1224 to 1227; 8 U.S.C. 1252 to 1252a; 8 U.S.C. 1255; 22 U.S.C. 
7101; 22 U.S.C. 7105; Pub. L. 113-4
    CFR Citation: 8 CFR 204; 8 CFR 214; 8 CFR 245.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This rule sets forth measures by which certain victims of 
severe forms of trafficking who have been granted T nonimmigrant status 
and victims of certain qualifying criminal activity who have been 
granted U nonimmigrant status may apply for adjustment of status to 
lawful permanent resident in accordance with Public Law 106-386, 
Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000; and Public 
Law 109-162, Violence Against Women and Department of Justice 
Reauthorization Act of 2005. The Trafficking Victims Protection 
Reauthorization Act of 2008, Public Law 110-457, made amendments to the 
T nonimmigrant status provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
(INA). The Violence Against Women's Reauthorization Act of 2013, Public 
Law 113-4, made amendments to the T and U nonimmigrant status and the T 
and U adjustment of status provisions of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) will issue a 
proposed rule to propose the changes required by recent legislation.
    Statement of Need: This regulation is necessary to permit aliens in 
lawful T or U nonimmigrant status, including derivatives, to apply for 
adjustment of status to that of lawful permanent residents.
    Summary of Legal Basis: This regulation is necessary to permit 
aliens in lawful T or U nonimmigrant status to apply for adjustment of 
status to that of lawful permanent residents. T nonimmigrant status is 
available to aliens who are victims of a severe form of trafficking in 
persons and who have assisted or are assisting law enforcement in the 
investigation or prosecution of the acts of trafficking.
    U nonimmigrant status is available to aliens who are victims of 
certain qualifying criminal activity crimes and have been, are being, 
or are likely to be helpful to the investigation or prosecution of 
those crimes.
    Alternatives: DHS did not consider alternatives to managing T and U 
applications for adjustment of status. Ease of administration dictates 
that adjustment of status applications from T and U nonimmigrants would 
be best handled on a first in, first out basis, because that is the way 
applications for T and U status are currently handled.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: DHS uses fees to fund the cost of 
processing applications and associated support benefits. In the 2008 
interim final rule, DHS estimated the fee collection resulting from 
this rule at approximately $3 million in the first year, $1.9 million 
in the second year, and an average about $32 million in the third and 
subsequent years. DHS is in the process of updating these cost 
estimates.
    The anticipated benefits of these expenditures include: Continued 
assistance to trafficked and other qualifying crime victims and their 
families, increased investigation and prosecution of traffickers in 
persons and other qualifying crimes, and the elimination of abuses 
caused by trafficking and criminal activities.

[[Page 77782]]

    Risks: While there is a limit of 5,000 adjustments based on T 
nonimmigrant status per fiscal year, there is no such limit on those 
applying for adjustment based on U nonimmigrant status. Eligible 
applicants for adjustment of status based on T nonimmigrant status will 
be placed on a waiting list maintained by U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (USCIS).
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule..................   12/12/08  73 FR 75540
Interim Final Rule Effective........   01/12/09  .......................
Interim Final Rule Comment Period      02/10/09  .......................
 End.
NPRM................................   10/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State.
    Additional Information: CIS No. 2134-01 Transferred from RIN 1115-
AG21.
    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-AA60

DHS--USCIS

51. 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) Have 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 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' six 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................................   10/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 77783]]

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

52. 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. 1254a; 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 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 when 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. 
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................................   10/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

53. Requirements for Filing Motions and Administrative Appeals

    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 proposes to revise 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 (AAO). 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. The 
proposed changes are intended to promote simplicity, accessibility, and 
efficiency in the administration of USCIS appeals. The Department also 
solicits public comment on proposed changes to the AAO's appellate 
jurisdiction.
    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.

[[Page 77784]]

    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................................   10/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
    Agency Contact: Charles ``Locky'' Nimick, Deputy Chief, Department 
of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 
Administrative Appeals Office, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, 
DC 20529-2090, Phone: 703 224-4501, Email: 
[email protected].
    Related RIN: Duplicate of 1615-AB29
    RIN: 1615-AB98

DHS--USCIS

54. Significant Public Benefit Parole for Entrepreneurs

    Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 
undetermined.
    Legal Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)(A)
    CFR Citation: 8 CFR 212.5.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is proposing to 
establish a program that would allow for consideration of parole into 
the United States, on a case-by-case basis, of certain inventors, 
researchers, and entrepreneurs who will establish a U.S. start-up 
entity, and who have been awarded substantial U.S. investor financing 
or otherwise hold the promise of innovation and job creation through 
the development of new technologies or the pursuit of cutting edge 
research. Based on investment, job-creation, and other factors, the 
entrepreneur may be eligible for temporary parole.
    Statement of Need: The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) 
authorizes the Secretary, in the exercise of discretion, to parole 
arriving aliens into the United States on a case-by-case basis for 
urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit. INA section 
212(d)(5), 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5). No existing regulation explains how DHS 
determines what provides a significant public benefit to the U.S. 
economy. This regulation clarifies this standard with respect to 
entrepreneur parolees.
    This regulation focuses specifically on the significant economic 
public benefit provided by foreign entrepreneurs because of the 
particular benefit they bring to the U.S. economy. However, the full 
potential of foreign entrepreneurs to benefit the U.S. economy is 
limited by the fact that many foreign entrepreneurs do not qualify 
under existing nonimmigrant and immigrant classifications. Given the 
technical nature of entrepreneurship, and the limited guidance to date 
on what constitutes a significant public benefit, DHS believes that it 
is necessary to establish the conditions of such an economically-based 
significant public benefit parole by regulation. Combined with a unique 
application process, the goal is to ensure that the high standard set 
by the statute authorizing significant public benefit parole is 
uniformly met across adjudications.
    In this rule, DHS is proposing to establish the conditions for 
significant public benefit parole with respect to certain entrepreneurs 
and start-up founders backed by U.S. investors or grants. DHS believes 
that this proposal, once implemented, would encourage entrepreneurs to 
create and develop start-up entities in the United States with high 
growth potential to create jobs for U.S. workers and benefit the U.S. 
economy. U.S. competitiveness would increase by attracting more 
entrepreneurs to the United States. This proposal provides a fair, 
transparent, and predictable framework by which DHS will exercise its 
discretion to adjudicate, on a case-by-case basis, such parole requests 
under the existing statutory authority at INA section 212(d)(5), 8 
U.S.C. 1182(d)(5).
    Lastly, this proposed rule provides a pathway, based on authority 
currently provided to the Secretary, for entrepreneurs to develop 
businesses in the United States, create jobs for U.S. workers, and, at 
the same time, establish a track record of experience and/or 
accomplishments. Such a track record may lead to meeting eligibility 
requirements for existing nonimmigrant or immigrant classifications.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The Secretary's authority for this proposed 
regulatory amendment can be found in the Homeland Security Act of 2002, 
Public Law 107-296, section 102, 116 Stat. 2135, 6 U.S.C. 112, and INA 
section 103, 8 U.S.C. 1103, which give the Secretary the authority to 
administer and enforce the immigration and nationality laws, as well as 
INA section 212(d)(5), 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5), which refers to the 
Secretary's discretionary authority to grant parole and provides DHS 
with regulatory authority to establish terms and conditions for parole 
once authorized.
    Alternatives:
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: DHS estimates the costs of the rule 
are directly linked to the application fee and opportunity costs 
associated with requesting significant public benefit parole. DHS does 
not estimate there will be any negative impacts to the U.S. economy as 
a result of this rule. Economic benefits can be expected from this 
rule, because some number of new ventures and research endeavors will 
be conducted in the United States that otherwise would not. It is 
reasonable to assume that investment and research spending on new firms 
associated with this proposed rule will directly and indirectly benefit 
the U.S. economy and job creation. In addition, innovation and research 
and development spending are likely to generate new patents and new 
technologies, further enhancing innovation. Some portion of the 
immigrant entrepreneurs likely to be attracted to this parole program 
may develop high impact firms that can be expected to contribute 
disproportionately to job creation.
    Risks:
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   12/00/15  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
    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: 202 272-8377, Fax: 202 
272-1480, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 1615-AC04


[[Page 77785]]



DHS--USCIS

55. Retention of EB-1, EB-2, and EB-3 Immigrant Workers and Program 
Improvements Affecting Highly-Skilled H-1B Alien Workers

    Priority: Other Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Legal Authority: 6 U.S.C. 112; 8 U.S.C. 1154 and 1155; 8 U.S.C. 
1184; 8 U.S.C. 1255; 8 U.S.C. 1324a
    CFR Citation: 8 CFR 204 to 205; 8 U.S.C. 214; 8 CFR 245; 8 CFR 
274a.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is proposing to 
amend its regulations affecting certain employment-based immigrant and 
nonimmigrant classifications. This rule proposes to amend current 
regulations to provide stability and job flexibility for the 
beneficiaries of approved employment-based immigrant visa petitions 
while they wait to become lawful permanent residents. DHS is also 
proposing to conform its regulations with the American Competitiveness 
in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000 (AC21) as amended by the 
Twenty-First Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization 
Act (the 21st Century DOJ Appropriations Act), as well as the American 
Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act of 1998 (ACWIA). The rule 
also seeks to clarify several interpretive questions raised by ACWIA 
and AC21 regarding H-1B petitions, and incorporate relevant AC21 policy 
memoranda and an Administrative Appeals Office precedent decision, and 
would ensure that DHS practice is consistent with them.
    Statement of Need: This rule provides needed stability and 
flexibility to certain employment-based immigrants while they wait to 
become lawful permanent residents. These amendments would support U.S. 
employers by better enabling them to hire and retain highly skilled and 
other foreign workers. DHS proposes to accomplish this, in part, by 
implementing certain provisions of ACWIA and AC21, as amended by the 
21st Century DOJ Appropriations Act. The 21st Century DOJ 
Appropriations Authorization Act, which will impact certain foreign 
nationals seeking permanent residency in the United States, as well as 
H-1B workers. Further, by clarifying interpretive questions related to 
these provisions, this rulemaking would ensure that DHS practice is 
consistent with statute.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The authority of the Secretary of Homeland 
Security (Secretary) for these regulatory amendments can be found in 
section 102 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Public Law 107-296, 
116 Stat. 2135, 6 U.S.C. 112, and section 103(a) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1103(a), which authorize the Secretary 
to administer and enforce the immigration and nationality laws. In 
pertinent part, ACWIA authorized the Secretary to impose a fee on 
certain H-1B petitioners which would be used to train American workers, 
and AC21 provides authority to increase access to foreign workers as 
well as to train U.S. workers. In addition, section 274A(h)(3)(B) of 
the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1324a(h)(3)(B), recognizes the Secretary's authority 
to extend employment to noncitizens in the United States, and section 
205 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1155, recognizes the Secretary's authority to 
exercise discretion in determining the revocability of any petition 
approved by him under section 204 of the INA.
    Alternatives: The alternative would be to continue under current 
procedures without change.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The proposed amendments would 
increase the incentive of highly-skilled and other foreign workers who 
have begun the immigration process to remain in and contribute to the 
U.S. economy as they complete the process to adjust status to or 
otherwise acquire lawful permanent resident status, thereby minimizing 
disruptions to petitioning U.S. employers. Attracting and retaining 
highly-skilled persons 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.
    Risks:
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   12/00/15  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
    Additional Information: 1615-AB97 will be merged under this rule, 
1615-AC05.
    Agency Contact: Kevin Cummings, Branch Chief, Business and Foreign 
Workers Division, Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services, Second Floor, Office of Policy and Strategy, 20 
Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529, Phone: 202 272-1470, 
Fax: 202 272-1480, Email: [email protected].
    Related RIN: Related to 1615-AB97
    RIN: 1615-AC05

DHS--USCIS

Final Rule Stage

56. 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 in 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 provides 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

[[Page 77786]]

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 to also serve 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 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 
this rule include: Assistance to trafficked victims and their families; 
an increase in the number of cases brought forward for investigation 
and/or prosecution of traffickers in persons; heightened awareness by 
the law enforcement community of trafficking in persons; and 
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..................   06/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

57. 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 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........................   10/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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: 202 272-8377, Fax: 202 
272-

[[Page 77787]]

1480, Email: [email protected].
    Related RIN: Related to 1615-AB76, Related to 1615-AB75
    RIN: 1615-AB77

DHS--USCIS

58. 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) is amending its 
regulations governing the Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ) 
classification and related applications for adjustment of status to 
permanent resident. Special Immigrant Juvenile classification is a 
humanitarian-based immigration protection for children who cannot be 
reunified with one or both parents because of abuse, neglect, 
abandonment, or a similar basis found under State law. This final rule 
implements updates to eligibility requirements and other changes made 
by the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, Pub. 
L. 110-457. DHS received comments on the proposed rule in 2011 and 
intends to issue a final rule in the coming year.
    Statement of Need: 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 limiting eligibility to children 
declared dependent on a juvenile court because of 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 
petitioner'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 population of children 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: DHS is considering and using suggestions from 
stakeholders to keep in mind the vulnerable nature of abused, abandoned 
and neglected children 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..........................   10/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

59. 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 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 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

[[Page 77788]]

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: As proposed, this rule 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). 
This provision may also 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. 
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 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........................   01/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
    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: 202 272-8377, Fax: 202 
272-1480, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 1615-AC00

DHS--USCIS

60. Expansion of Provisional Unlawful Presence Waivers of 
Inadmissibility

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1103; 8 U.S.C. 1182
    CFR Citation: 8 CFR 212.7.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is amending its 
regulations to expand eligibility for the provisional unlawful presence 
waiver of certain grounds of inadmissibility based on the accrual of 
unlawful presence to all aliens who are statutorily eligible for a 
waiver of such grounds, are seeking such a waiver in connection with an 
immigrant visa application, and meet other conditions. In relation to 
the statutory requirement that a waiver applicant must demonstrate that 
the denial of the waiver would result in extreme hardship to a 
qualifying relative, DHS is eliminating the restrictions currently 
contained in the provisional unlawful presence regulation that limits 
the qualifying relative to U.S. citizen spouses and parents. This rule 
permits an applicant for a provisional waiver to establish the 
eligibility requirement of showing extreme hardship to any qualifying 
relative named in the statutory waiver provision namely a U.S. citizen 
or lawful permanent resident spouses and parents.
    Statement of Need: Currently, DHS allows certain immediate 
relatives who are in the United States to request a provisional 
unlawful presence waiver before departing for consular processing of 
their immigrant visas. Currently, this waiver process is only available 
to those immediate relatives whose sole ground of inadmissibility would 
be unlawful presence under section 212(a)(9)(B)(i) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act (INA) and who can demonstrate that the denial of 
the waiver would result in extreme hardship to their U.S. citizen 
spouse or parent.
    All other aliens seeking an immigrant visa through consular process 
who require a waiver of inadmissibility to

[[Page 77789]]

overcome the bars in INA section 212(a)(9)(B)(i) must file the waiver 
at the end of the consular processing and after the consular immigrant 
visa interview. Obtaining the waiver through this process can be 
lengthy. These aliens typically have to wait abroad for at least 
several months for a decision on their waiver applications and until a 
visa can be issued. During this period, applicants must endure 
separation from the U.S. citizen and lawful permanent resident family 
members in the United States, which, in turn, often results in 
emotional and financial hardships to some U.S. citizens, lawful 
permanent residents, and their families. Inefficiencies in this waiver 
process also create costs for the Federal Government.
    As proposed, USCIS may grant a provisional unlawful presence waiver 
to aliens if they are statutorily eligible for an immigrant visa and 
for a waiver of inadmissibility based on unlawful presence. As 
proposed, this rule also would expand who may be considered a 
qualifying relative for purposes of the extreme hardship determination 
to include lawful permanent resident spouses and parents. The changes 
are made in the interest of family unity and customer service. This 
rule also removes from the affected regulations all unnecessary 
procedural instructions regarding office names and locations, position 
titles and responsibilities, and form numbers. These instructions are 
often unnecessary, and unrestricted USCIS' ability to better utilize 
its resources and serve its customers.
    Summary of Legal Basis: 5 U.S.C. 301; 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1304, 
1356; 31 U.S.C. 9701; Public Law 107296, 116 Stat. 2135; 6 U.S.C. 1 et 
seq.; E.O. 12356, 47 FR 14874, 15557, 3 CFR, 1982 Comp., p. 166; 8 CFR 
part 2; Public Law 11254. 8 U.S.C. 1101 and note, 1102, 1103, 1182 and 
note, 1184, 1187, 1223, 1225, 1226, 1227, 1255, 1359; 8 U.S.C. 1185 
note (section 7209 of Pub. L. 108458); 8 CFR part 2. Section 212.1(q) 
also issued under section 702, Public Law 110229, 122 Stat. 754, 854.
    Alternatives: The alternative to this rule would be to continue 
under the current process without change.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: As a result of expanding the 
population of aliens who would benefit from a streamlined immigrant 
visa process, DHS believes that both the affected population and the 
Federal Government will benefit. In addition to reducing the emotional 
hardship that U.S. citizen and lawful permanent resident families 
experience as a result of separation from their alien relatives, DHS 
anticipates these families would experience fewer financial burdens 
associated with traveling abroad. Finally, this rule would increase 
USCIS and DOS efficiencies by streamlining the waiver process for 
unlawful presence for the expanded group.
    Risks:
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   07/22/15  80 FR 43338
NPRM Comment Period End.............   09/21/15  .......................
Final Action........................   04/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Mark Phillips, Chief, Residence and Naturalization 
Division, Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services, Office of Policy and Strategy, 20 Massachusetts 
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529, Phone: 202 272-1470, Email: 
[email protected].
    Related RIN: Related to 1615-AB99
    RIN: 1615-AC03

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

Final Rule Stage

61. 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.
    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

[[Page 77790]]

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, as a result of 
this rulemaking, owners and operators of towing vessels would incur 
additional annualized costs, discounted at 7 percent, in the range of 
$14.3 million to $17.1 million. 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..........................   02/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
Operating & Environmental 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

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

    Priority: Other Significant.
    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; E.O. 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 two years 
after the commencement of the pilot program.
    The final rule is required two 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 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 2009, and a NPRM, published in March 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

[[Page 77791]]

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..........................   02/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. Avenue 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

63. Air Cargo Advance Screening (ACAS)

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 19 U.S.C. 2071 note
    CFR Citation: 19 CFR 122.
    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 Transportation Security 
Administration, 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: In addition to the proposed rule, CBP analyzed two 
alternatives--Requiring the data elements to be transmitted to CBP 
further in advance than the proposed rule requires; and requiring fewer 
data elements. CBP concluded that the proposal rule provides the most 
favorable balance between security outcomes and impacts to air 
transportation.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: To improve CBP's risk assessment and 
targeting capabilities and to enable CBP to target and identify risk 
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 earlier in the process. In most cases, the 
information would have to be submitted as early as practicable, but no 
later than prior to the loading of cargo onto an aircraft at the last 
foreign port of departure to the United States. CBP, in conjunction 
with TSA, has been operating ACAS as a voluntary pilot program since 
2010. CBP believes this pilot program has proven successful by not only 
mitigating risks to the United States, but also minimizing costs to the 
private sector. As such, CBP is proposing to transition the ACAS pilot 
program into a permanent program. 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................................   03/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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: 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,

[[Page 77792]]

Phone: 202 344-3052, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 1651-AB04

DHS--USCBP

Final Rule Stage

64. 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. Customs and Border 
Protection (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 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

[[Page 77793]]

 
Interim Final Rule Comment Period      04/26/13  .......................
 End.
Interim Final Rule Effective........   04/26/13  .......................
Final Action........................   02/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

DHS--TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (TSA)

Proposed Rule Stage

65. Security Training for Surface Mode Employees

    Priority: Other Significant.
    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 one year after date of enactment.
    Final, Statutory, February 3, 2008, Rule for railroads and over-
the-road buses is due six months after date of enactment.
    According to sec 1408 of Pub. L. 110-53, Implementing 
Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (Aug. 3, 2007; 121 
Stat. 266), interim final regulations for public transportation 
agencies are due 90 days after the date of enactment (Nov. 1, 2007), 
and final regulations are due 1 year after the date of enactment of 
this Act. According to sec 1517 of the same Act, final regulations for 
railroads and over-the-road buses are due no later than 6 months after 
the date of enactment.
    Abstract: This rule would require security awareness training for 
front-line employees for potential terrorism-related security threats 
and conditions pursuant to the 9/11 Act. This rule would apply to 
higher-risk public transportation, freight rail, and over-the-road bus 
owner/operators and take into consideration the many actions higher-
risk owner/operators have already taken since 9/11 to enhance the 
baseline of security through training of their employees. 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.
    Statement of Need: Employee training is an important and effective 
tool for averting or mitigating potential attacks by those 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................................   09/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: Local.
    Agency Contact: Chandru (Jack) Kalro, Deputy Director, Surface 
Division, Office of Security Policy and Industry Engagement, Department 
of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration, 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].
    Traci Klemm, Assistant Chief Counsel for Multi-Modal Security 
Standards, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security 
Administration, Office of the Chief Counsel, 601 South 12th Street, 
Arlington, VA 20598-6002, Phone: 571 227-3596, Email: 
[email protected].
    Related RIN: Related to 1652-AA56, Merged with 1652-AA57, Merged 
with 1652-AA59
    RIN: 1652-AA55

DHS--TSA

Final Rule Stage

66. 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, 2013, 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

[[Page 77794]]

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 
impact analysis.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: TSA reports in the NPRM 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. TSA is in the process of determining the costs and 
benefits of the final rule.
    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..........................   01/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Governmental Jurisdictions.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    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, Assistant 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)

Proposed Rule Stage

67. Improving and Expanding Training Opportunities for F-1 Nonimmigrant 
Students With STEM Degrees and Expanding CAP-GAP Relief for All F-1 
Students With Pending H-1B Petitions

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Legal Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101; 8 U.S.C. 1103; 8 U.S.C. 1182; 8 
U.S.C. 1184; 8 U.S.C. 1221; 8 U.S.C. 1281 and 1282; 8 U.S.C. 1302 to 
1305
    CFR Citation: 8 CFR 214; 8 CFR 274a.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Department of Homeland Security is proposing a new 
rule to enhance opportunities for F-1 nonimmigrant students graduating 
with a science, technology, engineering, or mathematics (STEM) degree 
from an accredited school certified by U.S. Immigration and Custom 
Enforcement (ICE) Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP), and to 
further their courses of study through optional practical training 
(OPT) with employers enrolled in the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services' (USCIS') E-Verify employment verification program. The 
proposed rule would replace a 2008 interim final rule (IFR) that was 
invalidated and will be vacated on February 12, 2016, per a ruling by 
the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on August 12, 
2015, in the Washington Alliance of Technology Workers v. U.S. 
Department of Homeland Security litigation.
    Statement of Need: This proposed rule would enhance the academic 
experience of STEM OPT students, increase the overall competitiveness 
of U.S. educational institutions, and provide important benefits to the 
U.S. economy.
    Summary of Legal Basis:
    Alternatives:
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Not yet determined.
    Risks:
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   10/19/15  80 FR 63375
NPRM Comment Period End.............   11/18/15  .......................
Final Rule..........................   01/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
    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: 703 603-3400, Email: [email protected];
    Molly Stubbs, ICE Regulatory Coordinator, Department of Homeland 
Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Office of the 
Director, PTN--Potomac Center North, 500 12th Street SW., Washington, 
DC 20536, Phone: 202 732-6202, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 1653-AA72
BILLING CODE 9110-9B-P


[[Page 77795]]



DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Fall 2015 Statement of Regulatory Priorities

Introduction--HUD's Mission

    Secretary Juli[aacute]n Castro has called the Department of Housing 
and Urban Development (HUD) the Department of Opportunity because of 
the unique impact it can make on the lives of Americans. As Secretary 
Castro has noted, where people live shapes how they live--the types and 
number of available jobs, the quality of the education their children 
receive, and the overall quality of life.\1\ Although one of HUD's core 
objectives is to help families secure quality, affordable housing, its 
mission is much broader. HUD celebrated the 50th anniversary of its 
establishment in September 2015. President Lyndon Johnson, in his 
remarks on the passage of the legislation in 1965 establishing HUD, 
provided a clear and succinct statement of the objectives for the new 
Department: ``to make sure that every family in America lives in a home 
of dignity and a neighborhood of pride, a community of opportunity, and 
a city of promise and hope.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Secretary Juli[aacute]n Castro, Remarks to the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development, ``A Year of Progress: Building a 
Stronger HUD for the Next 50 Years'' (July 27, 2015). See http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/press/speeches_remarks_statements/2015/Remarks_072715.
    \2\ President Lyndon Baines Johnson, Remarks upon Enactment of 
the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965 (April 10, 1965). 
http://www.lbjlibrary.org/mediakits/hud/p6.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In brief, HUD's mission is to provide families and communities with 
the tools to build a brighter future. Consistent with this vision, HUD 
programs impact small towns, big cities, rural communities, and tribal 
communities across the country. 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.

Statement of Regulatory Priorities

    This Statement of Regulatory Priorities, together with HUD's Fall 
Semiannual Agenda of Regulations, highlights the most significant 
regulatory and deregulatory initiatives that HUD seeks to complete 
during the upcoming fiscal year.
    As noted in the Introduction, a central feature of HUD's mission is 
to use housing as a platform for improving quality of life. HUD housing 
serves at least two broad populations: people who are in a position to 
markedly increase their self-sufficiency and people who will need long-
term support (for example, the frail elderly and people with severe 
disabilities). For those individuals who are able, increasing self-
sufficiency requires access to life-skills training, wealth-creation 
and asset-building opportunities, job training, and career services.
    Knowledge is one pillar to achieving self-sufficiency and the 
American Dream--a catalyst for upward mobility, as well as an 
investment that ensures each generation is, at least, as successful as 
the last. The adoption, associated programming, and use of broadband 
technology are powerful tools to increase access to knowledge; however, 
there is a ``digital divide'' in this nation between those with 
broadband Internet access and those without it.
    This Statement of Regulatory Priorities highlights two rules that 
will focus on narrowing the digital divide in low-income communities 
served by HUD.

Regulatory Priority: Narrowing the Digital Divide in HUD Communities

    On March 23, 2015, President Obama issued a Presidential Memorandum 
on ``Expanding Broadband Deployment and Adoption by Addressing 
Regulatory Barriers and Encouraging Investment and Training.'' \3\ In 
this memorandum, the President noted that access to high-speed 
broadband is no longer a luxury, but a necessity for American families, 
businesses, and consumers. Mobile wireless access to the Internet, such 
as provided through smartphone, is an insufficient alternative to 
broadband connectivity. Such wireless access provides lower connection 
speeds and lesser functionality for the full range of household uses 
(such as word processing and other software) compared to place-based 
broadband Internet connection. The President further noted that the 
Federal government has an important role to play in developing 
coordinated policies to promote broadband deployment and adoption, 
including promoting best practices, breaking down regulatory barriers, 
and encouraging further investment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/03/23/presidential-memorandum-expanding-broadband-deployment-and-adoption-addr.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 15, 2015, HUD launched its Digital Opportunity 
Demonstration, known as ``ConnectHome,'' in which HUD provided a 
platform for collaboration among local governments, public housing 
agencies, Internet service providers, philanthropic foundations, 
nonprofit organizations, and other relevant stakeholders to work 
together to produce local solutions for narrowing the digital divide in 
communities served by HUD across the nation. The demonstration, or 
pilot as it is also called, commenced with the participation of 28 
communities. Through contributions made by the Internet service 
providers and other participating organizations, these 28 communities 
will benefit from the ConnectHome collaboration by receiving, for the 
residents living in HUD public and assisted housing in these 
communities, broadband infrastructure, literacy training, related 
content, and devices that provide for accessing high-speed Internet.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ http://connecthome.hud.gov/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The importance of all Americans having access to the Internet 
cannot be overstated. As HUD stated in its announcement of the Digital 
Opportunity Demonstration, published in the Federal Register on April 
3, 2015, at 80 FR 18248, many low-income Americans do not have 
broadband Internet at home, contributing to the estimated 66 million 
Americans who are without the most basic digital literacy skills. It is 
for these reasons that HUD is exploring ways beyond ConnectHome, to 
narrow the digital divide for the low-income individuals and families 
served by HUD multifamily rental housing programs.
    The following two rules featured in this Regulatory Plan are part 
of this effort.
     Narrowing the Digital Divide through Broadband 
Installation in HUD-Funded New Construction and Substantial 
Rehabilitation
     Narrowing the Digital Divide through Community Planning: 
Integrating Broadband Access Planning into HUD's Consolidated Planning 
Process

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 
pursued in FY 2016. HUD expects that the neither the total economic 
costs nor the total efficiency gains will exceed $100 million.

[[Page 77796]]

Narrowing the Digital Divide Through Broadband Installation in HUD-
Funded New Construction and Substantial Rehabilitation

    HUD Office: Office of the Secretary.
    Rulemaking Stage: Proposed Rule.
    Priority: Significant.
    Legal Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1701q and 4568; 42 U.S.C. 1437a, 1437c, 
1437d, 1437f, 1437g, 1437n, 1437z-2, 1437z-7, 3535(d), 5301-5320, 8013, 
11371 et seq., 12701-12839, 12901-12912, 13611-13619; sec 327, Pub. L. 
109-115, 119 Stat. 2936, and sec 607, Pub. L. 109-162, 119 Stat. 3051
    CFR Citation: 24 CFR 5, 92, 93, 570, 574, 578, 880, 891, 905, and 
983.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: Through this proposed rule, HUD continues its efforts to 
narrow the digital divide in low-income communities served by HUD by 
providing broadband access to communities in need of such access, where 
feasible and under HUD programs that authorize use of HUD funds for 
such purpose. Broadband is the common term used to refer to a very fast 
connection to the Internet. Such connection is also referred to as 
high-speed broadband or high-speed Internet. In this rule, HUD proposes 
to require installation of broadband infrastructure at the time of new 
construction or substantial rehabilitation of multifamily rental 
housing that is funded by HUD. Installation of broadband infrastructure 
at the time of new construction or substantial rehabilitation is 
generally easier and less costly than when such installation is 
undertaken as a stand-alone effort. The proposed rule, however, 
recognizes that installation of broadband infrastructure may not be 
feasible for all new construction or substantial rehabilitation, and 
therefore the proposed rule allows limited exceptions to the 
installation requirements. Installing unit-based high-speed Internet in 
multifamily rental housing that is newly constructed or substantially 
rehabilitated with HUD funding will not only expand affordable housing 
for low-income families but will provide a platform for individuals and 
families residing in such housing to participate in the digital economy 
and increase their access to economic opportunities.

Statement of Need

    The proposed rule is part of several mutually supportive efforts 
being taken by the Administration to close the digital divide for low-
income communities. As noted above, many low-income Americans do not 
have broadband Internet at home. Given the populations impacted by the 
digital divide, HUD is at the forefront of implementing these 
Administration efforts. The digital divide in broadband access, 
connectivity, and use disproportionately affects certain Americans: 
Those who earn less than $25,000 annually; individuals who did not 
finish high school; and African Americans and Hispanics. Eighty-four 
percent of households with HUD assistance make less than $20,000 per 
year, and 63 percent are African American or Hispanic (46 percent and 
17 percent, respectively). Of these HUD-assisted household, 38 percent 
have children who are 18 years or younger. The proposed rule will build 
on the success of ConnectHome by ensuring that when construction or 
significant rehabilitation is done using HUD funds, the infrastructure 
needed for broadband access is included in the work.
    Alternatives: Construction and rehabilitation standards are 
regulatory in nature, so amending them to require the installation of 
broadband infrastructure requires rulemaking. Without amending the 
construction and rehabilitation standards, there is no way to require 
grantees to install broadband infrastructure in multifamily housing.
    Anticipated Costs and Benefits: The proposed rule would provide 
that for new construction or substantial rehabilitation of multifamily 
rental housing funded by HUD that, as part of the new construction or 
substantial rehabilitation to be undertaken, such activity must include 
installation of broadband infrastructure. Installing broadband 
infrastructure will be an additional cost when doing HUD-funded new 
construction/substantial rehabilitation. However, HUD notes that none 
of the HUD covered programs listed in this rule require a grantee to 
undertake new construction or substantial rehabilitation. New 
construction and substantial rehabilitation are eligible activities 
that grantees may undertake under HUD-funded programs. Therefore, 
entities will not incur any costs than they otherwise would incur by 
using their HUD funds to voluntarily undertake new construction or 
substantial rehabilitation under HUD funded-programs that authorize 
such activities.
    Further, HUD is seeking to minimize the costs of installation by 
pairing the installation requirements with new construction or 
rehabilitation work when costs are lower than installation broadband 
infrastructure when no other work is being done. Additionally, HUD is 
proposing to define ``substantial rehabilitation'' as significant work 
(50 percent or more of full system replacement) on one or more of the 
following systems: Electrical, mechanical, or plumbing. This further 
minimizes the costs of the rule by ensuring that only significant work 
that would lower the burden of installing broadband infrastructure 
triggers the proposed requirements.
    HUD also recognizes that there may be some communities or buildings 
where installing broadband infrastructure is infeasible or impractical 
due to a variety of circumstances (e.g., no broadband access is 
available near the community, the building itself may have some 
difficulties in supporting the infrastructure). In these instances, HUD 
is reserving the right to determine that installation of broadband 
infrastructure is not feasible and excusing the grantee from the 
installation requirement.
    Risks: This rule poses no risk to public health, safety, or the 
environment.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   01/00/16
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: State, Local.
    Federalism Affected: No.
    Energy Affected: No.
    International Impacts: No.
    Agency Contact: Camille E. Acevedo, Associate General Counsel for 
Legislation and Regulations, Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410, Phone: 202 708-
3055.
    RIN: 2501-AD75

Narrowing the Digital Divide Through Community Planning: Integrating 
Broadband Planning Into HUD's Consolidated Planning Process

    HUD Office: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community 
Planning and Development.
    Rulemaking Stage: Proposed Rule.
    Priority: Significant.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 3535(d), 3601-3619, 5301-5315, 11331-
11388, 12701-12711, 12741-12756, and 12901-12912
    CFR Citation: 24 CFR 91.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: For communities to survive in this digital era, planning 
for broadband access must be a basic component of their community 
planning process. HUD's Consolidated Plan is a planning mechanism 
designed to help States and local governments

[[Page 77797]]

assess their affordable housing and community development needs and 
make data-driven, place-based investment decisions. The consolidated 
planning process serves as the framework for a community-wide dialogue 
to identify housing and community development priorities that align and 
focus funding from HUD's formula block grant programs.
    This proposed rule would amend HUD's Consolidated Plan regulations 
to require that jurisdictions, in their planning efforts, consider the 
needs of broadband access for low-income residents in the communities 
they serve. Broadband is the common term used to refer to a very fast 
connection to the Internet. Such connection is also referred to as 
high-speed broadband or high-speed Internet. Specifically, the rule 
would require that States and localities that submit a consolidated 
plan evaluate whether residents of HUD-funded housing have access to 
high-speed Internet and, if so, in what ways is such access made 
available to these residents. If low-income residents in the 
communities do not have access to high-speed Internet, States and 
jurisdictions must consider whether such access can be made available 
to their communities as part of their investment of HUD funds. The 
proposed regulatory amendments build upon other HUD efforts to close 
the digital divide and help ensure that the benefits of high-speed 
Internet reach every American household, regardless of their economic 
backgrounds.
    Statement of Need: The proposed rule is part of several mutually 
supportive efforts being taken by the Administration to close the 
digital divide for low-income communities. As noted above, many low-
income Americans do not have broadband Internet at home. Given the 
populations impacted by the digital divide, HUD is at the forefront of 
implementing these Administration efforts. The digital divide in 
broadband access, connectivity, and use disproportionately affects 
certain Americans: Those who earn less than $25,000 annually; 
individuals who did not finish high school; and African Americans and 
Hispanics. Eighty-four percent of households with HUD assistance make 
less than $20,000 per year, and 63 percent are African American or 
Hispanic (46 percent and 17 percent, respectively). Of these HUD-
assisted household, 38 percent have children who are 18 years or 
younger. The proposed regulatory amendments will build on the success 
of ConnectHome by codifying the policy goals of increased Internet 
access and digital literacy as permanent features of HUD's community 
planning regulations.
    Alternatives: The Consolidated Plan requirements are regulatory in 
nature so rulemaking is necessary to revise them. While non-regulatory 
guidance encouraging the consideration of broadband access in the 
consolidated planning process is a possible alternative, such guidance 
is non-binding. Accordingly, rulemaking is the only possible option to 
accomplish the policy goals described above.
    Anticipated Costs and Benefits: The proposed rule will amend the 
Consolidated Plan regulations to require that States and local 
governments evaluate the access of public and other assisted housing 
residents to broadband Internet service. The proposed regulatory 
changes are concerned with the consolidated planning process and HUD 
does not anticipate that the costs of the revised consultation and 
reporting requirements, as proposed in this rule, will be significant 
since the regulatory changes merely build upon similar existing 
requirements rather than mandating completely new procedures. While the 
proposed rule would require States and local governments to consider, 
as part of their Consolidated Planning process, the broadband access 
needs of resident of public and other assisted housing, the rule does 
not mandate that actions be taken to meet those needs. The significant 
interest expressed by many communities in participating in ConnectHome 
demonstrated to HUD that many jurisdictions that are already engaged in 
planning to bring high-speed Internet access to their low-income 
communities. These jurisdictions also demonstrated their awareness of 
the harmful effects of the digital divide and a high interest in 
narrowing that divide. Additionally, given the positive response to 
ConnectHome, HUD anticipates that many State and local governments will 
devote resources, whether public or private, without any mandate from 
HUD, to bring high-speed Internet access to their communities. This 
rule therefore, which only requires consideration of the needs in low-
income communities to access to broadband Internet service, has a 
minimal cost impact on all grantees subject to the Consolidated 
Planning process.
    Risks: This rule poses no risk to public health, safety, or the 
environment.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   01/00/16
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: State, Local.
    Federalism Affected: No.
    Energy Affected: No.
    International Impacts: No.
    Agency Contact: Camille E. Acevedo, Associate General Counsel for 
Legislation and Regulations, Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410, Phone: 202 708-
3055.
    RIN: 2506-AC41

HUD--OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (HUDSEC)

Proposed Rule Stage

68.  Narrowing the Digital Divide Through Broadband 
Installation in HUD-Funded New Construction and Substantial 
Rehabilitation (FR-5890)

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1701q; 12 U.S.C. 4568; 1437a, 1437c, 
1437d, 1437f, 1437n, 1437z-2, 1437z-7; 42 U.S.C. 3535(d); 42 U.S.C. 
5301-5320; 42 U.S.C. 8013; 42 U.S.C. 11371 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 12701-
12839; 42 U.S.C. 12901-12912; 42 U.S.C. 13611-13619; sec 327, Pub. L. 
109-115, 119 Stat 2936; sec 607, Pub. L. 109-162, 119 Stat 3051
    CFR Citation: 24 CFR 5; 24 CFR 92; 24 CFR 93; 24 CFR 570; 24 CFR 
578; 24 CFR 880; 24 CFR 905; 24 CFR 983.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: Through this proposed rule, HUD continues its efforts to 
narrow the digital divide in low-income communities served by HUD by 
providing, where feasible and with HUD funding, broadband access to 
communities in need of such access. Broadband is the common term used 
to refer to a very fast connection to the Internet. Such connection is 
also referred to as high-speed broadband or high-speed Internet. In 
this rule, HUD proposes to require installation of broadband 
infrastructure at the time of new construction or substantial 
rehabilitation of multifamily rental housing that is funded by HUD. 
Installation of broadband infrastructure at the time of new 
construction or substantial rehabilitation is generally easier and less 
costly than when such installation is undertaken as a stand-alone 
effort. The proposed rule, however, recognizes that installation of 
broadband infrastructure may not be

[[Page 77798]]

feasible for all new construction or substantial rehabilitation, and 
therefore the proposed rule allows limited exceptions to the 
installation requirements. Installing unit-based high-speed Internet in 
multifamily rental housing that is newly constructed and substantially 
rehabilitated with HUD funding will not only expand affordable housing 
for low-income families but will provide a platform for individuals and 
families residing in such housing to participate in the digital 
economy, and increase their access to economic opportunities.
    Statement of Need: The proposed rule is part of several mutually 
supportive efforts being taken by the Administration to close the 
digital divide for low-income communities. As noted above, many low-
income Americans do not have broadband Internet at home. Given the 
populations impacted by the digital divide, HUD is at the forefront of 
implementing these Administration efforts. The digital divide in 
broadband access, connectivity, and use disproportionately affects 
certain Americans: Those who earn less than $25,000 annually; 
individuals who did not finish high school; and African Americans and 
Hispanics. Eighty-four percent of households with HUD assistance make 
less than $20,000 per year, and 63 percent are African American or 
Hispanic (46 percent and 17 percent, respectively). Of these HUD-
assisted household, 38 percent have children who are 18 years or 
younger. The proposed rule will build on the success of ConnectHome by 
ensuring that when construction or significant rehabilitation is done 
using HUD funds, the infrastructure needed for broadband access is 
included in the work.
    Summary of Legal Basis: None.
    Alternatives: Construction and rehabilitation standards are 
regulatory in nature, so amending them to require the installation of 
broadband infrastructure requires rulemaking. Without amending the 
construction and rehabilitation standards, there is no way to require 
grantees to install broadband infrastructure in multifamily housing.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The proposed rule would provide that 
for new construction or substantial rehabilitation of multifamily 
rental housing funded by HUD that, as part of the new construction or 
substantial rehabilitation to be undertaken, such activity must include 
installation of broadband infrastructure. Installing broadband 
infrastructure will be an additional cost when doing HUD-funded new 
construction/substantial rehabilitation. However, HUD notes that none 
of the HUD covered programs listed in this rule require a grantee to 
undertake new construction or substantial rehabilitation. New 
construction and substantial rehabilitation are eligible activities 
that grantees may take using HUD funds. Therefore, entities will not 
incur any costs than they otherwise would incur by voluntarily 
undertaking new construction or substantial rehabilitation, and the 
costs of these activities are funded by HUD.
    Further, HUD is seeking to minimize the costs of installation by 
pairing the installation requirements with new construction or 
rehabilitation work when costs are lower than installation broadband 
infrastructure when no other work is being done. Additionally, HUD is 
proposing to define substantial rehabilitation as significant work (50 
percent or more of full system replacement) on one or more of the 
following systems: electrical, mechanical, or plumbing. This further 
minimizes the costs of the rule by ensuring that only significant work 
that would lower the burden of installing broadband infrastructure 
triggers the proposed requirements.
    HUD also recognizes that there may be some communities or buildings 
where installing broadband infrastructure is infeasible or impractical 
due to a variety of circumstances (e.g., no broadband access is 
available near the community, the building itself may have some 
difficulties in supporting the infrastructure). In these instances, HUD 
is reserving the right to determine that installation of broadband 
infrastructure is not feasible and excusing the grantee from the 
installation requirement.
    Risks: This rule poses no risk to public health, safety, or the 
environment.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   01/00/16
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Camille E. Acevedo, Associate General Counsel for 
Legislation and Regulations, Office of the General Counsel, Department 
of Housing and Urban Development, Office of the Secretary, 451 7th 
Street SW., Washington, DC 20410, Phone: 202 708-5132.
    RIN: 2501-AD75

HUD--OFFICE OF COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT (CPD)

Proposed Rule Stage

69.  Narrowing the Digital Divide Through Community Planning: 
Integrating Broadband Planning Into HUD's Consolidated Planning Process 
(FR-5891)

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 3535(d); 42 U.S.C. 3601-3619; 42 U.S.C. 
5301-5315; 42 U.S.C. 11331-11388; 42 U.S.C.12701-12711; 42 U.S.C.12741-
12756; 42 U.S.C. 12901-12912
    CFR Citation: 24 CFR 91.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: For communities to survive in this digital era, planning 
for broadband access must be a basic component of their community 
planning process. HUD's Consolidated Plan is a planning mechanism 
designed to help States and local governments to assess their 
affordable housing and community development needs and to make data-
driven, place-based investment decisions. The consolidated planning 
process serves as the framework for a community-wide dialogue to 
identify housing and community development priorities that align and 
focus funding from HUD's formula block grant programs.
    This proposed rule would amend HUD's Consolidated Plan regulations 
to require that jurisdictions, in their planning efforts, consider the 
needs of broadband access for low-income residents in the communities 
they serve. Broadband is the common term used to refer to a very fast 
connection to the Internet. Such connection is also referred to as 
high-speed broadband or high-speed Internet. Specifically, the rule 
would require that States and localities that submit a consolidated 
plan evaluate whether residents of HUD-funded housing have access to 
high-speed Internet and, if so, in what ways is such access made 
available to these residents. If low-income residents in the 
communities do not have access to high-speed Internet, States and 
jurisdictions must consider whether such access can be made available 
to their communities, as part of their investment of HUD funds. The 
proposed regulatory amendments build upon other HUD efforts to close 
the digital divide and help ensure that the benefits of high-speed 
Internet reach every American household, regardless of their economic 
backgrounds.
    Statement of Need: The proposed rule is part of several mutually 
supportive efforts being taken by the Administration to close the 
digital

[[Page 77799]]

divide for low-income communities. As noted above, many low-income 
Americans do not have broadband Internet at home. Given the populations 
impacted by the digital divide, HUD is at the forefront of implementing 
these Administration efforts. The digital divide in broadband access, 
connectivity, and use disproportionately affects certain Americans: 
Those who earn less than $25,000 annually; individuals who did not 
finish high school; and African Americans and Hispanics. Eighty-four 
percent of households with HUD assistance make less than $20,000 per 
year, and 63 percent are African American or Hispanic (46 percent and 
17 percent, respectively). Of these HUD-assisted household, 38 percent 
have children who are 18 years or younger. The proposed regulatory 
amendments will build on the success of ConnectHome by codifying the 
policy goals of increased Internet access and digital literacy as 
permanent features of HUD's community planning regulations.
    Summary of Legal Basis: None.
    Alternatives: The Consolidated Plan requirements are regulatory in 
nature so rulemaking is necessary to revise them. While non-regulatory 
guidance encouraging the consideration of broadband access in the 
consolidated planning process is a possible alternative, such guidance 
is non-binding. Accordingly, rulemaking is the only possible option to 
accomplish the policy goals described above.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The proposed rule will amend the 
Consolidated Plan regulations to require that States and local 
governments evaluate the access of public and other assisted housing 
residents to broadband Internet service. The proposed regulatory 
changes are concerned with the consolidated planning process and HUD 
does not anticipate that the costs of the revised consultation and 
reporting requirements, as proposed in this rule, will be significant 
since the regulatory changes merely build upon similar existing 
requirements rather than mandating completely new procedures. While the 
proposed rule would require States and local governments to consider, 
as part of their Consolidated Planning process, the broadband access 
needs of resident of public and other assisted housing, the rule does 
not mandate the actions that actions be taken to meet those needs. The 
significant interest in participating in ConnectHome demonstrated to 
HUD that many jurisdictions that are already engaged in planning to 
bring high-speed Internet access to their low-income communities. These 
jurisdictions also demonstrated their awareness of the harmful effects 
of the digital divide and a high interest in narrowing that divide. 
Additionally, given the positive response to ConnectHome, HUD 
anticipates that many State and local governments will devote 
resources, whether public or private, without any mandate from HUD, to 
bring high-speed Internet access to their communities. This rule 
therefore, which only requires consideration of the needs in low-income 
communities to access to broadband Internet service, has a minimal cost 
impact on all grantees subject to the Consolidated Planning process.
    Risks: This rule poses no risk to public health, safety, or the 
environment.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   01/00/16
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: Governmental Jurisdictions.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Camille E. Acevedo, Associate General Counsel for 
Legislation and Regulations, Office of the General Counsel, Department 
of Housing and Urban Development, Office of the Secretary, 451 7th 
Street SW., Washington, DC 20410, Phone: 202 708-5132.
    RIN: 2506-AC41

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 408 
park units and 563 wildlife refuges, and more than one 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:
     Overseeing the development of 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;

[[Page 77800]]

     Fulfilling trust and other responsibilities pertaining to 
American Indians and Alaska Natives; and
     Managing natural resource damage assessments.

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 the Outer Continental Shelf, 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 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 Department routinely meets with stakeholders to solicit 
feedback and gather input on how modernize our regulatory programs, 
through efforts such as incorporating performance based standards where 
appropriate and removing outdated and unnecessary requirements. DOI 
bureaus are continuing to 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.
    The Department's Final Plan for Retrospective Review and biannual 
status reports can be viewed at http://www.doi.gov/open/regsreview.

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 567 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:
     Finalize 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 plans to 
finalize regulations that address grants to tribally controlled 
community colleges and other Indian education regulations. These 
reviews identify

[[Page 77801]]

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.
     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 finalize 
revisions to regulations regarding rights-of-way (25 CFR 169); 
Secretarial elections (25 CFR 81); the Housing Improvement Program (25 
CFR 256); Indian Reservation Roads (25 CFR 170); and Indian Child 
Welfare Act proceedings (25 CFR 23).
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:
     Provide for site security by preventing theft and loss and 
to enable accurate measurement and production accountability.
     Ensure that crude oil produced from Federal and Indian oil 
and gas leases is accurately measured and accounted for.
     Ensure that gas produced from Federal and Indian oil and 
gas leases is accurately measured and accounted.
    The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is updating and improving the 
current versions of Onshore Oil and Gas Orders (Order) for Site 
Security (Order 3), Oil Measurement (Order 4), and Gas Measurement 
(Order 5). These Orders were last updated in 1989. The primary purpose 
for these updates is to keep pace with changing industry practices, 
emerging and new technologies, respond to recommendations from the 
Government Accountability Office, the U.S. Department of the Interior 
(Department) Office of the Inspector General, and the Department's 
Subcommittee on Royalty Management. The proposed changes address 
findings and recommendations that in part formed the basis for the 
GAO's inclusion of the Department's oil and gas program on the GAO's 
High Risk List in 2011 (GAO-11-278) and for its continuing to keep the 
program on the list in the 2013 and 2015 updates. The Orders will be 
published as proposed rules in 43 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 
3173, 3174 and 3175 respectively.
     Preventing waste of produced natural gas and ensuring fair 
return to the taxpayer.
    BLM's current requirements regarding venting and flaring of natural 
gas 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.
     Ensure that taxpayers receive a fair return from energy 
resources developed on the public lands, those resources are diligently 
and responsibly developed, and that adequate financial measures exist 
to address the risks.
    The Government Accountability Office (GAO) recommended to the BLM 
that steps be taken to revise its regulations with respect to onshore 
royalty rates to provide flexibility to change those rates. On April 
21, 2015, the BLM issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
(ANPRM) seeking public comment on potential updates to BLM rules 
governing oil and gas royalty rates, rental payments, lease sale 
minimum bids, civil penalty caps and financial assurances. Over 82,000 
comments were received by the end of the comment period on June 19, 
2015. Most of the comments focused on fiscal lease terms--royalty 
rates, rentals, and minimum bids. There were a few comments on bonding 
and very few on civil penalties. The analysis of these comments is on-
going and is expected to be complete by the end of calendar year 2015. 
Following completion of the analysis of these comments the BLM will 
consider possible revisions to its regulations as contemplated by GAO 
recommendations.
     Creating a competitive process for offering lands for 
solar and wind energy development.
    BLM will finalize a rule that would establish an efficient 
competitive process for leasing public lands for solar and wind energy 
development. The regulations will establish competitive bidding 
procedures for lands within designated solar and wind energy 
development leasing areas, define qualifications for potential bidders, 
and structure the financial arrangements necessary for the process. The 
rule will 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.
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 offering 
opportunities to develop the conventional and renewable energy and the 
underlying mineral resources of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) in an 
efficient and effective manner, balancing the need for economic growth 
with the protection of the environment. BOEM oversees the expansion of 
domestic energy production, enhancing the potential for domestic energy 
independence and the generation of revenue to support the economic 
development of the country. BOEM thoughtfully considers and balances 
the potential environmental impacts associated with exploring and 
extracting OCS resources with the critical need for domestic energy 
production. BOEM's near-term regulatory agenda will focus on a number 
of issues, including:
     Enhancing the regulatory efficiency of the offshore 
renewables program.
    One rulemaking in particular has been proposed to address 
recommendations submitted to BOEM by the Transportation Research Board 
of the National Academies of Science, and other stakeholders in the 
renewable energy development process. Specifically, this rulemaking 
will clarify the role of Certified Verification Agents as part of the 
process of designing, fabricating, and installing offshore wind energy 
facilities for the OCS. Additionally, BOEM is working to

[[Page 77802]]

transfer regulatory oversight responsibilities relating to offshore 
renewable energy inspections and certain enforcement activities to the 
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE). This transfer in 
being undertaken in an effort to implement Department of the Interior 
Secretarial Order 3299, and will help ensure that these oversight 
activities will be conducted by the DOI bureau with the appropriate 
experience and expertise in operational matters.
     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 2011, DOI 
exercised jurisdiction for air quality only for OCS sources operating 
in the Gulf of Mexico. In fiscal year 2011, 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, and the Chukchi Sea. BOEM will propose 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 coordinated with other bureaus and agencies, 
including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park 
Service, and the Environmental Protection Agency.
     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 is working 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. In order to minimize 
the potential adverse impact of any proposed regulations, and in an 
effort to take all issues and views into proper account, BOEM published 
an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and has engaged with industry 
on the subject. BOEM has since issued a Notice to Lessees, will review 
comments, finalize guidance, and determine whether to update its 
regulation in this area.
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 
priorities in fulfillment of its mission are to: (1) 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; 
and (2) 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:
     Improving Crane and Helicopter Safety on Offshore 
Facilities.
    BSEE will finalize a rule regarding crane safety on fixed offshore 
platforms and will propose a rule for helicopter/helideck safety.
     Improving Oil Spill Response Plans and Procedures.
    BSEE will update regulations for offshore oil spill response plans 
by incorporating requirements for improved procedures. The procedures 
that will be required are based on lessons learned from the Deepwater 
Horizon spill, as well as nearly two decades of agency oversight and 
applicable BSEE research.
     Tailoring Drilling Requirements to the Unique Conditions 
of the Arctic.
    BSEE and BOEM will finalize a joint rule that promotes safe, 
responsible, and effective exploratory drilling activities on the 
Arctic OCS by taking into account the unique aspects and risks of 
operating in the Arctic, in order to ensure protection of the Arctic's 
communities and marine environment.
     Managing and Mitigating Well Control and Blowout Preventer 
Risks.
    BSEE will finalize a rule concerning requirements on blowout 
preventers and critical reforms in the areas of well design, well 
control, casing, cementing, real-time monitoring, and subsea 
containment. This rule will address multiple recommendations resulting 
from various investigations from the Deepwater Horizon incident.
    Additionally, BSEE will finalize revisions of its regulations on 
production safety systems and life cycle analysis. This final rule will 
expand the use of life cycle management of critical equipment and will 
address issues such as subsurface safety devices, safety device 
testing, and 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:
     Implement regulations to ensure compliance.
    ONRR is promulgating final rules to ensure compliance with the 
Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Simplification and Fairness Act of 1996, 
which will also clarify regulatory processes and direction for lessors 
on Federal leases.
     Simplify valuation regulations.
    ONRR plans to finalize 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 rule consolidates sections of the regulations common 
to all minerals, such as definitions and instructions regarding how a 
payor should request a valuation determination. Clarify and simplify 
issuing notices of non-compliance and civil penalties.
    This rule will 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.
     Define methodologies for distribution and disbursement of 
qualified revenues from certain leases under the Gulf of Mexico Energy 
Security Act (GOMESA).
    ONRR is amending the regulations on the distribution and 
disbursement of qualified revenues from certain leases on the Gulf of 
Mexico's Outer Continental Shelf, per the statutory direction contained 
in the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006. This regulation sets 
forth the formulas and methodologies for calculating and allocating 
revenues during the second phase of revenue sharing to: The States

[[Page 77803]]

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 final 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 
provides additional clarification and minor definition changes to the 
current revenue-sharing regulations.
     Simplify the valuation of coal advance royalty.
    The new regulations will implement the provisions of the Energy 
Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct) governing the payment of advance royalty on 
coal resources produced from Federal leases. The EPAct provisions amend 
the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (MLA). ONRR is also adding information 
collection requirements that are applicable to all solid minerals 
leases and also are necessary to implement the EPAct Federal coal 
advance royalty provisions.
     Consolidate billing and collection systems at the 
Department level.
    This Direct Final Rule (DFR) amends those sections of the Code of 
Federal Regulations (CFR) pertaining to how to submit rental and bonus 
payments for onshore lease sales. The goals are to increase flexibility 
in how the Department collects these payments and to provide 
consistency between onshore and offshore lease sale payments and 
collections. The DFR changes references to paying rents and bonuses 
from the BLM State Office to paying rents and bonuses as stipulated in 
the terms of a BLM Lease Sale Notice. BLM will notify potential bidders 
of their payment options in the Lease Sale Notice during the pre-sale 
notification process, which occurs 90 days prior to the lease sale 
date. This additional flexibility will allow for a transition period 
for successful implementation and coordination between BLM and ONRR.
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 
finalize 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. We will issue a rule to improve the process for listing 
species by revising 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. In accordance with Executive Order 
13563 (``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review''), 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. 
In compliance with E.O. 13563, beginning with the 2016-17 hunting 
season, we are using a new schedule for promulgating these regulations 
that is more efficient and will provide potential season dates for the 
States to consider much earlier than was possible under the old 
process. For example, we anticipate proposing season frameworks in 
December 2015, instead of during the summer of 2016, which will make 
planning easier for the States and all

[[Page 77804]]

parties interested in migratory bird hunting.
    We will also issue a programmatic environmental impact statement to 
evaluate the potential environmental impacts of a proposal to authorize 
incidental take of migratory birds under the MBTA. We are considering 
rulemaking to address various approaches to regulating incidental take 
of migratory birds. The rulemaking would establish appropriate 
standards for any such regulatory approach to ensure that incidental 
take of migratory birds is appropriately mitigated, which may include 
requiring measures to avoid or minimize take or securing compensation.
     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.
     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 from 
trust fund and excise tax revenues, and the FWS relies on the States to 
implement eligible conservation projects. Planned regulatory revisions 
will help to reflect several new decisions that State and Federal 
partners have agreed upon, and to clarify language in clear and precise 
terms. We will expand on existing regulations that prescribe processes 
that applicants and grantees must follow when applying for and managing 
grants from FWS. We will also revise our regulations under the Clean 
Vessel Act program to improve management and execution of that program.
     Regulations to carry out the Convention on International 
Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) and the 
Lacey Act.
    In accordance with section 3(a) of Executive Order 13609 
(``Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation''), 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 finalize 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 importation and interstate transportation 
and commerce of injurious wildlife.
National Park Service
    The National Park Service (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. The NPS also cooperates with partners to extend the 
benefits of natural and resource conservation and outdoor recreation 
throughout the United States and the world.
    To achieve this mission 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.
    The NPS regulatory priorities for the coming year include:
     Managing Off-Road Vehicle Use.
    Rules for Fire Island National Seashore, Glen Canyon National 
Recreation Area, Cape Lookout National Seashore, and Big Cypress 
National Preserve 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.
    A new rule would authorize and allow for management of bicycling at 
Rocky Mountain 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.
    NPS will revise its existing regulations to 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.
     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

[[Page 77805]]

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 will authorize 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 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 2016 is to publish a 
proposed minor amendment to 43 CFR part 429 to bring it into compliance 
with the requirements of 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 4334-63-P

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (DOJ)--FALL 2015

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 four 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; and (4) Accessibility of Web Information and 
Services of State and Local Governments.
    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.
    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 years 2017 and 2018. 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; (4) 
Accessibility of Web Information and Services of Public Accommodations; 
and (5) Accessibility of Equipment and Furniture.
Regulatory Plan Initiatives
    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 
fiscal year 2016. The Department also plans to propose amendments to 
its section 504 regulations to implement the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 
in fiscal year 2016.
    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

[[Page 77806]]

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 1,171 public comments in response to its movie 
captioning and video description 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. The Department 
received approximately 435 public comments in response to the movie 
captioning and audio description NPRM and expects to publish a final 
rule during fiscal year 2016.
    Web site Accessibility: State and local Governments. The Internet 
as it is known today did not exist when Congress enacted the ADA, yet 
today the Internet 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. 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 government programs and services. In this regard, the 
Internet is 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. Information available on the Internet has become a gateway 
to education, and participation in many other public programs and 
activities. 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 that their Web sites must be accessible. Consequently, the 
Department is planning to amend its regulation implementing title II of 
the ADA to require public entities that provide services, programs or 
activities to the public through Internet Web sites to make their sites 
accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities.
    The Department, in its 2010 ANPRM on Web site accessibility, 
indicated that it was considering amending its regulations implementing 
titles II and III of the ADA to require Web site accessibility and it 
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, 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. The Department 
expects to publish the title II NPRM early in fiscal year 2016.
    Coordination of Enforcement of Non-Discrimination in Federally 
Assisted Programs. In addition, the Department is planning to revise 
the coordination 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. The Department expects to publish its 
NPRM during fiscal year 2016.
    Implementation of Section 274B of the Immigration and Nationality 
Act. The Department also proposes to revise regulations implementing 
section 274B of the Immigration and Nationality Act, and to reflect the 
new name of the office within the Department charged with enforcing 
this statute. 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 Department expects to publish an NPRM 
proposing these changes during fiscal year 2016.
Long-Term Actions
    The remaining disability nondiscrimination rulemaking initiatives 
from the 2010 ANPRMs are

[[Page 77807]]

included in the Department's long-term priorities projected for fiscal 
years 2017 and 2018:
    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 during fiscal year 2017.
    Web site Accessibility: Public Accommodations. As noted above, the 
ADA's expansive nondiscrimination mandate reaches the goods and 
services provided by public accommodations using Internet Web sites. 
The inability 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. And, as also stated 
above, 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 Department's 2010 ANPRM on Web site accessibility, as 
previously pointed out, 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, 
including 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 is reviewing the public comments received in response to 
the ANPRM and, as noted above, plans to publish the title II NPRM on 
Web site accessibility early in fiscal year 2016. The Department 
believes that the title II Web site accessibility rule will facilitate 
the creation of an important infrastructure for Web accessibility that 
will be very important in the Department's preparation of the title III 
Web site accessibility NPRM. Consequently, the Department has decided 
to extend the time period for development of the proposed title III Web 
site accessibility rule and include it among its long-term rulemaking 
priorities. The Department expects to publish the title III Web site 
accessibility NPRM during fiscal year 2018.
    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 comments in response to its ANPRM 
and is in the process of reviewing these comments. The Department plans 
to publish in fiscal year 2017 a separate NPRM pursuant to title III of 
the ADA on beds in accessible guest rooms, and in fiscal year 2018 an 
NPRM 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 fiscal year 
2018.

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 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 2016, 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.

[[Page 77808]]

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 2016, 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 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 300,000 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 
continued role in the conducting of immigration proceedings, including 
removal proceedings 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 immigration proceedings 
in order to further EOIR's primary mission to adjudicate immigration 
cases by fairly, expeditiously, and uniformly interpreting and 
administering the Nation's immigration laws. These pending regulations 
include but are not limited to: 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; a final regulation to improve the 
recognition and accreditation process for organizations and 
representatives that appear in immigration proceedings before EOIR; and 
a proposed regulation 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. In addition, EOIR recently 
published a final regulation to allow for separate representation in 
custody and bond proceedings and a final regulation to enhance the 
eligibility requirements for providers to appear on the List of Pro 
Bono Legal Service Providers. 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.

[[Page 77809]]



------------------------------------------------------------------------
             RIN                     Title              Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1125-AA62....................  List of Pro Bono   The Department has
                                Legal Service      published a Final
                                Providers for      rule amending the
                                Aliens in          EOIR regulations to
                                Immigration        enhance the
                                Proceedings.       eligibility
                                                   requirements for
                                                   organizations,
                                                   private attorneys,
                                                   and referral services
                                                   to be included on the
                                                   List of Pro Bono
                                                   Legal Service
                                                   Providers.
1125-AA71....................  Retrospective      Advance notice of
                                Regulatory         future rulemaking
                                Review Under       concerning appeals of
                                E.O. 13563 of 8    DHS decisions (8 CFR
                                CFR Parts 1003,    part 1103),
                                1103, 1211,        documentary
                                1212, 1215,        requirements for
                                1216, 1235.        aliens (8 CFR parts
                                                   1211 and 1212),
                                                   control of aliens
                                                   departing from the
                                                   United States (8 CFR
                                                   part 1215),
                                                   procedures governing
                                                   conditional permanent
                                                   resident status (8
                                                   CFR part 1216), and
                                                   inspection of
                                                   individuals applying
                                                   for admission to the
                                                   United States (8 CFR
                                                   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. The
                                                   ANPRM was published
                                                   on 9/28/2012. The
                                                   comment period closed
                                                   on 11/27/2012. EOIR
                                                   is currently in the
                                                   process of reviewing
                                                   the comments received
                                                   and drafting two
                                                   follow-up NPRMs.
1125-AA72....................  Recognition of     This rule amends the
                                Organizations      regulations governing
                                and                the requirements and
                                Accreditations     procedures for
                                of Non-Attorney    authorizing
                                Representatives.   representatives of
                                                   non[hyphen]profit
                                                   religious,
                                                   charitable, social
                                                   service, or similar
                                                   organizations to
                                                   represent persons in
                                                   proceedings before
                                                   the Executive Office
                                                   for Immigration
                                                   Review (EOIR) and the
                                                   Department of
                                                   Homeland Security
                                                   (DHS).
1125-AA78....................  Separate           The Department has
                                Representation     published a Final
                                for Custody and    rule amending the
                                Bond Proceedings.  Executive Office for
                                                   Immigration Review
                                                   (EOIR) regulations
                                                   relating to the
                                                   representation of
                                                   aliens in custody and
                                                   bond proceedings by
                                                   allowing 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-AB37....................  Transporting to    DEA proposes to amend
                                Dispense           its regulations to
                                Controlled         clearly delineate how
                                Substances on an   to transport,
                                As-Needed and      dispense, and store
                                Random Basis.      controlled substances
                                                   away from registered
                                                   locations when such
                                                   activities are for
                                                   the purpose of
                                                   dispensing controlled
                                                   substances on an as-
                                                   needed and random
                                                   basis. These proposed
                                                   amendments include
                                                   changes necessary to
                                                   implement the
                                                   Veterinary Medicine
                                                   Mobility Act of 2014
                                                   and to clarify
                                                   controlled substance
                                                   handling requirements
                                                   for emergency
                                                   response operations.
1117-AB41....................  Implementation of  DEA plans to update
                                the                its regulations for
                                International      the import and export
                                Trade Data         of tableting and
                                System.            encapsulating
                                                   machines, controlled
                                                   substances, and
                                                   listed chemicals, and
                                                   its regulations
                                                   relating to reports
                                                   required for domestic
                                                   transactions in
                                                   listed chemicals,
                                                   gammy-hydroxybutyric
                                                   acid, and tableting
                                                   and encapsulating
                                                   machines. In
                                                   accordance with
                                                   Executive Order
                                                   13563, the DEA has
                                                   plans to review its
                                                   import and export
                                                   regulations and
                                                   reporting
                                                   requirements for
                                                   domestic transactions
                                                   in listed chemicals
                                                   (and gammy-
                                                   hydroxybutyric acid)
                                                   and tableting and
                                                   encapsulating
                                                   machines, and
                                                   evaluate them for
                                                   clarity, consistency,
                                                   continued accuracy,
                                                   and effectiveness.
                                                   The proposed
                                                   amendments would
                                                   clarify certain
                                                   policies and reflect
                                                   current procedures
                                                   and technological
                                                   advancements. The
                                                   amendments would also
                                                   allow for the
                                                   implementation, as
                                                   applicable to
                                                   tableting and
                                                   encapsulating
                                                   machines, controlled
                                                   substances, and
                                                   listed chemicals, of
                                                   the President's
                                                   Executive Order 13659
                                                   on streamlining the
                                                   export/import process
                                                   and requiring the
                                                   government-wide
                                                   utilization of the
                                                   International Trade
                                                   Data System.
1121-AA85; 1121-AA86.........  Public Safety      These two related
                                Officers'          rules are a priority
                                Benefits (PSOB)    because certain key
                                Program.           provisions of the
                                                   PSOB rule have been
                                                   superseded by
                                                   statutory change, a
                                                   need exists to
                                                   improve the overall
                                                   efficiency of the
                                                   program, and the last
                                                   significant update to
                                                   the rules was in
                                                   2008. The first rule
                                                   would be relatively
                                                   short and would
                                                   update the existing
                                                   regulation to address
                                                   issues related to
                                                   injuries and deaths
                                                   of public safety
                                                   officers asserted to
                                                   have been caused by 9/
                                                   11 services, and
                                                   offset issues with
                                                   the 9/11 Victim
                                                   Compensation Fund.
                                                   The second rule would
                                                   be a more
                                                   comprehensive update
                                                   of the PSOB
                                                   regulation. These
                                                   revisions are
                                                   necessary as a result
                                                   of significant
                                                   changes to the
                                                   Program following the
                                                   enactment of the Dale
                                                   Long Public Safety
                                                   Officers' Benefits
                                                   Improvements Act of
                                                   2012 (signed into law
                                                   in January 2013), as
                                                   well as
                                                   recommendations from
                                                   an OIG Audit
                                                   finalized in July
                                                   2015, and other
                                                   internal reviews that
                                                   identified the need
                                                   to streamline the
                                                   claims review process
                                                   to reduce delays and
                                                   increase
                                                   transparency.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 77810]]

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. Because the ITDS excludes applications for permits, 
licenses, or certifications, the ITDS single window will not be used by 
DEA registrants, regulated persons, or brokers or traders applying for 
permits or filing import/export declarations, notifications or reports. 
The DEA import/export application and filing processes will continue to 
remain separate from (and in advance of) the ITDS single window. 
Entities will continue to use the DEA application and filing processes; 
however, the processes will be electronic rather than paper. After 
DEA's approval or notification of receipt as appropriate, the DEA will 
transmit the necessary information electronically to the ITDS and the 
registrant or regulated person.
    Pursuant to section 6 of E.O. 13659, DEA and ATF have consulted 
with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and are continuing to 
study what modifications and technical changes to their existing 
regulations and operational systems are needed to achieve the goals of 
E.O. 13659.

DOJ--CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION (CRT)

Proposed Rule Stage

70. 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................................   05/00/16
NPRM Comment Period End.............   06/00/16
Final Action........................   12/00/16
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 77811]]



DOJ--CRT

71. Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability: Accessibility of Web 
Information and Services of State and Local Governments

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

[[Page 77812]]

 
ANPRM Comment Period End............   01/21/11
NPRM................................   01/00/16
NPRM Comment Period End.............   04/00/16
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    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

72. Revision of Standards and Procedures for the Enforcement of Section 
274B of the Immigration and Nationality Act

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 8 U.S.C. 1103(a)(1); 8 U.S.C. 
1103(g); 8 U.S.C. 1324b; 28 U.S.C. 509; 28 U.S.C. 510; 28 U.S.C. 515-
519
    CFR Citation: 28 CFR 0; 28 CFR 44.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Department of Justice proposes to revise regulations 
implementing section 274B of the Immigration and Nationality Act and to 
reflect the new name of the office within the Department charged with 
enforcing this statute. 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.
    Statement of Need: The regulatory revisions are necessary to 
conform the regulations to section 274B of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (INA), as amended. The regulatory revisions also 
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, replace outdated references, and reflect the new name of the 
office within the Department charged with enforcing this statute.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Statutory Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1324b; 8 
U.S.C. 1103(a)(1), (g).
    Alternatives: The Department believes that an NPRM is the most 
appropriate, and for some revisions a necessary, method for achieving 
the goals of the revisions. Issuing this NPRM is necessary to correct 
outdated regulatory provisions and incorporate statutory changes to 
section 274B of the INA. Likewise, revising the regulations to be 
consistent with longstanding agency guidance and relevant case law is 
appropriate and will reduce potential confusion about the law. Further, 
because the regulations already include procedures for filing and 
processing charges, it is appropriate to revise the regulations to 
reflect updates to these processes and procedures. Finally, it is 
appropriate to update the regulations to reflect the new name of the 
office charged with enforcing the statute.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The Department has determined that 
this rule is not 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. Any estimated costs to the public relate to 
costs employers may incur familiarizing themselves with the rule, 
updating their relevant policies if needed, and participating in a 
voluntary training webinar. In the NPRM, the Department will be 
soliciting public comment in response to its preliminary analysis 
regarding the costs imposed by the rule. While not easily quantifiable 
due to data limitations, the Department identified several benefits of 
the rule, including: (1) Helping employers understand the law more 
efficiently, (2) increasing public access to government services, and 
(3) eliminating public confusion regarding two offices in the Federal 
government with the same name.
    Risks: Failure to update the regulations to conform to the 
statutory amendments will interfere with the Department's enforcement 
efforts. Further, failure to revise the regulations to reflect changes 
to the filing and processing of charges and the new name of the office 
charged with enforcing the law will lead to confusion among the public, 
most specifically employers subject to the law's requirements and 
workers whose rights are guaranteed by the law.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   11/00/15
NPRM Comment Period End.............   01/00/16
Final Action........................   11/00/16
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Alberto Ruisanchez, Deputy Special Counsel, OSC, 
Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, 1425 New York Ave. NW., 
Suite 9000, Washington, DC 20530, Phone: 202 616-5594, Fax: 202 616-
5509, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 1190-AA71

DOJ--CRT

Final Rule Stage

73. 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 (42 U.S.C. 12102(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 (42 U.S.C. 12103(3)); and (3) adds rules of construction 
regarding the definition of disability that provide guidance in 
applying the term

[[Page 77813]]

``substantially limits'' and prohibit consideration of mitigating 
measures in determining whether a person has a disability (42 U.S.C. 
12102(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........................   01/00/16
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

DOJ--CRT

74. 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

[[Page 77814]]

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 solicited 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........................   05/00/16
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    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--EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW (EOIR)

Proposed Rule Stage

75. Motions To Reopen Removal, Deportation, or Exclusion Proceedings 
Based Upon a Claim of Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 6 U.S.C. 521; 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 
1154, 1155, 1158, 1182, 1226, 1229, 1229a, 1229b, 1229c, 1231, 1252, 
1254a, 1255, 1282, 1324d, 1330, 1361, 1362; 28 U.S.C. 509, 510, 1746; 
sec 2 Reorg Plan No 2 of 1950; 3 CFR, 1949-1953, Comp, p 1002; sec 203 
of Pub. L. 105-100, 111 Stat 2196-200; sec 1506 and 1510 of Pub. L. 
106-386, 114 Stat 1527-29, 1531-32; sec 1505 of Pub. L. 106-554, 114 
Stat 2763A-326-328; title VII of Pub. L. 110-229
    CFR Citation: 8 CFR 1003; 8 CFR 1208.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Department of Justice (Department) is planning to 
propose to amend the regulations of the Executive Office for 
Immigration Review (EOIR) by establishing procedures for the filing and 
adjudication of motions to reopen removal, deportation, and exclusion 
proceedings based upon a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. 
This proposed rule is in response to Matter of Compean, Bangaly & J-E-
C-, 25 I&N Dec. 1 (A.G. 2009), in which the Attorney General directed 
EOIR to develop such regulations. The Department is also planning to 
propose to amend the EOIR regulations to provide that ineffective 
assistance of counsel may constitute extraordinary circumstances that 
may excuse the failure to file an asylum application within one year 
after the date of arrival in the United States.
    Statement of Need: This regulation is necessary to comply with 
Matter of Compean, Bangaly & J-E-C-, 25 I&N Dec. 1 (A.G. 2009), in 
which the Attorney General directed EOIR to develop regulations 
governing claims of ineffective assistance of counsel in proceedings 
before the immigration judges and the Board of Immigration Appeals. The 
purpose of this proposed rule is to establish uniform procedural and 
substantive requirements for the filing of motions to reopen based upon 
a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel and to provide a uniform 
standard for adjudicating such motions.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The summary of the legal basis for the 
authority for this regulation is set forth in the above abstract.
    Alternatives: The Department will consider any public comments it 
may receive regarding achievable alternatives that will still 
accomplish the goal of setting forth a framework for claims of 
ineffective assistance of counsel that supports the integrity of 
immigration proceedings.
    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.
    Risks: Without the proposed changes to the Department's 
regulations, the Department will not have complied with the Attorney 
General's directive in Matter of Compean, Bangaly & J-E-C-, 25 I&N Dec. 
1 (A.G. 2009) and the procedural and substantive requirements for 
filing--and the standards for adjudicating--motions to reopen based 
upon a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel will lack uniformity.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   01/00/16
NPRM Comment Period End.............   03/00/16
Final Action........................   11/00/16
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Jean King, General Counsel, Department of Justice,

[[Page 77815]]

Executive Office for Immigration Review, 5197 Leesburg Pike, Suite 
2600, Falls Church, VA 22041, Phone: 703 305-0470.
    RIN: 1125-AA68

DOJ--EOIR

76. Recognition of Organizations and Accreditation of Non-Attorney 
Representatives

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 6 U.S.C. 521; 8 U.S.C. 1101; 8 
U.S.C. 1103; 8 U.S.C. 1154; 8 U.S.C. 1155; 8 U.S.C. 1158; 8 U.S.C. 
1182; 8 U.S.C. 1226; 8 U.S.C. 1229; 8 U.S.C. 1229a; 8 U.S.C. 1229b; 8 
U.S.C. 1229c; 8 U.S.C. 1231; 8 U.S.C. 1232; 8 U.S.C. 1252b; 8 U.S.C. 
1254a; 8 U.S.C. 1255; 8 U.S.C. 1324d; 8 U.S.C. 1330; 8 U.S.C. 1361; 8 
U.S.C. 1362; 28 U.S.C. 509; 28 U.S.C. 510; 28 U.S.C. 1746; sec 2 Reorg 
Plan No 2 of 1950; 3 CFR, 1949-1953 Comp, 1002; sec 203 of Pub. L. 105-
100, 111 Stat 2196-200; sec 1506 and 1510 of Pub. L. 106-386, 114 Stat 
1527-29, 1531-1532; sec 1505 of Pub. L. 106-554, 114 Stat 2763 A-326 to 
-328
    CFR Citation: 8 CFR 1001; 8 CFR 1003; 8 CFR 1292.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This rule would propose to amend the regulations 
governing the requirements and procedures for authorizing the 
representatives of nonprofit religious, charitable, social service, or 
similar organizations to represent aliens in proceedings before the 
Executive Office for Immigration Review and the Department of Homeland 
Security.
    Statement of Need: The Recognition and Accreditation (R&A) program 
addresses the critical and ongoing shortage of qualified legal 
representation for underserved populations in immigration cases before 
federal administrative agencies. Through the R&A program, EOIR permits 
qualified non-attorneys to represent persons before the DHS, the 
immigration courts, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board). For 
over 30 years, the R&A regulations have remained largely unchanged, 
despite structural changes in the government, the changing realities of 
the immigration system, the inability of non-profit organizations to 
meet the increased need for legal representation under the current 
regulations, and the surge in fraud and abuse by unscrupulous 
organizations and individuals preying on indigent and vulnerable 
populations.
    The proposed rule seeks to address the critical and ongoing 
shortage of qualified legal representation for underserved populations 
in immigration cases before federal administrative agencies by revising 
the eligibility requirements and procedures for recognizing 
organizations and accrediting their representatives to provide 
immigration legal services to underserved populations. The proposed 
rule also imposes greater oversight over recognized organizations and 
their representatives in order to protect against potential abuse of 
vulnerable immigrant populations by unscrupulous organizations and 
individuals.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The proposed rule is a revision of current 
regulations that are authorized under 8 U.S.C. 292, regarding 
authorization to practice before the immigration courts and the Board.
    Alternatives: The R&A regulations have been comprehensively 
examined in light of various issues that have arisen and input has been 
solicited from the public on how to address in amended regulations 
various developments over the past 30 years. The proposed rule is the 
product of both internal and external deliberations, and the proposed 
rule directly addresses alternatives approaches to the current 
regulations that the Department has either decided to adopt or reject 
in the proposed rule. The Department will consider any public comments 
that propose achievable alternatives that will still accomplish the 
goals of this proposed rule.
    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. The 
proposed rule, like the current regulations, does not assess any fees 
on an organization to apply for initial recognition or accreditation, 
to renew recognition or accreditation, or to extend recognition.
    Risks: The purpose of this proposed rule is to promote effective 
and efficient administration of justice before DHS and EOIR by 
increasing the availability of competent non-lawyer representation for 
underserved immigrant populations. The proposed rule seeks to 
accomplish this goal by amending the requirements for recognition and 
accreditation to increase the availability of qualified representation 
for primarily low-income and indigent persons while protecting the 
public from fraud and abuse by unscrupulous organizations and 
individuals. Without the proposed changes, the Department will be 
limited in its ability to expand the availability of non-lawyer 
representation and to provide increased oversight over recognized 
organizations and their representatives.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   10/01/15  80 FR 59514
NPRM Comment Period End.............   11/30/15
Final Action........................   09/00/16
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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: Public Meeting notice 77 FR 9590 (Feb. 17, 
2012).
    URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Jean King, General Counsel, Department of Justice, 
Executive Office for Immigration Review, 5197 Leesburg Pike, Suite 
2600, Falls Church, VA 22041, Phone: 703 305-0470.
    RIN: 1125-AA72

BILLING CODE 4410-BP-P

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Fall 2015 Statement of Regulatory Priorities

Introduction

    The Department's Fall 2015 Regulatory Agenda is driven by Secretary 
Perez's commitment to building a stronger America through shared 
prosperity. This means more opportunity for workers to acquire the 
skills they need to succeed, to earn a fair day's pay for a fair day's 
work, for workers and employers to compete on a level playing field, 
for veterans to thrive in the civilian economy, for people with 
disabilities to be productive members of the labor force, for workers 
to retire with dignity, and for people to work in a safe environment 
with the full protection of our anti-discrimination laws.
    In recent years, the Department of Labor has taken bold steps to 
use our regulatory authorities to address many of the most critical 
challenges facing workers and their families.

[[Page 77816]]

    We took action to give home care workers a raise by guaranteeing 
them minimum wage and overtime for the hard work that they do. We 
required mine operators to limit miners' exposure to coal dust, which 
will dramatically reduce black lung disease and save lives.
    We updated our regulations to require federal contractors and 
subcontractors to treat applicants and employees without regard to 
their sexual orientation or gender identity.
    Along with the Department of Education, we have proposed new 
regulations that will transform our nation's workforce system, giving 
workers the chance to develop the skills that will prepare them to 
succeed in 21st century jobs and careers. We proposed extending 
overtime protections to roughly 5 million workers.
    We proposed important new conflict of interest protections for 
401(k) and IRA investors that would require retirement advisors to put 
their clients' best interests before their own profits.
    Working with the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council we proposed 
regulations that will implement the President's Fair Pay and Safe 
Workplaces Executive Order, holding federal contractors accountable 
when they put workers' safety, hard-earned wages and basic workplace 
rights at risk.
    We finalized a rule to help close the persistent pay gap that 
exists between men and women by providing employees working on federal 
contracts with real pay transparency and openness enabling them to 
freely talk about their compensation.
    The 2015 Regulatory Plan highlights the Labor Department's most 
noteworthy and significant rulemaking efforts, with each addressing 
these top priorities of its regulatory agencies: 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). These regulatory 
priorities exemplify the five components of the Secretary's opportunity 
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 individuals 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.
    Under Secretary Perez's leadership, the Department continues its 
commitment to ensuring that collaboration, consensus-building and 
extensive stakeholder outreach are integral to all of its regulatory 
efforts. Successful rulemaking requires that we build a big table and 
keep an open mind.

Training More Workers and Job-Seekers for Twenty-First Century Jobs

    Sustained economic growth requires a fundamental transformation of 
the workforce development system, building new partnerships, engaging 
employers, emphasizing proven strategies like apprenticeships, and 
preparing people for the demands of the 21st century economy as never 
before. The Department's regulatory priorities reflect the Secretary's 
vision for a modern job-driven workforce system that helps businesses 
stay on the competitive cutting edge and helps workers punch their 
ticket to the middle class.
     ETA issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on April 
16, 2015, that implements the important changes made to the public 
workforce system by the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) 
(Pub. L. 113-128), signed by the President on July 22, 2014, and 
replacing the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA) and amending the 
Wagner-Peyser Act. This NPRM enables the Department to 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\ The Department is analyzing comments 
received and developing a Final Rule. In addition, as required by WIOA, 
the Departments of Education and Labor issued a joint NPRM on April 16, 
2015, to implement the changes that WIOA makes to the public workforce 
system regarding Combined and Unified State Plans, performance 
accountability, and the one-stop delivery system and one-stop 
centers.\2\ The Departments are analyzing the comments received and 
developing a Final Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (RIN: 1205-AB73).
    \2\ Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act Joint Rule for 
Unified and Combined State Plans, Performance Accountability, and 
the One-Stop System Joint Provisions (RIN: 1205-AB74).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The Department's Civil Rights Center (CRC) will issue a 
proposed rule to implement the nondiscrimination provisions in Section 
188 of WIOA. The rule would update the regulations implementing the 
nondiscrimination obligations in Section 188 of WIA to address current 
compliance issues in the workforce system, and to incorporate 
developments and interpretations of existing nondiscrimination law into 
the workforce development system. To ensure no gap in coverage between 
the effective date of WIOA and this rulemaking, CRC issued a Final Rule 
that makes only technical revisions to the WIA Section 188 rule, 
changing references from ``WIA'' to ``WIOA.'' \3\ The current Final 
Rule ultimately would ultimately be superseded by any Final Rule 
arising from the subsequent NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Implementation of the Nondiscrimination and Equal 
Opportunity Provisions of the Workforce Innovation Act of 2014 (RIN: 
1291-A37).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     ETA issued a NPRM on November 6, 2015 that proposes 
updated equal opportunity regulations implementing the National 
Apprenticeship Act of 1937, 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.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Equal Employment Opportunity in Apprenticeship Amendment of 
Regulations (RIN: 1205-AB59).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The American Dream does not end when a person retires. A 
financially secure retirement is a fundamental pillar of the middle 
class. People need access to retirement savings vehicles; and when they 
work hard and save responsibly, they need access to sound

[[Page 77817]]

retirement investment advice from someone looking out for their best 
interest. The Department has a regulatory program designed do exactly 
that.
     Last spring EBSA proposed a rule to help assure workers' 
retirement security by clarifying 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. The proposed rule includes a 
prohibited transaction exemption for any advice that raises any 
conflict of interest concerns so that the advice has to first be 
provided pursuant to a contract where the advisor agrees to provide the 
advice in the best interest of the client. The underlying principle is 
very simple and rooted in basic common sense: if you want to give 
financial advice, you have to put your clients' best interests first, 
and not your own. EBSA continues to review the extensive public 
comments submitted on the proposed rule.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Conflict of Interest Rule: Investment Advice (RIN: 1210-
AB32).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     EBSA recognizes that around one-third of American workers 
lack access to a retirement plan at work. Inadequate retirement savings 
places stress on various state and federal retirement income support 
programs. Some states have passed laws to set up state-based auto-
enrollment IRA arrangements for workers whose employers don't offer a 
plan. However, many of these states remain concerned about preemption 
by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. At the 
President's direction on July 13, 2015, EBSA plans to publish a 
proposed rule to clarify how states can move forward, including with 
respect to requirements to automatically enroll employees, and offer 
coverage in ways that are consistent with federal laws governing 
employee benefit plans.
    EBSA will also continue to issue guidance implementing the health 
reform provisions of the Affordable Care Act, giving more people 
greater access to quality medical care. 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 of these regulations are joint 
rulemakings with the Departments of Health and Human Services and 
Treasury.
    The Department also promulgates regulations to ensure that federal 
workers' compensation benefits programs are fairly administered:
     OWCP will issue a Final Rule under the Black Lung Benefits 
Act that will address claimants' and coal mine operators' 
responsibility to disclose medical information developed in connection 
with a claim.\6\ In addition, the Final Rule may also clarify a coal 
mine operator's liability for paying benefits while seeking 
modification of a decision to award benefits and may clarify the 
evidence submission limitations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Black Lung Benefits Act: Medical Evidence (RIN: 1240-AA10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     OWCP will issue an additional NPRM under the Black Lung 
Benefits Act that would address how medical providers are reimbursed 
for covered services rendered to coal miners, including the possibility 
of modernizing and standardizing payment methodologies and fee 
schedules.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Black Lung Benefits Act: Benefit Payments (RIN: 1240-AA11).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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. 
The Department takes a robust approach to implementing its wage-and-
hour and nondiscrimination regulations through education, outreach and 
strategic enforcement across industries. These regulations are grounded 
in a commitment to an inclusive and diverse workforce and rewarding 
hard work with a fair wage to provide workers with a real pathway to 
middle class jobs.
     WHD plans to publish a Final Rule revising 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. In line with the 
Presidential Memorandum directing 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, the Department 
issued an NPRM that would raise the salary threshold. The Department is 
currently analyzing comments.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Defining and Delimiting the Exemptions for Executive, 
Administrative, Professional, Outside Sales, and Computer Employees 
(RIN: 1235-AA11).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     WHD will issue a proposed rule to establish the ability of 
employees of federal contractors to earn seven days of paid sick leave 
per year, implementing Executive Order 13706, signed by President Obama 
on September 7, 2015, enabling these workers to use leave to care for 
themselves, family members, or loved ones without fear of losing their 
paychecks or their jobs.

Giving Workers a Voice in Their Workplaces

    There is a direct link throughout our nation's history between a 
vibrant middle class and the power of worker voice. The economy is 
strong when the middle class is strong, and the middle class is strong 
when workers have a seat at the table, when they have a chance to 
organize and negotiate for their fair share of the value they helped 
create. By contrast, it's not a coincidence that middle-class wage 
stagnation coincides with a decline in the percentage of workers 
represented by unions. The Department's regulatory program therefore 
promotes policies that give workers a voice on the job.
     OFCCP recently issued a Final Rule implementing Executive 
Order 13665, signed by the President 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 that limit the 
ability to advocate for themselves about their pay and that prohibit 
employee conversations about compensation, which can serve as a 
significant barrier to Federal enforcement of the laws against 
compensation discrimination.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Prohibitions Against Pay Secrecy Policies and Actions (RIN: 
1250-AA06).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     OLMS plans to publish a Final Rule that will better align 
our regulations with the statutory text of the Labor-Management 
Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA) to create greater balance between 
union and employer/consultant reporting requirements in situations 
where employers engage consultants to persuade employees concerning 
their rights to organize and bargain collectively. This is one 
important step to enhance workers' abilities to make

[[Page 77818]]

informed choices about representation.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Persuader Agreements: Employer and Labor Relations 
Consultant Reporting Under the LMRDA (RIN: 1245-AA03).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Protecting the Safety and Health of Workers

    No one should have to sacrifice their life for their livelihood, 
and a nation built on the dignity of work must provide safe working 
conditions for its people. Through our rulemaking, we are committed to 
protecting workers in all kinds of workplaces, including above- and 
below-ground coal and metal/nonmetal mines, and we want to ensure that 
benefits programs are available to workers and their families when they 
are injured on the job. So many workplace injuries, illnesses and 
fatalities are preventable. They not only put workers in harm's way, 
they jeopardize their economic security, often forcing families out of 
the middle class and into poverty. The Department's safety and health 
regulatory proposals are based on the responsibility of employers to 
provide workers with workplaces that do not threaten their safety or 
health and we reject the false choice between worker safety and 
economic growth. Our efforts will both save lives and improve 
employers' bottom lines.
     OSHA's top priority is a Final Rule 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 
estimates that the proposed rule would ultimately save nearly 700 lives 
and prevent 1,600 new cases of silicosis annually. OSHA held public 
hearings over nearly a month last spring in Washington, DC, during 
which over 200 industry, labor, and public health stakeholders 
participated. The post-hearing brief period ended on August 18, 
2014.\11\ 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.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Occupational Exposure to Crystalline Silica (RIN: 1218-
AB70).
    \12\ Respirable Crystalline Silica (RIN: 1219-AB36).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     OSHA is developing a Final Rule that will address 
employers' electronic submission of 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--including by leveraging data already 
maintained electronically by many large employers--and would improve 
the accuracy and availability of relevant records and statistics, in 
addition to leveraging data already maintained electronically by many 
large employers.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Improve Tracking of Workplace Injuries and Illnesses (RIN: 
1218-AC49).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     MSHA issued a proposed rule that would require underground 
mine operators to equip certain mobile machines with proximity 
detection systems.\14\ This builds on a Final Rule issued in January 
2015 that addressed the danger that miners face when working near 
continuous mining machines in underground coal mines.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Proximity Detection Systems for Mobile Machines in 
Underground Mines (RIN: 1219-AB78).
    \15\ Proximity Detection Systems for Continuous Mining Machines 
in Underground Coal Mines (RIN: 1219-AB65).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regulatory Review and Burden Reduction

    On January 18, 2011, the President issued Executive Order (E.O.) 
13563, entitled ``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review.'' The 
Department is committed to smart regulations that ensure the health 
welfare and safety of all working Americans and foster economic growth, 
job creation, and competitiveness of American business. The 
Department's Fall 2015 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 government-wide response to the E.O., 
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 current regulatory agenda includes 23 
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 www.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     Yes.
                                                   Plan Program.
EBSA.................  1210-AB63................  21st Century Initiative    To Be Determined.
                                                   to 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.
ETA..................  1205-AB75................  Modernizing the Permanent  To Be Determined.
                                                   Labor Certification
                                                   Program (PERM).
MSHA.................  1219-AB72................  Criteria and Procedures    To Be Determined.
                                                   for Proposed Assessment
                                                   of Civil Penalties (Part
                                                   100).
OFCCP................  1250-AA05................  Sex Discrimination         To Be Determined.
                                                   Guidelines.
OSHA.................  1218-AC34................  Bloodborne Pathogens.....  To Be Determined.
OSHA.................  1218-AC67................  Standard Improvement       To Be Determined.
                                                   Project--Phase IV (SIP
                                                   IV).
OSHA.................  1218-AC74................  Review/Lookback of OSHA    To Be Determined.
                                                   Chemical Standards.
OSHA.................  1218-AC81................  Cranes and Derricks in     Yes.
                                                   Construction: Amendments.
OSHA.................  1218-AC82................  Process Safety Management  To Be Determined.
                                                   and Flammable Liquids.
OSHA.................  1218-AC87................  Updating OSHA Standards    To Be Determined.
                                                   Based on National
                                                   Consensus Standards (Eye
                                                   and Face Protection).
OSHA.................  1218-AC49................  Improve Tracking of        No.
                                                   Workplace Injuries and
                                                   Illnesses.
OSHA.................  1218-AC76................  Streamlining of            To Be Determined.
                                                   Provisions on State
                                                   Plans for Occupational
                                                   Safety and Health.
OSHA.................  1218-....................  Revocation of Obsolete     To Be Determined.
                                                   PELs.
OSHA.................  1218-....................  Powered Industrial Trucks  To Be Determined.
OSHA.................  1218-....................  Power Presses............  To Be Determined.
OSHA.................  1218-....................  Lock-Out/Tag-Out Update..  To Be Determined.

[[Page 77819]]

 
OWCP.................  1240-AA11................  Black Lung Benefits Act:   To Be Determined.
                                                   Medical Benefit Payments.
OWCP.................  1240-AA09................  Longshore and Harbor       No.
                                                   Workers' Compensation
                                                   Act: Transmission of
                                                   Documents and
                                                   Information.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


DOL--WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION (WHD)

Proposed Rule Stage

77.  Establishing Paid Sick Leave for Contractors, Executive 
Order 13706

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
    Legal Authority: Not Yet Determined
    CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
    Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, September 30, 2016.
    Executive Order 13706, Establishing Paid Sick Leave for Federal 
Contractors (80 FR 54697).
    Abstract: Executive Order 13706, Establishing Paid Sick Leave for 
Federal Contractors (80 FR 54697) establishes paid sick leave for 
Federal contractors and subcontractors. The Executive Order indicates 
that Executive Departments and agencies shall, to the extent permitted 
by law, ensure that new contracts, contract-like instruments, and 
solicitations as described in section 6 of the Order, include a clause, 
which the contractor and any subcontractors shall incorporate into 
lower-tier subcontracts, specifying that all employees, in the 
performance of the contract or any subcontract thereunder, shall earn 
not less than one hour of paid sick leave for every 30 hours worked. 
Consistent with the Executive Order, the Department of Labor will issue 
implementing regulations.
    Statement of Need: On September 7, 2015, President Barack Obama 
signed Executive Order 13706 Establishing Paid Sick Leave for Federal 
Contractors. The Executive Order states that the Order seeks to 
increase efficiency and cost savings in the work performed by parties 
that contract with the Federal Government by ensuring that employees on 
those contracts can earn up to 7 days or more of paid sick leave 
annually, including paid leave allowing for family care. The Order 
states that providing access to paid sick leave will improve the health 
and performance of employees of Federal contractors and bring benefits 
packages at Federal contractors in line with model employers, ensuring 
that they remain competitive employers in the search for dedicated and 
talented employees. The Order indicates that [t]hese savings and 
quality improvements will lead to improved economy and efficiency in 
Government procurement.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Section 2 of the Executive Order states 
that Executive Departments and agencies shall, to the extent permitted 
by law, ensure that new contracts, contract-like instruments, and 
solicitations (collectively referred to as contacts), as described in 
section 6 of the order, include a clause, which the contractor and any 
subcontractors shall incorporate into lower-tier subcontracts, 
specifying, as a condition of payment, that all employees in the 
performance of the contract or any subcontract thereunder, shall earn 
not less than 1 hour of paid sick leave for every 30 hours worked. The 
Order goes on to indicate that a contractor may not set a limit on the 
total accrual of paid sick leave per year, or at any point in time, at 
less than 56 hours. The Order goes on to describe the purposes for 
which the employee may use the paid the sick leave. The Executive Order 
requires the Secretary of Labor to issue regulations implementing the 
E.O. by September 30, 2016.
    Alternatives: To be determined.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The Executive Order indicates 
benefits associated with the paid sick leave E.O. include improved 
health and performance of employees of Federal contractors, ensuring 
that contractors remain competitive in line with model employers, and 
improved economy and efficiency in Government procurement.
    Costs will be determined as part of the NPRM.
    Risks: To be determined.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   02/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal.
    Agency Contact: Robert Waterman, Compliance Specialist, Department 
of Labor, Wage and Hour Division, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room S-
3010, Washington, DC 20210, Phone: 202 693-0805, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 1235-AA13

DOL--WHD

Final Rule Stage

78. Defining and Delimiting the Exemptions for Executive, 
Administrative, Professional, Outside Sales, and Computer Employees

    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. 213(a)(1) (Fair Labor Standards Act)
    CFR Citation: 29 CFR 541.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Department proposes to update the regulations 
governing which executive, administrative, and professional employees 
(white collar workers) are entitled to the Fair Labor Standards Act's 
minimum wage and overtime pay protections. Key provisions of the 
proposed rule include: (1) Setting the standard salary level required 
for exemption at the 40th percentile of weekly earnings for full-time 
salaried workers (projected to be $970 per week, or $50,440 annually, 
in 2016); (2) increasing the total annual compensation requirement 
needed to exempt highly compensated employees to the annualized value 
of the 90th percentile of weekly earnings of full-time salaried workers 
($122,148 annually); and (3) establishing a mechanism for automatically 
updating the salary and compensation levels going forward to ensure 
that they will continue to provide a useful and effective test for 
exemption. The Department last updated these regulations in 2004, 
which, among other items, set the standard salary level at not less 
than $455 per week.
    Statement of Need: On March 13, 2014, President Obama signed a 
Presidential Memorandum directing the Department to update the 
regulations defining which white collar workers are protected by the 
FLSA's minimum wage and overtime standards. 79 FR 18737 (Apr. 3, 2014). 
Consistent with the

[[Page 77820]]

President's goal of ensuring workers are paid a fair day's pay for a 
fair day's work, the memorandum instructed the Department to look for 
ways to modernize and simplify the regulations while ensuring that the 
FLSA's intended overtime protections are fully implemented.
    Summary of Legal Basis: There are a number of exemptions from the 
FLSA's minimum wage and overtime requirements. Section 13(a)(1) of the 
FLSA, codified at 29 U.S.C. 213(a)(1), exempts from both minimum wage 
and overtime protection ``any employee employed in a bona fide 
executive, administrative, or professional capacity . . . or in the 
capacity of outside salesman (as such terms are defined and delimited 
from time to time by regulations of the Secretary, subject to the 
provisions of [the Administrative Procedure Act] . . .).'' The FLSA 
does not define the terms ``executive,'' ``administrative,'' 
``professional,''' or ``outside salesman.'' Pursuant to Congress' grant 
of rulemaking authority, the Department in 1938 issued the first 
regulations at 29 CFR part 541, defining the scope of the section 
13(a)(1) exemptions. Because Congress explicitly delegated to the 
Secretary of Labor the power to define and delimit the specific terms 
of the exemptions through notice and comment rulemaking, the 
regulations so issued have the binding effect of law. See Batterton v. 
Francis, 432 U.S. 416, 425 n.9 (1977).
    Alternatives: Alternatives were listed in the Department's NPRM 
published in the Federal Register July 6, 2015 (80 FR 38516).
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Detailed analysis of the costs and 
benefits is included in the Department's NPRM published in the Federal 
Register July 6, 2015 (80 FR 38516).
    Risks: Risks were discussed in the NPRM published in the Federal 
Register July 6, 2015 (80 FR 38516).
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   07/06/15  80 FR 38516
NPRM Comment Period End.............   09/04/15  .......................
Final Rule..........................   07/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, 
Organizations.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State, Tribal.
    Agency Contact: Mary Ziegler, Assistant Administrator, Office of 
Policy, Wage and Hour (WHD), Department of Labor, 200 Constitution 
Avenue NW., Room S-3502, FP Building, Washington, DC 20210, Phone: 202 
693-0406, Fax: 202 693-1387.
    RIN: 1235-AA11

DOL--EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING ADMINISTRATION (ETA)

Proposed Rule Stage

79. Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act

    Priority: Other Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Legal Authority: Section 503(f) of the Workforce Innovation and 
Opportunity Act (Pub. L. 113-128)
    CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
    Legal Deadline: NPRM, Statutory, January 22, 2015, Public Law 113-
128.
    Final, Statutory, January 18, 2016.
    Abstract: On July 22, 2014, the President signed the Workforce 
Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) (Pub. L. 113-128). WIOA repeals 
the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA) and amends the Wagner-Peyser 
Act. (29 U.S.C. 2801 et seq.) The Department of Labor issued a Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on April 16, 2015 that proposed to 
implement the changes WIOA makes to the public workforce system in 
regulations. Through the NPRM, the Department proposed 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. The Department is analyzing the comments 
received and developing a final rule.
    Statement of Need: On July 22, 2014, the President signed the 
Workforce Innovation and 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.) and amends the Wagner-Peyser Act. As a result, the WIA 
and Wagner-Peyser regulations no longer reflect current law and we must 
change. Therefore, the Department of Labor issued a Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (NPRM) that proposes to implement the WIOA. The Department 
is moving forward in analyzing comments received and developing a final 
rule.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The Workforce Innovation and 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................................   04/16/15  80 FR 20690
NPRM Comment Period End.............   06/15/15
Analyze Comments....................   11/00/15
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, 
Organizations.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State, Tribal.
    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--EMPLOYEE BENEFITS SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (EBSA)

Proposed Rule Stage

80.  Savings Arrangements Established by States for Non-
Governmental Employees

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 29 U.S.C. 1135 (ERISA sec 505); 29 U.S.C. 1002 
(ERISA sec 3(2))
    CFR Citation: 29 CFR 2510.3-2.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: About one-third of American workers lack access to a 
retirement plan at work. For older Americans, inadequate retirement 
savings can mean sacrificing or skimping on food, housing, health care, 
transportation, and other necessities. President Obama has long 
supported federal legislation to require automatic enrollment of new 
workers in payroll deduction IRAs if they lack access to a 401(k)-type 
plan through their employer. In the absence of Congressional action, 
some states have

[[Page 77821]]

passed laws to set up state-based savings plans and require employers 
not currently offering workplace plans to automatically enroll 
employees into IRAs. Others are looking at ways to encourage employers 
to provide coverage under state-administered 401(k)-type plans or other 
retirement alternatives including IRAs and the Treasury's new starter 
savings program, myRA. However, many of these states remain concerned 
about preemption by ERISA. On July 13, 2015, the President directed the 
Department to publish a proposed rule clarifying how states may offer 
retirement savings arrangements to private-sector employees in ways 
that are consistent with federal laws governing employee benefit plans. 
The proposal will set forth circumstances in which a state could 
establish a payroll deduction savings program, with an automatic 
enrollment feature, without giving rise to an employee pension benefit 
plan under ERISA.
    Statement of Need: The proposal responds to the President's 
directive to the Department of Labor, issued at the 2015 White House 
Conference on Aging, to publish a proposed regulation by the end of 
2015 to support the efforts of a growing number of states trying to 
promote broader access to workplace retirement saving opportunities for 
America's workers. The regulation would clarify that state savings 
initiatives would not cause the establishment of ERISA covered employee 
benefit plans, so long as the conditions of the regulation are met.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Section 505 of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. 1135, 
provides the Secretary of Labor with broad authority to prescribe such 
regulations as he finds necessary and appropriate to carry out the 
provisions of Title I of the Act. Section 3(2) of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. 
1002, defines the term ``employee pension benefit plan''. The 
Department's regulations at 29 CFR 2510.3-2 clarify the term ``employee 
pension benefit plan'' by identifying certain specific plans, funds and 
programs that do not constitute ``employee pension benefit plans''.
    Alternatives: Since the President directed the Department to 
publish a proposed rule clarifying how states may offer retirement 
savings arrangement to private-sector employees, there is no 
alternative.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Undetermined.
    Risks: Undetermined.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   11/00/15
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
    Agency Contact: Jeffrey J. Turner, Deputy Director, Office of 
Regulations and Interpretations, Department of Labor, Employee Benefits 
Security Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., FP Building, Room 
N-5655, Washington, DC 20210, Phone: 202 693-8500, Fax: 202 219-7291.
    RIN: 1210-AB71

DOL--MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION (MSHA)

Proposed Rule Stage

81. 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................................   04/00/16
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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, 201 12th Street South, Room 4E401, 
Arlington, VA 22202-5452, Phone: 202 693-9440, Fax: 202 693-9441, 
Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 1219-AB36

DOL--MSHA

82. 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) published a 
proposed rule that address the hazards 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,

[[Page 77822]]

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 (RFI).......   02/01/10  75 FR 5009
RFI Comment Period End..............   04/02/10
NPRM................................   09/02/15  80 FR 53070
Scheduling of Public Hearing........   09/28/15  80 FR 58229
Public Hearing--Denver, Colorado 10/   10/06/15
 06/2015.
Public Hearing--Birmingham, Alabama    10/08/15
 10/08/2015.
Public Hearing--Beaver, West           10/19/15
 Virginia 10/19/2015.
Public Hearing--Indianapolis,          10/29/15
 Indiana 10/29/2015.
NPRM Comment Period End.............   12/01/15
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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, Regulations, and Variances, Department of Labor, Mine Safety 
and Health Administration, 201 12th Street South, Room 4E401, 
Arlington, VA 22202-5452, 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

83. 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
    CFR Citation: 30 CFR 100.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) revises 
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. 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.

[[Page 77823]]

 
NPRM Notice of Public Hearing;         12/31/14  79 FR 78749
 Extension of Comment Period; Close
 of Record.
Extension of Comment Period End.....   03/12/15
NPRM Comment Period Extended; Close    02/10/15  80 FR 7393
 of Record.
NPRM Comment Period Extended End....   03/31/15
Final Rule..........................   03/00/16
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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, 201 12th Street South, Room 4E401, 
Arlington, VA 22202-5452, Phone: 202 693-9440, Fax: 202 693-9441, 
Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 1219-AB72

DOL--OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION (OSHA)

Final Rule Stage

84. 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 (78 FR 56274). 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. The agency is now reviewing and considering the evidence in 
the rulemaking record.
    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 2009 to 2013 silicosis was identified on over 500 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 was 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 
recognized 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: OSHA preliminarily estimated the 
cost of the proposed rule to be $664 million per year. OSHA 
preliminarily estimated that the proposed rule would prevent nearly 700 
deaths per year and prevent over 1,600 cases of silicosis annually once 
the full effect of the rule are realized, and would result in monetized 
benefits of $2.8 to $4.7 billion annually.
    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

[[Page 77824]]

 
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
NPRM Comment Period Extended End....   02/11/14
Informal Public Hearing.............   03/18/14
Post Hearing Briefs Ends............   08/18/14
Final Rule..........................   02/00/16
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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, FP Building, 
Washington, DC 20210, Phone: 202 693-1950, Fax: 202 693-1678, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 1218-AB70

DOL--OSHA

85. 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, and a modification to 29 CFR part 
1904.35 to clarify an employee's right to report injury and illnesses 
to their employer without fear of retaliation.
    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 authorize 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: OSHA estimates that this final rule 
will have economic costs of $15 million per year. The Agency believes 
that the annual benefits, while unquantified, significantly exceed the 
annual costs. These benefits include increased prevention of workplace 
injuries and illnesses as a result of expanded access to timely, 
establishment-specific injury/illness information by OSHA, employers, 
employees, employee representatives, potential employees, customers, 
potential customers, and researchers.
    Risks: Analysis of risks is still under development.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stakeholder Meetings................   05/25/10  75 FR 24505
NPRM................................   11/08/13  78 FR 67254
NPRM Comment Period End.............   02/06/14
Notice of Public Meeting on 01/09/     11/15/13  78 FR 68782
 2013.
NPRM Comment Period Extended........   01/07/14  79 FR 778
NPRM Comment Period Extended End....   03/08/14
NPRM Comment Period Reopened........   08/14/14  79 FR 47605
NPRM Comment Period Reopened End....   10/14/14
Final Rule..........................   03/00/16
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Amanda Edens, Director, Directorate of Technical 
Support and Emergency Management, Department of Labor, Occupational 
Safety and Health Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., FP 
Building, Room N-3653, Washington, DC 20210, Phone: 202 693-2300, Fax: 
202 693-1644, 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 nine 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 2014-2018:
     Safety: Improve public health and safety by ``reducing 
transportation-related fatalities, injuries, and crashes.''

[[Page 77825]]

     State of Good Repair: Ensure the U.S. ``proactively 
maintains critical transportation infrastructure in a state of good 
repair.''
     Economic Competitiveness: Promote ``transportation 
policies and investments that bring lasting and equitable economic 
benefits to the Nation and its citizens.''
     Quality of Life: Foster quality of life in communities by 
``integrating transportation policies, plans, with coordinated housing 
and economic development policies to increase transportation choices 
and access to transportation services for all.''
     Environmental Sustainability: Advance ``environmental 
sustainable policies and investments that reduce carbon and other 
harmful emissions from transportation sources.''
    In identifying our regulatory priorities for the next year, the 
Department considered its mission and goals and focused on a number of 
factors, including the following:

 The relative risk being addressed
 Requirements imposed by law
 Actions on the National Transportation Safety Board ``Most 
Wanted List''
 The costs and benefits of the regulations
 The advantages of nonregulatory alternatives
 Opportunities for deregulatory action
 The enforceability of any rule, including the effect on agency 
resources

    This regulatory plan identifies the Department's regulatory 
priorities--the 19 pending rulemakings chosen, from among the dozens of 
significant rulemakings listed in the Department's broader regulatory 
agenda, that the Department believes will merit special attention in 
the upcoming year. The rules included in the regulatory plan embody the 
Department's focus on our strategic goals.
    The regulatory plan reflects the Department's primary focus on 
safety--a focus that extends across several modes of transportation. 
For example:
     The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) will continue 
its efforts to implement safety management systems.
     The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) 
continues its work to strengthen the requirements for Electronic 
Logging Devices and revise motor carrier safety fitness determination 
procedures.
     The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 
will continue its rulemaking efforts to reduce death and injury 
resulting from motor vehicle crashes.
    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

[[Page 77826]]

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        Significantly reduces
            RIN                regulations     costs on small businesses
                                Rulemaking
                                  title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 2105-AE29...............  Transportation   TBD.
                              Services for
                              Individuals
                              with
                              Disabilities:
                              Over-the-Road
                              Buses (RRR).
2. 2120-AJ94...............  Enhanced Flight
                              Vision System
                              (EFVS) (RRR).
3. 2120-AK24...............  Fuel Tank and
                              System
                              Lightning
                              Protection
                              (RRR).
4. 2120-AK28...............  Aviation
                              Training
                              Devices; Pilot
                              Certification,
                              Training, and
                              Pilot Schools;
                              Other
                              Provisions
                              (RRR).
5. 2120-AK32...............  Acceptance
                              Criteria for
                              Portable
                              Oxygen
                              Concentrators
                              Used Onboard
                              Aircraft (RRR).
6. 2120-AK34...............  Flammability
                              Requirements
                              for Transport
                              Category
                              Airplanes
                              (RRR).
7. 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).
8. 2125-AF62...............  Acquisition of   N.
                              Right-of-Way
                              (RRR) (MAP-21).
9. 2125-AF65...............  Buy America      TBD.
                              (RRR).
10. 2126-AB46..............  Inspection,
                              Repair, and
                              Maintenance;
                              Driver-Vehicle
                              Inspection
                              Report (RRR).
11. 2126-AB47..............  Electronic
                              Signatures and
                              Documents (E-
                              Signatures)
                              (RRR).
12. 2126-AB49..............  Elimination of
                              Redundant
                              Maintenance
                              Rule (RRR).
13. 2127-AK98..............  Pedestrian
                              Safety Global
                              Technical
                              Regulation
                              (RRR).
14. 2127-AL03..............  Part 571 FMVSS
                              No. 205,
                              Glazing
                              Materials, GTR
                              (RRR).
15. 2127-AL05..............  Amend FMVSS No.  Y.
                              210 to
                              Incorporate
                              the Use of a
                              New Force
                              Application
                              Device (RRR).
16. 2127-AL17..............  49 CFR Part
                              595, Subpart
                              C, Make
                              Inoperative
                              Exemptions,
                              Vehicle
                              Modifications
                              to Accommodate
                              People With
                              Disabilities,
                              from FMVSS No.
                              226 (RRR).
17. 2127-AL20..............  Upgrade of
                              LATCH
                              Usability
                              Requirements
                              (MAP-21) (RRR).
18. 2127-AL24..............  Rapid Tire
                              Deflation Test
                              in FMVSS No.
                              110 (RRR).
19. 2127-AL41..............  FMVSS No.
                              571.108
                              License Plate
                              Mounting Angle
                              (RRR).
20. 2127-AL58..............  Upgrade of Rear
                              Impact Guard
                              Requirements
                              for Trailers
                              and
                              Semitrailers
                              (RRR).
21. 2130-AC40..............  Qualification
                              and
                              Certification
                              of Locomotive
                              Engineers;
                              Miscellaneous
                              Revisions
                              (RRR).
22. 2130-AC41..............  Hours of
                              Service
                              Recordkeeping;
                              Electronic
                              Recordkeeping
                              Amendments
                              (RRR).
23. 2130-AC43..............  Safety Glazing
                              Standards;
                              Miscellaneous
                              Revisions
                              (RRR).
24. 2137-AE72..............  Pipeline         Y.
                              Safety: Gas
                              Transmission
                              (RRR).
25. 2137-AE80..............  Hazardous        Y.
                              Materials:
                              Miscellaneous
                              Pressure
                              Vessel
                              Requirements
                              (DOT Spec
                              Cylinders)
                              (RRR).
26. 2137-AE81..............  Hazardous        Y.
                              Materials:
                              Reverse
                              Logistics
                              (RRR).
27. 2137-AE86..............  Hazardous
                              Materials:
                              Requirements
                              for the Safe
                              Transportation
                              of Bulk
                              Explosives
                              (RRR).
28. 2137-AE94..............  Pipeline         Y.
                              Safety:
                              Operator
                              Qualification,
                              Cost Recovery,
                              Accident and
                              Incident
                              Notification,
                              and Other
                              Changes (RRR).
29. 2137-AF00..............  Hazardous        Y.
                              Materials:
                              Adoption of
                              Special
                              Permits (MAP-
                              21) (RRR).
30. 2137-AF04..............  Hazardous
                              Materials:
                              Miscellaneous
                              Amendments
                              (RRR).
31. 2137-AF10..............  Hazardous
                              Materials:
                              Revision of
                              the
                              Requirements
                              for Carriage
                              by Aircraft
                              (RRR).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

International Regulatory Cooperation

    Executive Order 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'' Executive Order 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 Executive 
Order 13609, we have increased our efforts in this area. For example, 
many of DOT's Operating Administrations are active in groundbreaking 
government-wide Regulatory Cooperation Councils (RCC) with Canada, 
Mexico, and the European Union. These RCC working groups are setting a 
precedent in developing and testing approaches to international 
coordination of rulemaking to reduce barriers to international trade. 
We also have been exploring innovative approaches to ease the 
development process.
    Examples of the many cooperative efforts we are engaged in include 
the following:
    The FAA maintains ongoing efforts with foreign civil aviation 
authorities, including in particular the European Aviation Safety 
Agency and Transport Canada, to harmonize standards and practices where 
doing so will improve the safety of aviation and aviation-related 
activities. The FAA also plays an active role in the standard-setting 
work of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), 
particularly on the Air Navigation Commission and the Legal Committee. 
In doing so, the FAA works with other Nations to shape the standards 
and recommended practices adopted by ICAO. The FAA's rulemaking actions 
related to safety management systems are examples of the FAA's 
harmonization efforts.
    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

[[Page 77827]]

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 
provided that regulators would 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
                        RIN                             international
                                                     impacts Rulemaking
                                                            title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2105-AD91.........................................  Accessibility of
                                                     Airports.
2105-AE06.........................................  E-Cigarette.
2120-AJ38.........................................  Airport Safety
                                                     Management System.
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.
2120-AK65.........................................  Revision of
                                                     Airworthiness
                                                     Standards for
                                                     Normal, Utility,
                                                     Acrobatic, and
                                                     Commuter Category
                                                     Airplanes.
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.
2133-AB74.........................................  Cargo Preference.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 77828]]

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. 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 2016, OST will focus its efforts on voice 
communications on passengers[acute] mobile wireless devices on 
scheduled flights within, to and from the United States (2105-AE30).
    OST will also continue its efforts on the following rulemaking 
initiatives:

 Airline Passenger Protections III (2105-AE11)
 In-Flight Medical Oxygen and other ACAA issues (2105-AE12)
 In-Flight Entertainment (2105-AE32)
Reporting of Statistics for Mishandled Baggage and Wheelchairs (2105-
AE41)
    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 2016 
include continuing to:
     Promote and expand safety information-sharing efforts, 
such as FAA-industry partnerships and data-driven safety programs that 
prioritize and address risks before they lead to accidents. 
Specifically, FAA will continue implementing Commercial Aviation Safety 
Team projects related to controlled flight into terrain, loss of 
control of an aircraft, uncontained engine failures, runway incursions, 
weather, pilot 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

[[Page 77829]]

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 Secretary of Transportation 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.'' Further, these 
changes are consistent with directions to agencies in [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.]
     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.
    FAA top regulatory priorities for Fiscal Year 2016 include:

 Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems 
(2120-AJ60) (Pub. L. 112-95 (Feb. 14, 2012))
 Revision of Airworthiness Standards for Normal, Utility, 
Acrobatic, and Commuter Category Airplanes (2120-AK65)
 Airport Safety Management System (2120-AJ38)
 Flight Crewmember Mentoring, Leadership and Professional 
Development (2120-AJ87)

    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 Revision of Airworthiness Standards for Normal, Utility, 
Acrobatic, and Commuter Category Airplanes rulemaking would:
     Reorganize part 23 into performance-based requirements by 
removing the detailed design requirements from part 23;
     Promote the adoption of the newly created performance-
based airworthiness design standard as an internationally accepted 
standard by the majority of other civil aviation authorities;
     Re-align the part 23 requirements to promote the 
development of entry-level airplanes similar to those certified under 
Certification Specification for Very Light Aircraft (CS-VLA);
     Enhance the FAA's ability to address new technology;
     Increase the general aviation (GA) level of safety 
provided by new and modified airplanes;
     Amend the stall, stall warning, and spin requirements to 
reduce fatal accidents and increase crashworthiness by allowing new 
methods for occupant protection; and
     Address icing conditions that are currently not included 
in part 23 regulations.
    The Airport Safety Management System rulemaking would:
     Require certain airport certificate holders to develop, 
implement, maintain, and adhere to a safety management system (SMS) for 
its aviation related activities.
    The Flight Crewmember Mentoring, Leadership and Professional 
Development rulemaking would:
     Ensure air carriers establish or modify training programs 
to address mentoring, leadership and professional development of flight 
crewmembers in part 121 operations.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)

    The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) carries out the Federal 
highway program in partnership with State and local agencies to meet 
the Nation's transportation needs. The FHWA's mission is to improve 
continually the quality and performance of our Nation's highway system 
and its intermodal connectors.
    Consistent with this mission, the FHWA will continue:
     With ongoing regulatory initiatives in support of its 
surface transportation programs;
     To implement legislation in the most cost-effective way 
possible; and
     To pursue regulatory reform in areas where project 
development can be streamlined or accelerated, duplicative requirements 
can be consolidated, recordkeeping requirements can be reduced or 
simplified, and the decisionmaking authority of our State and local 
partners can be increased.
    MAP-21 authorizes the Federal surface transportation programs for 
highways, highway safety, and transit for the two-year period from 
2012-2014. The FHWA has analyzed MAP-21 to identify Congressionally 
directed rulemakings. These rulemakings will be the FHWA's top 
regulatory priorities for the coming year.
    Additionally, the FHWA is in the process of reviewing all FHWA 
regulations to ensure that they are consistent with MAP-21 and will 
update those regulations that are not consistent with the recently 
enacted legislation.
    During Fiscal Year 2016, FHWA will continue its focus on improving 
the quality and performance of our Nation's highway systems by creating 
national performance management measures and standards to be used by 
the States to meet the national transportation goals identified in 
section 1203 of MAP-21 under the following rulemaking initiatives:


[[Page 77830]]


 National Goals and Performance Management Measures (Safety) 
(RIN: 2125-AF49)
 National Goals and Performance Management Measures (Bridges 
and Pavement) (RIN: 2125-AF53)
 National Goals and Performance Management Measures (Congestion 
Reduction, CMAQ, Freight, and Performance of Interstate/Non-Interstate 
NHS) (RIN: 2125-AF54).

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)

    The mission of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 
(FMCSA) is to reduce crashes, injuries, and fatalities involving 
commercial trucks and buses. A strong regulatory program is a 
cornerstone of FMCSA's compliance and enforcement efforts to advance 
this safety mission. FMCSA develops new and more effective safety 
regulations based on three core priorities: Raising the safety bar for 
entry, maintaining high standards, and removing high-risk behavior. In 
addition to Agency-directed regulations, FMCSA develops regulations 
mandated by Congress, through legislation such as MAP-21. FMCSA 
regulations establish standards for motor carriers, commercial drivers, 
commercial motor vehicles, and State agencies receiving certain motor 
carrier safety grants and issuing commercial drivers' licenses.
    FMCSA's regulatory plan for FY 2016 includes completion of a number 
of rulemakings that are high priorities for the Agency because they 
would have a positive impact on safety. Among the rulemakings included 
in the plan are: (1) Carrier Safety Fitness Determination (RIN 2126-
AB11), (2) Entry Level Driver Training (RIN 2126-AB66), and (3) 
Commercial Driver's License Drug and Alcohol Clearinghouse (RIN 2126-
AB18).
    Together, these priority rules could improve substantially 
commercial motor vehicle (CMV) safety on our Nation's highways by 
increasing FMCSA's ability to provide safety oversight of motor 
carriers and commercial drivers.
    In FY 2016, FMCSA plans to complete the public comment period and 
issue a final rule on Carrier Safety Fitness Determination (RIN 2126-
AB11) to establish a new safety fitness determination standard that 
will enable the Agency to prohibit ``unfit'' carriers from operating on 
the Nation's highways and contribute to the Agency's overall goal of 
decreasing CMV-related fatalities and injuries.
    In FY 2016, FMCSA plans to complete the public comment period and 
issue a final rule on Entry Level Driver Training (RIN 2126-AB66). This 
rule would establish training requirements for individuals before they 
can obtain their CDL or certain endorsements. It will define curricula 
for training providers and establish requirements and procedures for 
the schools. The proposed rule is based on consensus recommendations 
from the Agency's Entry-Level Driver Training Advisory Committee 
(ELDTAC), a negotiated rulemaking committee that held a series of 6 
meetings between February and May 2015.
    Also in FY 2016, FMCSA plans to issue a final rule on the 
Commercial Driver's License Drug and Alcohol Clearinghouse (RIN 2126-
AB18). The rule would establish a clearinghouse requiring employers and 
service agents to report information about current and prospective 
employees' drug and alcohol test results. It would require employers 
and certain service agents to search the Clearinghouse for current and 
prospective employees' positive drug and alcohol test results as a 
condition of permitting those employees to perform safety-sensitive 
functions. This would provide FMCSA and employers the necessary tools 
to identify drivers who are prohibited from operating a CMV based on 
DOT drug and alcohol program violations and ensure that such drivers 
receive the required evaluation and treatment before resuming safety-
sensitive functions.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

    The statutory responsibilities of the National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration (NHTSA) relating to motor vehicles include 
reducing the number of, and mitigating the effects of, motor vehicle 
crashes and related fatalities and injuries; providing safety 
performance information to aid prospective purchasers of vehicles, 
child restraints, and tires; and improving automotive fuel efficiency. 
NHTSA pursues policies that encourage the development of non-regulatory 
approaches when feasible in meeting its statutory mandates. It issues 
new standards and regulations or amendments to existing standards and 
regulations when appropriate. It ensures that regulatory alternatives 
reflect a careful assessment of the problem and a comprehensive 
analysis of the benefits, costs, and other impacts associated with the 
proposed regulatory action. Finally, it considers alternatives 
consistent with the Administration's regulatory principles.
    In Fiscal Year 2016, NHTSA, in conjunction with the Environmental 
Protection Agency, will publish a final rule to address phase two of 
fuel efficiency standards for medium- and heavy-duty on-highway 
vehicles and work trucks for model years beyond 2018. This final rule 
will be responsive to requirements of the Energy Independence and 
Security Act of 2007 as well as the President's Climate Action Plan.
    NHTSA plans to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on 
vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communications in Fiscal Year 2016. V2V 
communications are currently perceived to become a foundational aspect 
of vehicle automation. In response to requirements in MAP-21, NHTSA 
plans to issue a NPRM that would propose requiring automobile 
manufacturers to install a seat belt reminder system for the front 
passenger and rear designated seating positions in passenger vehicles. 
The seat belt reminder system is intended to increase belt usage and 
thereby improve the crash protection of vehicle occupants who would 
otherwise have been unbelted. The Agency will also continue work toward 
a NPRM that would consider requirements for rear impact guards and 
other safety strategies on single unit trucks to mitigate under-ride 
crashes into the rear of single unit trucks.
    In addition to numerous programs that focus on the safe performance 
of motor vehicles, the Agency is engaged in a variety of programs to 
improve driver and occupant behavior. These programs emphasize the 
human aspects of motor vehicle safety and recognize the important role 
of the States in this common pursuit. NHTSA has identified two high-
priority areas: Safety belt use and impaired driving. To address these 
issue areas, the Agency is focusing especially on three strategies--
conducting highly visible, well-publicized enforcement; supporting 
prosecutors who handle impaired driving cases and expanding the use of 
DWI/Drug Courts, which hold offenders accountable for receiving and 
completing treatment for alcohol abuse and dependency; and adopting 
alcohol screening and brief intervention by medical and health care 
professionals. Other behavioral efforts encourage child safety-seat 
use; combat excessive speed, driver distraction, and aggressive 
driving; improve motorcycle, bicycle, and pedestrian safety; and 
provide consumer information to the public.

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)

    FRA's current regulatory program reflects a number of pending 
proceedings to satisfy mandates resulting from the Rail Safety 
Improvement Act of 2008 (RSIA08), and

[[Page 77831]]

the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA), as 
well as actions under its general safety rulemaking authority and 
actions supporting a high-performing passenger rail network and to 
address the safe and effective movement of energy products, 
particularly crude oil. RSIA08 alone has required 21 rulemaking 
actions, 17 of which have been completed. FRA continues to prioritize 
its rulemakings according to the greatest effect on safety while 
promoting economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job 
creation, as well as expressed congressional interest, while working to 
complete as many mandated rulemakings as quickly as possible.
    Through the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC), FRA is 
working to complete its on-going development of requirements related to 
the creation and implementation of railroad risk reduction and system 
safety programs. FRA is developing proposed rulemaking documents based 
on the recommendations of an RSAC working group containing the fatigue 
management provisions related to both proceedings. FRA is also in the 
process of developing a significant regulatory action that would 
propose requirements related to the crew size of passenger and freight 
trains, including trains transporting crude oil and ethanol by rail. 
FRA continues its work to produce a rulemaking containing RSAC-
supported actions that advance high-performing passenger rail to 
proposed standards for alternative compliance with FRA's Passenger 
Equipment Safety Standards for the operation of Tier III passenger 
equipment. Finally, FRA is developing proposed rules regarding track 
inspections aimed at improving rail integrity to allow continuous rail 
integrity testing and to address the use of inward and outward facing 
locomotive-mounted cameras and other recording devices.
Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
    FTA helps communities support public transportation by making 
grants of Federal funding for transit vehicles, construction of transit 
facilities, and planning and operation of transit and other transit-
related purposes. FTA regulatory activity implements the laws that 
apply to recipients' uses of Federal funding and the terms and 
conditions of FTA grant awards. FTA policy regarding regulations is to:
     Ensure the safety of public transportation systems.
     Provide maximum benefit to the Nation's mobility through 
the connectivity of transportation infrastructure;
     Provide maximum local discretion;
     Ensure the most productive use of limited Federal 
resources;
     Protect taxpayer investments in public transportation;
     Incorporate principles of sound management into the grant 
management process.
    As the needs for public transportation have changed over the years, 
the Federal transit programs have grown in number and complexity often 
requiring implementation through the rulemaking process. FTA is 
currently implementing many of its public transportation programs 
authorized under MAP-21 through the regulatory process. To that end, 
FTA's regulatory priorities include implementing the newly authorized 
Public Transportation Safety Program (49 U.S.C. 5329), such as the 
Public Transportation Safety Plan and updating the State Safety 
Oversight rule, as well as, implementing requirements for Transit Asset 
Management Systems (49 U.S.C. 5326). The joint FTA/FHWA planning rule 
which will be merged with FTA/FHWA's Additional Authorities for 
Planning and Environmental Linkages rule and FTA's Bus Testing rule 
round out its regulatory priorities.

Maritime Administration (MARAD)

    The Maritime Administration (MARAD) administers Federal laws and 
programs to improve and strengthen the maritime transportation system 
to meet the economic, environmental, and security needs of the Nation. 
To that end, MARAD's efforts are focused upon ensuring a strong 
American presence in the domestic and international trades and to 
expanding maritime opportunities for American businesses and workers.
    MARAD's regulatory objectives and priorities reflect the agency's 
responsibility for ensuring the availability of water transportation 
services for American shippers and consumers and, in times of war or 
national emergency, for the U.S. armed forces. Major program areas 
include the following: Maritime Security, Voluntary Intermodal Sealift 
Agreement, National Defense Reserve Fleet and the Ready Reserve Force, 
Cargo Preference, Maritime Guaranteed Loan Financing, United States 
Merchant Marine Academy, Mariner Education and Training Support, 
Deepwater Port Licensing, and Port and Intermodal Development. 
Additionally, MARAD administers the Small Shipyard Grants Program 
through which equipment and technical skills training are provided to 
America's maritime workforce, with the aim of helping businesses to 
compete in the global marketplace while creating well-paying jobs at 
home.
    MARAD's primary regulatory activities in Fiscal Year 2016 will be 
to continue the update of existing regulations as part of the 
Department's Retrospective Regulatory Review effort, and to propose new 
regulations where appropriate.
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)
    The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) 
has responsibility for rulemaking under two programs. Through the 
Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety, PHMSA 
administers regulatory programs under Federal hazardous materials 
transportation law and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as 
amended by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. Through the Associate 
Administrator for Pipeline Safety, PHMSA administers regulatory 
programs under the Federal pipeline safety laws and the Federal Water 
Pollution Control Act, as amended by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. The 
Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011 
included a number of rulemaking studies and mandates and additional 
enforcement authorities that continue to impact PHMSA's regulatory 
activities in Fiscal Year 2015.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    MAP-21 reauthorized the hazardous materials safety program and 
required several regulatory actions by PHMSA. PHMSA has been very 
effective in implementing the MAP-21 provisions. MAP-21 established 
over thirty distinct provisions applicable to PHMSA's Hazardous 
Materials Safety Program. For example, MAP-21 required PHMSA to codify 
its procedures for issuing special permits and the criteria it uses to 
evaluate special permit and approval applications. MAP-21 requires 
PHMSA to conduct a review of existing special permits and publish a 
rulemaking every two years to codify special permits that have been in 
continuous effect for a ten-year period. MAP-21 also requires PHMSA to 
evaluate the feasibility of paperless hazard communication as an 
effective means for transmitting shipment information between shippers, 
carriers, responders, and enforcement officials.
    PHMSA will continue to work toward improving safety related to 
transportation of hazardous materials by all transportation modes, 
including

[[Page 77832]]

pipeline, while promoting economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, 
and job creation. We will concentrate on the prevention of high-risk 
incidents identified through the findings of the National 
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and PHMSA's evaluation of 
transportation incident data. PHMSA will use all available Agency tools 
to assess data; evaluate alternative safety strategies, including 
regulatory strategies as necessary and appropriate; target enforcement 
efforts; and enhance outreach, public education, and training to 
promote safety outcomes.
    PHMSA will continue to focus on the streamlining of its regulatory 
system and reducing regulatory burdens. PHMSA will evaluate existing 
rules to examine whether they remain justified; should be modified to 
account for changing circumstances and technologies; or should be 
streamlined or even repealed. PHMSA will continue to evaluate, analyze, 
and be responsive to petitions for rulemaking. PHMSA will review 
regulations, letters of interpretation, petitions for rulemaking, 
special permits, enforcement actions, approvals, and international 
standards to identify inconsistencies, outdated provisions, and 
barriers to regulatory compliance.
    PHMSA aims to reduce the risks related to the transportation of 
hazardous materials by rail. Preventing tank car incidents and 
minimizing the consequences when an incident does occur are not only 
DOT priorities, but are also shared by our Federal and international 
partners, the NTSB, industry, and the general public. Expansion in 
United States energy production has led to significant challenges in 
the transportation system. Expansion in oil production has led to 
increasing volumes of energy products transported to refineries. With a 
growing domestic supply, rail transportation, in particular, has 
emerged as an alternative to transportation by pipeline or vessel. The 
growing reliance on trains to transport large volumes of flammable 
liquids raises risks that have been highlighted by the recent instances 
of trains carrying crude oil that have derailed. PHMSA and FRA issued a 
final rule on May 8, 2015 (80 FR 26643), designed to lessen the 
frequency and consequences of train accidents involving flammable 
liquids. In addition, PHMSA and FRA issued an Advanced Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking on August 1, 2014 (79 FR 45079), seeking comment on 
potential revisions to its regulations that would expand the 
applicability of comprehensive oil spill response plans (OSRPs) for 
crude oil trains. PHMSA will continue to take regulatory actions to 
enhance the safe transportation of energy products.
    On October 13, 2015 [80 FR 61609], PHMSA issued an NPRM proposing 
changes to the regulations covering hazardous liquid onshore pipelines. 
Specifically, the agency proposed regulatory changes relative to High 
Consequence Areas (HCAs) for integrity management (IM) protections, 
repair timeframes, and reporting for all hazardous liquid gathering 
lines. The agency also addressed public safety and environmental 
aspects of any new requirements, as well as the cost implications and 
regulatory burden.
    PHMSA also will be revisiting the requirements in the Pipeline 
Safety Regulations addressing integrity management principles for Gas 
Transmission pipelines. In particular, PHMSA is planning to propose 
requirements to address repair criteria for both HCA and non-HCA areas, 
assessment methods, validating and integrating pipeline data, risk 
assessments, knowledge gained through the IM program, corrosion 
control, management of change, gathering lines, and safety features on 
launchers and receivers.

             Quantifiable Costs and Benefits of Rulemakings on the 2015 to 2016 DOT Regulatory Plan
   [This chart does not account for benefits and costs that could not be monetized, which may be substantial]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                 Quantifiable
                                                                         Quantifiable costs        benefits
       Agency/RIN No.                Title                Stage          discounted 2013 $    discounted 2013 $
                                                                             (millions)           (millions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       OST
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2105-AE30..................  Use of Mobile         NPRM 03/16.........  TBD................  TBD.
                              Wireless Devices
                              for Voice Calls on
                              Aircraft.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       FAA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2120-AJ38..................  Airport Safety        SNPRM 11/15........  $157.5.............  $225.9.
                              Management System.
2120-AJ60..................  Small Unmanned        FR 4/16............  $5.7...............  TBD.
                              Aircraft Systems.
2120-AJ87..................  Pilot Professional    NPRM 12/15.........  $46.8..............  $46.3.
                              Development.
2120-AK65..................  Revision of           NPRM 01/16.........  $3.9...............  $11.6.
                              Airworthiness
                              Standards for
                              Normal, Utility,
                              Acrobatic, and
                              Commuter Category
                              Airplanes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      FHWA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2125-AF49..................  Performance           FR 11/15...........  $5.4...............  Breakeven Analysis.
                              Management 1.                             Note: These are
                                                                         preliminary agency
                                                                         estimates only.
                                                                         They have not been
                                                                         reviewed by others
                                                                         outside of DOT.
                                                                         The estimates
                                                                         could change after
                                                                         interagency
                                                                         review..
2125-AF53..................  Performance           NPRM (Analyzing      $21.2..............  Breakeven Analysis.
                              Management 2.         Comments 12/15) FR  Note: These are
                                                    TBD.                 preliminary agency
                                                                         estimates only.
                                                                         They have not been
                                                                         reviewed by others
                                                                         outside of DOT.
                                                                         The estimates
                                                                         could change after
                                                                         interagency
                                                                         review..

[[Page 77833]]

 
2125-AF54..................  Performance           NPRM 12/15.........  TBD................  Breakeven Analysis.
                              Management 3.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      FMCSA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2126-AB11..................  Carrier Safety        NPRM 11/15.........  $7.................  $241.
                              Fitness
                              Determination.
2126-AB18..................  Commercial Driver's   FR 03/16...........  $174...............  $230.
                              License Drug and
                              Alcohol
                              Clearinghouse.
2126-AB66..................  Entry Level Driver    NPRM 11/15.........  TBD................  TBD.
                              Training.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      NHTSA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2127-AL37..................  Rear Seat Belt        NPRM 04/16.........  $164.3-$324.6......  310-465.5.
                              Reminder System.                          Note: These are      Note: These are
                                                                         preliminary agency   preliminary agency
                                                                         estimates only.      estimates only.
                                                                         They have not been   They have not been
                                                                         reviewed by others   reviewed by others
                                                                         outside of DOT.      outside of DOT.
                                                                         The estimates        The estimates
                                                                         could change after   could change after
                                                                         interagency review.  interagency
                                                                                              review.
2127-AL52..................  Fuel Efficiency       NPRM (Analyzing      $30,500-$31,100....  $261,000-$276,000.
                              Standards for         Comments 11/15) FR
                              Medium- and Heavy-    TBD.
                              Duty Vehicles and
                              Work Trucks: Phase
                              2.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       FTA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2132-AB07..................  Transit Asset         NPRM (Analyzing      $18.9 million        Breakeven Analysis.
                              Management.           Comments 11/15).     (Annualized).
2132-AB23..................  Public                NPRM 12/15.........  $92 million          Breakeven Analysis.
                              Transportation                             (Annualized).
                              Agency Safety Plan.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      PHMSA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2137-AE66..................  Pipeline Safety:      NPRM 11/15.........  TBD................  TBD.
                              Safety of On-Shore
                              Liquid Hazardous
                              Pipelines.
2137-AE72..................  Pipeline Safety: Gas  NPRM 12/15.........  TBD................  TBD.
                              Transmission (RRR).
2137-AF08..................  Hazardous Materials:  NPRM 01/16.........  TBD................  TBD.
                              Oil Spill Response
                              Plans and
                              Information Sharing
                              for High-Hazard
                              Flammable Trains.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: Costs and benefits of rulemakings may be forecast over varying periods. Although the forecast periods
  will be the same for any given rulemaking, comparisons between proceedings should be made cautiously.
Costs and benefits are generally discounted at a 7 percent discount rate over the period analyzed.
The Department of Transportation generally assumes that there are economic benefits to avoiding a fatality of
  $9.4 million. That economic value is included as part of the benefits estimates shown in the chart. As noted
  above, we have not included the non-quantifiable benefits.


DOT--OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (OST)

Proposed Rule Stage

86. +Use of Mobile Wireless Devices for Voice Calls on Aircraft

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 41712, 49 U.S.C. 41702
    CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Department of Transportation (DOT or Department) is 
seeking comment on whether it should adopt a rule to restrict voice 
communications on passengers' mobile wireless devices on scheduled 
flights within, to and from the United States. The Federal 
Communications Commission (FCC) recently issued a notice of proposed 
rulemaking that if adopted would, among other things, create a pathway 
for airlines to permit the use of cellphones or other mobile wireless 
devices to make or receive calls on board aircraft. DOT supports the 
FCC's proposal to revise its rules in light of the technology available 
and to expand access to mobile wireless data services on board 
aircraft; however, under the Department's aviation consumer protection 
authority and because of concerns raised, we are seeking comment on 
whether to ban voice calls on aircraft.
    Statement of Need: This rulemaking proposes to regulate the 
practice of permitting airline passengers to use mobile wireless 
devices to make voice calls onboard aircraft. Currently, the FCC bans 
the use of certain cellular frequencies on aircraft; this rule 
effectively prohibits the use of cellular telephone frequencies to make 
voice calls while in flight. In 2013, however, the FCC issued an NPRM 
which proposed lifting the ban on cellular frequencies while in flight, 
so long as the aircraft is equipped with an Airborne Access System. 
Moreover,

[[Page 77834]]

airlines are increasingly installing Wi-Fi technology onboard aircraft. 
These systems operate outside the scope of the FCC's ban and have the 
capacity to transmit voice calls. In light of these developments, the 
Department anticipates an environment in which voice calls on aircraft 
would be not only permitted, but increasingly frequent. In February 
2014, the Department issued an ANPRM seeking comment on whether to 
regulate the use of voice calls onboard aircraft. Comments received by 
the public (along with pilots' organizations and flight attendants' 
organizations) overwhelmingly favored a ban.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The primary legal basis for this rulemaking 
is 49 U.S.C. 41712, which prohibits unfair or deceptive practices in 
air transportation or the sale of air transportation. The Department 
submits that permitting passengers to make voice calls within the 
confines of an aircraft may be ``unfair'' in that it subjects other 
passengers to significant unavoidable harm without countervailing 
benefits. The Department's consumer protection authority found in 
section 41712 also supports a proposed rule which would require sellers 
of air transportation to notify passengers when a given flight does 
permit the use of voice calls. Another legal basis for the proposed 
rule is 49 U.S.C. 41702, which provides that air carriers shall provide 
``safe and adequate'' domestic air transportation. The Department 
relied on section 41702 when it determined that the discomfort to 
passengers from smoking on aircraft was significant enough to justify 
regulating smoking to ensure adequate service in domestic air 
transportation. The Department submits that voice calls on aircraft 
would create a similar type of passenger hardship.
    Alternatives: The Department's NPRM, as currently drafted, would 
propose three (co-equal) alternative rules: (1) Prohibiting airlines 
from permitting passengers to use mobile devices to make voice calls on 
domestic flights and domestic segments of international flights; (2) 
prohibiting airlines from permitting passengers to use mobile devices 
to make voice calls on both domestic flights and international flights; 
and (3) not banning voice calls, but requiring sellers of air 
transportation to disclose in advance when a particular flight is one 
on which voice calls are permitted. The alternative to these three 
proposals is to take no action; this alternative would require no 
advance notice and would passengers to make voice calls to the extent 
that the FCC's rule, technological advances, and airlines' own policies 
would allow.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: TBD.
    Risks: n/a.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM...............................   02/24/14  79 FR 10049
ANPRM Comment Period End............   03/26/14
NPRM................................   03/00/16
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Blane A. Workie, Principal Deputy Assistant General 
Counsel, Department of Transportation, Office of the Secretary, 1200 
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, Phone: 202 366-9342, TDD 
Phone: 202 755-7687, Fax: 202 366-7152, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2105-AE30

DOT--FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION (FAA)

Proposed Rule Stage

87. +Airport Safety Management System

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 44706; 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 49 U.S.C. 
40113; 49 U.S.C. 44701 to 44706; 49 U.S.C. 44709; 49 U.S.C. 44719
    CFR Citation: 14 CFR 139.
    Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, November 5, 2012, final rule.
    Abstract: This rulemaking would require certain airport certificate 
holders to develop, implement, maintain, and adhere to a safety 
management system (SMS) for its aviation related activities. An SMS is 
a formalized approach to managing safety by developing an organization-
wide safety policy, developing formal methods of identifying hazards, 
analyzing and mitigating risk, developing methods for ensuring 
continuous safety improvement, and creating organization-wide safety 
promotion strategies.
    Statement of Need: In the NPRM published on October 7, 2010, the 
FAA proposed to require all part 139 certificate holders to develop and 
implement an SMS to improve the safety of their aviation-related 
activities. The FAA received 65 comment documents from a variety of 
commenters. Because of the complexity of the issues and concerns raised 
by the commenters, the FAA began to reevaluate whether deployment of 
SMS at all certificated airports was the most effective approach. The 
FAA continues to believe that an SMS can address potential safety gaps 
that are not completely eliminated through effective FAA regulations 
and technical operating standards.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The FAA's authority to issue rules 
regarding aviation safety is found in title 49 of the United States 
Code. Subtitle I, section 106 describes the authority of the FAA 
Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more 
detail the scope of the agency's authority. The FAA is proposing this 
rulemaking under the authority described in subtitle VII, part A, 
subpart III, section 44706, ``Airport operating certificates.'' Under 
that section, Congress charges the FAA with issuing airport operating 
certificates (AOC) that contain terms that the Administrator finds 
necessary to ensure safety in air transportation. This proposed rule is 
within the scope of that authority because it requires certain 
certificated airports to develop and maintain an SMS. The development 
and implementation of an SMS ensures safety in air transportation by 
assisting these airports in proactively identifying and mitigating 
safety hazards.
    Alternatives: The FAA is exploring various alternatives to 
determine how to apply an SMS requirement to a group of airports that 
gains the most benefit in a cost-effective manner.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Benefits are estimated at 
$370,788,457 ($225,850,869 present value) and total costs are estimated 
at $238,865,692 ($157,496,312 present value), with benefits exceeding 
costs. These are preliminary estimates subject to change based on 
further review and analysis.
    Risks: An SMS is a formalized approach to managing safety by 
developing an organization-wide safety policy, developing formal 
methods of identifying hazards, analyzing and mitigating risk, 
developing methods for ensuring continuous safety improvement, and 
creating organization-wide safety promotion strategies. An SMS provides 
an organization's management with a set of decisionmaking tools that 
can be used to plan, organize, direct, and control its business 
activities in a manner that enhances safety and ensures compliance with 
regulatory standards. Adherence to standard operating procedures, 
proactive identification and mitigation of hazards and risks, and 
effective

[[Page 77835]]

communications are crucial to continued operational safety. The FAA 
envisions an SMS would provide an airport with an added layer of safety 
to help reduce the number of near-misses, incidents, and accidents. An 
SMS also would ensure that all levels of airport management understand 
safety implications of airfield operations.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   10/07/10  75 FR 62008
NPRM Comment Period Extended........   12/10/10  75 FR 76928
NPRM Comment Period End.............   01/05/11  .......................
End of Extended Comment Period......   03/07/11  .......................
Second Extension of Comment Period..   03/07/11  76 FR 12300
End of Second Extended Comment         07/05/11  .......................
 Period.
Supplemental NPRM...................   12/00/15  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: State.
    Additional Information: The estimated costs of this rule do not 
include the costs of mitigations that operators could incur as a result 
of conducting the risk analysis proposed in this rule. Given the range 
of mitigation actions possible, it is difficult to provide a 
quantitative estimate of both the costs and benefits of such 
mitigations. However, we anticipate that operators will only implement 
mitigations where benefits exceeds costs. As such, the FAA believes 
that the costs of this rule would be justified by the anticipated 
benefits of the rule, if adopted as proposed.
    URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Keri Lyons, Department of Transportation, Federal 
Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 
20591, Phone: 202 267-8972, Email: [email protected].
    Related RIN: Related to 2120-AJ15
    RIN: 2120-AJ38

DOT--FAA

88. +Pilot Professional Development

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 44701(a)(5); Pub. L. 111-216, sec 206
    CFR Citation: 14 CFR 121.
    Legal Deadline: NPRM, Statutory, April 20, 2015, NPRM.
    Abstract: This rulemaking would amend the regulations for air 
carrier training programs under part 121. The action is necessary to 
ensure that air carriers establish or modify training programs to 
address mentoring, leadership and professional development of flight 
crewmembers in part 121 operations. This rulemaking is required by the 
Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Act of 2010.
    Statement of Need: On August 1, 2010, the President signed the 
Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 
2010 (Pub. L. 111-216). Section 206 of Public Law 111-216 directed the 
FAA to convene an aviation rulemaking committee (ARC) to develop 
procedures for each part 121 air carrier pertaining to mentoring, 
professional development, and leadership and command training for 
pilots serving in part 121 operations and to issue a Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (NPRM) based on the ARC recommendations. This NPRM is 
necessary to satisfy a requirement of section 206 of Public Law 111-
216.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The FAA authority to issue rules on 
aviation safety is found in title 49 of the United States Code. 
Subtitle I, section 106 describes the authority of the FAA 
Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more 
detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is 
promulgated under the general authority described in 49 U.S.C. 106(f) 
and 44701(a) and the specific authority found in section 206 of Public 
Law 111-216, the Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration 
Extension Act of 2010 (49 U.S.C. 44701 note), which directed the FAA to 
convene an aviation rulemaking committee (ARC) and conduct a rulemaking 
proceeding based on this ARC's recommendations pertaining to mentoring, 
professional development, and leadership and command training for 
pilots serving in part 121 operations. Section 206 further required 
that the FAA include in leadership and command training, instruction on 
compliance with flightcrew member duties under 14 CFR 121.542.
    Alternatives: The Flight Crewmember Mentoring, Leadership, and 
Professional Development ARC presented recommendations to the FAA in 
its report dated November 2, 2010.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: For the timeframe 2015 to 2024 
(millions of 2013 Dollars), the total cost saving benefits is $72.017 
($46.263 present value) and the total compliance costs is $67.632 
($46.774 present value).
    Risks: As recognized by the National Transportation Safety Board 
(NTSB), the overall safety and reliability of the National Airspace 
System demonstrates that most pilots conduct operations with a high 
degree of professionalism. Nevertheless, a problem still exists in the 
aviation industry with some pilots acting unprofessionally and not 
adhering to standard operating procedures, including sterile cockpit. 
The NTSB has continued to cite inadequate leadership in the flight 
deck, pilots' unprofessional behavior, and pilots' failure to comply 
with the sterile cockpit rule as factors in multiple accidents and 
incidents including Pinnacle Airlines flight 3701 and Colgan Air, Inc. 
flight 3407. The FAA intends for this proposal to mitigate 
unprofessional pilot behavior which would reduce pilot errors that can 
lead to a catastrophic event.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   03/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Sheri Pippin, Department of Transportation, Federal 
Aviation Administration, 15000 Aviation Blvd., Lawndale, CA 90261, 
Phone: 310 725-7342, Email: [email protected].
    Related RIN: Related to 2120-AJ00
    RIN: 2120-AJ87

DOT--FAA

89. +Revision of Airworthiness Standards for Normal, Utility, 
Acrobatic, and Commuter Category Airplanes

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 49 U.S.C. 40113; 49 U.S.C. 
44701; 49 U.S.C. 44702; 49 U.S.C. 44704
    CFR Citation: 14 CFR 23.
    Legal Deadline: NPRM, Statutory, December 15, 2015, NPRM (Pub. L. 
113-53).
    Abstract: This rulemaking would revise title 14, Code of Federal 
Regulations (14 CFR) part 23 as a set of performance based regulations 
for the design and certification of small transport category aircraft. 
This

[[Page 77836]]

rulemaking would: (1) Reorganize part 23 into performance-based 
requirements by removing the detailed design requirements from part 23. 
The detailed design provisions that would assist applicants in 
complying with the new performance-based requirements would be 
identified in means of compliance (MOC) documents to support this 
effort; (2) promote the adoption of the newly created performance-based 
airworthiness design standard as an internationally accepted standard 
by the majority of other civil aviation authorities; (3) re-align the 
part 23 requirements to promote the development of entry-level 
airplanes similar to those certified under Certification Specification 
for Very Light Aircraft (CS-VLA); (4) enhance the FAA's ability to 
address new technology; (5) increase the general aviation (GA) level of 
safety provided by new and modified airplanes; (6) amend the stall, 
stall warning, and spin requirements to reduce fatal accidents and 
increase crashworthiness by allowing new methods for occupant 
protection; (7) address icing conditions that are currently not 
included in part 23 regulations.
    Statement of Need: The FAA's strategic vision in line with 
Destination 2025, communicates FAA goals to increase safety throughout 
general aviation by enabling and facilitating innovation and 
development of safety enhancing products. This project intends to 
provide an appropriate and globally competitive regulatory structure 
that allows small transport category airplanes to achieve FAA safety 
goals through innovation and compliance with performance-based safety 
standards. One focus area is Loss of Control (LOC) accidents, which 
continues to be the largest source of fatal GA accidents. To address 
LOC accidents, the Small Airplane Directorate is focused on 
establishing standards based on a safety continuum that balances the 
level of certitude, appropriate level of safety, and acceptable risk 
for each segment of GA. This risk-based approach to certification has 
already served the FAA and public well, with the application of section 
23.1309 to avionics equipment in part 23 airplanes, leading to the 
successful introduction of glass cockpits in small GA airplanes. To 
improve the GA fleet's safety level over that of today's aging fleet, 
the FAA needs to allow industry to build new part 23 certificated 
airplanes with today's safety enhancing technologies. Although a number 
of new small airplanes are being built, many are certified to the Civil 
Air Regulations (CAR 3) part 3, or very early amendment levels of part 
23, and reflect the level of safety technology available when they were 
designed decades ago. Without new airplanes and improved existing 
airplanes, we will not see the safety improvements in GA that are 
possible with the technology developed since the 1970's. This 
rulemaking effort targets: increasing the safety level in new 
airplanes; reducing the cost of certification to encourage newer and 
safer airplane development; and create new opportunities to address 
safety related issues, not just in new airplanes, but eventually with 
the existing fleet.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-
44702, 44704. Additionally, Public Law 113-53, Small Airplane 
Revitalization Act of 2013 (Nov. 27, 2013), requires that the FAA issue 
a final rule revising these standards by December 15, 2015.
    Alternatives: Several alternatives are considering. 1. Retaining 
part 23 in its current form without adopting the recommendations of the 
ARC and the CPS. 2. Revising part 23 using a tiered approach and 
adopting a performance and complexity tiering structure instead of the 
propulsion and weight-based approach used today, but retaining the 
detailed design requirements in the rule. 3. Allowing an industry 
standard for part 23 entry-level airplanes as an alternative to part 
23. Airplanes other than entry-level would still be regulated within 
the confines of the existing part 23. being
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: For the timeframe 2017 to 2036 (2014 
$ Millions), the total costs are $3.9 ($3.9 present value) and the 
total benefits are $30.8 ($11.6 present value).
    Risks: To be determined.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   01/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
    Additional Information: Additionally, Public Law 113-53, Small 
Airplane Revitalization Act of 2013 states: ``SEC. 3. SAFETY AND 
REGULATORY IMPROVEMENTS FOR GENERAL AVIATION. (a) IN GENERAL.-- Not 
later than December 15, 2015, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation 
Administration shall issue a final rule--''
    URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Lowell Foster, Department of Transportation, 
Federal Aviation Administration, 901 Locust St., Kansas City, MO 64106, 
Phone: 816-329-4125, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2120-AK65

DOT--FAA

Final Rule Stage

90. +Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 44701; Pub. L. 112-95
    CFR Citation: 14 CFR 91.
    Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, August 14, 2014, Pub. L. 112-95, 
sec 332(b) requires issuance of final rule 18 months after integration 
plan is submitted to Congress. Integration plan due Feb. 14, 2013.
    Abstract: This rulemaking would allow the commercial operation of 
small unmanned aircraft systems (small UAS) in the National Airspace 
System (NAS). These changes would address the operation of small 
unmanned aircraft systems, certification of their operators, 
registration of the small unmanned aircraft, and display of 
registration markings. This action would also find airworthiness 
certification is not required for small unmanned aircraft system 
operations subject to this rulemaking.
    Statement of Need: This rulemaking would amend regulations to adopt 
specific rules for the operation of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems in 
the National Airspace System (NAS). These changes would address the 
classification of small UAS, certification of small UAS pilots, 
registration of small UAS, and small UAS operational limits. The 
changes are necessary to allow for routine non-recreational operation 
of small UAS. Absent this rulemaking effort, operators would need to 
file a request for exemption or certificate of waiver to operate.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The FAA's authority to issue rules on 
aviation safety is found in title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle I, 
section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator, including 
the authority to issue, rescind, and revise regulations. Subtitle VII, 
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's 
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described 
subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, chapter 447, Safety Regulation. 
Pursuant to section 44701 (a)(5), the FAA is charged with promoting 
safe flight of civil aircraft by, among other

[[Page 77837]]

things, prescribing regulations the FAA finds necessary for safety in 
air commerce and national security. This rulemaking is within the scope 
of that authority.
    Alternatives: The overall quantified benefits to society will 
eventually be determined by market forces and the ingenuity of the 
entrepreneurs. We expect markets to evolve within the constraints of 
the proposed requirements and we assess the potential market within the 
context of the demand for sUAS services. We estimate the total benefits 
and costs associated with the requirements contained in the proposal. 
As this is an enabling rulemaking action, the estimated benefits cannot 
yet be quantified. The total estimated costs are $8.0 million.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The costs are estimated at 
$6,803,100 ($5,714,000 present value). The FAA has not quantified the 
benefits for this rulemaking because we lack sufficient data. The FAA 
invited commenters to provide data that could be used to quantify the 
benefits of this rulemaking.
    Risks: Commercial operations currently have no legal means to 
conduct operations without an FAA-issued exemption.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   02/23/15  80 FR 9544
NPRM Comment Period End.............   04/24/15  .......................
Final Rule..........................   04/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    International Impacts: This regulatory action will be likely to 
have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise be of 
international interest.
    URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Lance Nuckolls, Unmanned Aircraft Systems 
Integration Office, Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation 
Administration, 490 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20024, Phone: 
202 267-8447, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2120-AJ60

DOT--FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION (FHWA)

Proposed Rule Stage

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

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: Pub. L. 112-141 sec 1203; 49 FR 1.85
    CFR Citation: 23 CFR 490.
    Legal Deadline: NPRM, Statutory, April 1, 2014, NPRM.
    Section 1203 of MAP-21 requires the Secretary to promulgate a 
rulemaking within 18 months after the date of enactment.
    Abstract: This rulemaking would create national performance 
management measures and standards to be used by the States to meet the 
national transportation goals identified in section 1203 of MAP-21. 
This rulemaking would also establish the process to be used by States 
to set performance targets that reflect their performance measures. The 
FHWA anticipates issuing up to three rulemakings in this area. This 
rulemaking covers Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) and 
Freight issues.
    Statement of Need: The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st 
Century Act (MAP-21) transforms the Federal-aid highway program by 
establishing new requirements for performance management to ensure the 
most efficient investment of Federal transportation funds. Performance 
management refocuses attention on national transportation goals, 
increases the accountability and transparency of the Federal-aid 
highway program, and improves project decisionmaking through 
performance-based planning and programming. This rulemaking is the 
third of three that would propose the establishment of performance 
measures for State DOTs and MPOs to use to carry out Federal-aid 
highway programs and to assess performance in each of the 12 areas 
mandated by MAP-21. This rulemaking would establish performance 
measures for State DOTs to use in the areas of Congestion Reduction, 
Congestion mitigation and air quality improvement program (CMAQ), 
Freight, and Performance of Interstate/Non-Interstate National Highway 
System.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Section 1203 of MAP-21 requires the 
Secretary of Transportation to establish performance measures and 
standards through a rulemaking to assess performance in 12 areas.
    Alternatives: N/A.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Not yet determined.
    Risks: N/A.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   12/00/15  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

DOT--FHWA

Final Rule Stage

92. +National Goals and Performance Management Measures (Map-21)

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 23 U.S.C. 150
    CFR Citation: 23 CFR 490.
    Legal Deadline: NPRM, Statutory, April 1, 2014, NPRM.
    Section 1203 of MAP-21 requires the Secretary to promulgate a 
rulemaking within 18 months after the date of enactment.
    Abstract: This rulemaking would create national performance 
management measures and standards to be used by the States to meet the 
national transportation goals identified in section 1203 of MAP-21. 
This rulemaking would also establish the process to be used by States 
to set performance targets that reflect their performance measures. The 
FHWA anticipates publishing up to three separate rulemakings to address 
the different areas covered by this section. This rulemaking, the 
first, will cover safety.
    Statement of Need: The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st 
Century Act (MAP-21) transforms the Federal-aid highway program by 
establishing new requirements for performance management to ensure the 
most efficient investment of Federal transportation funds. Performance 
management refocuses attention on national transportation goals, 
increases the accountability and transparency of the Federal-aid 
highway program, and improves project decision-making through 
performance-based planning

[[Page 77838]]

and programming. This rulemaking is the first of three that would 
propose the establishment of performance measures for State DOTs and 
MPOs to use to carry out Federal-aid highway programs and to assess 
performance in each of the 12 areas mandated by MAP-21. This rulemaking 
would establish performance measures to carry out the Highway Safety 
Improvement Program and to assess serious injuries and fatalities, both 
in number and expressed as a rate, on all public roads. In addition 
this rulemaking would establish the process for State DOTs and MPOs to 
use to establish and report safety targets, and the process that FHWA 
will use to assess progress State DOTs have made in achieving safety 
targets.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Section 1203 of MAP-21 requires the 
Secretary of Transportation to establish performance measures and 
standards through a rulemaking to assess performance in 12 areas.
    Alternatives: N/A.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Preliminary estimates show that the 
total costs for a 10 year period is $66,695,260 (undiscounted), 
$53,873,609 (7% discount rate), and $60,504,205 (3% discount rate). The 
DOT performed a break-even analysis that estimates the number of 
fatalities and incapacitating injuries the rule would need to prevent 
for the benefits of the rule to justify the costs. Preliminary 
estimates show that the proposed rule would need to prevent 
approximately 7 fatalities over 10 years, or less than one avoided 
fatality per year nationwide, to outweigh the anticipated costs of the 
proposed rule. When the break-even analysis uses incapacitating 
injuries as the reduction metric, preliminary estimates show that the 
proposed rule must be responsible for reducing approximately 153 
incapacitating injuries over 10 years, or approximately 15 per year, to 
outweigh the anticipated costs of the proposed rule. In other words, 
the proposed rule must result in approximately 7 fewer fatalities, 
which is equivalent to approximately 153 fewer incapacitating injuries, 
over 10 years, for the proposed rule to be cost-beneficial.
    Note: These are preliminary agency estimates only. They have not 
been reviewed by others outside of DOT. The estimates could change 
after interagency review.
    Risks: N/A.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   03/11/14  79 FR 13846
NPRM Comment Period End.............   06/09/14  .......................
Comment Period Extended.............   06/30/14  79 FR 30508
Final Rule..........................   02/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: State.
    URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Francine Shaw-Whitson, Department of 
Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue 
SE., Washington, DC 20590, Phone: 202 366-8028, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2125-AF49

DOT--FHWA

93. +National Goals and Performance Management Measures (Map-21)

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: Pub. L. 112-141 sec 1203; 49 CFR 1.85
    CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
    Legal Deadline: NPRM, Statutory, April 1, 2014, NPRM.
    Section 1203 of MAP-21 requires the Secretary to promulgate a 
rulemaking within 18 months after the date of enactment.
    Abstract: This rulemaking would create national performance 
management measures and standards to be used by the States to meet the 
national transportation goals identified in section 1203 of MAP-21. 
This rulemaking would also establish the process to be used by States 
to set performance targets that reflect their performance measures. The 
FHWA anticipates issuing up to three rulemakings in this area. This 
rulemaking, number two, will cover the bridges and pavement.
    Statement of Need: The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st 
Century Act (MAP-21) transforms the Federal-aid highway program by 
establishing new requirements for performance management to ensure the 
most efficient investment of Federal transportation funds. Performance 
management refocuses attention on national transportation goals, 
increases the accountability and transparency of the Federal-aid 
highway program, and improves project decisionmaking through 
performance-based planning and programming. This rulemaking is the 
second of three that would propose the establishment of performance 
measures for State DOTs and MPOs to use to carry out Federal-aid 
highway programs and to assess performance in each of the 12 areas 
mandated by MAP-21. This rulemaking would establish performance 
measures for State DOTs to use to carry out the National Highway 
Performance Program (NHPP) and to assess: Condition of pavements on the 
National Highways System (NHS) (excluding the Interstate System), 
condition of pavements on the Interstate System, and condition of 
bridges on the NHS. This rulemaking would also propose: The definitions 
that will be applicable to the new 23 CFR 490; the process to be used 
by State DOTs and MPOs to establish performance targets that reflect 
the measures proposed in this rulemaking; a methodology to be used to 
assess State DOTs compliance with the target achievement provision 
specified under 23 U.S.C. 119(e)(7); and the process to be followed by 
State DOTs to report on progress towards the achievement of pavement 
and bridge condition-related performance targets.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Section 1203 of MAP-21 requires the 
Secretary of Transportation to establish performance measures and 
standards through a rulemaking to assess performance in 12 areas.
    Alternatives: N/A.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The FHWA estimated the incremental 
costs associated with the new requirements proposed in this regulatory 
action that represent a change to current practices for State DOTs and 
MPOs. Following this approach, the estimated 10-year undiscounted 
incremental costs to comply with this rule are $196.4 million. The FHWA 
could not directly quantify the expected benefits due to data 
limitations and the amorphous nature of the benefits from the proposed 
rule. Therefore, in order to evaluate the benefits, FHWA used a break-
even analysis as the primary approach to quantify benefits. For both 
pavements and bridges, FHWA focused its break-even analysis on Vehicle 
Operating Costs (VOC) savings. The FHWA estimated the number of road 
miles of deficient pavement that would have to be improved and the 
number of posted bridges that would have to be avoided in order for the 
benefits of the rule to justify the costs. The results of the break-
even analysis quantified the dollar value of the benefits that the 
proposed rule must generate to outweigh the threshold value, the 
estimated cost of the proposed rule, which is $196.4 million in 
undiscounted dollars. The FHWA believes that the proposed rule would

[[Page 77839]]

surpass this threshold and, as a result, the benefits of the rule would 
outweigh the costs.
    Note: These are preliminary agency estimates only. They have not 
been reviewed by others outside of DOT. The estimates could change 
after interagency review.
    Risks: N/A.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   01/05/15  80 FR 326
NPRM Comment Period Extended........   02/17/15  80 FR 8250
NPRM Comment Period End.............   04/06/15
NPRM Extended Comment Period End....   05/08/15
Final Rule..........................   05/00/16
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, State.
    URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Francine Shaw-Whitson, Department of 
Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue 
SE., Washington, DC 20590, Phone: 202 366-8028, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2125-AF53

DOT--FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION (FMCSA)

Proposed Rule Stage

94. +Carrier Safety Fitness Determination

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 31144; sec 4009 of TEA-21
    CFR Citation: 49 CFR 385.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: FMCSA proposes to amend the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Regulations (FMCSRs) to adopt revised methodologies that would result 
in a safety fitness determination (SFD). The proposed methodologies 
would determine when a motor carrier is not fit to operate commercial 
motor vehicles (CMVs) in or affecting interstate commerce based on (1) 
the carrier's on-road safety performance in relation to five of the 
Agency's seven Behavioral Analysis and Safety Improvement Categories 
(BASICs); (2) an investigation; or (3) a combination of on-road safety 
data and investigation information. The intended effect of this action 
is to more effectively use FMCSA data and resources to identify unfit 
motor carriers and to remove them from the Nation's roadways.
    Statement of Need: Because of the time and expense associated with 
the on-site compliance review, only a small fraction of carriers 
(approximately 7,000) receive a safety fitness determination each year. 
Since the current safety fitness determination process is based 
exclusively on the results of an on-site comprehensive compliance 
review, the great majority of carriers subject to FMCSA jurisdiction do 
not receive a timely determination of their safety fitness. The 
proposed methodology for determining motor carrier safety fitness 
should correct many of the deficiencies of the current process. In 
correcting these deficiencies, FMCSA has made a concerted effort to 
develop a ``transparent'' method for the Safety Fitness Determination 
(SFD) that would allow each motor carrier to understand fully how FMCSA 
established that carrier's specific SFD.
    Summary of Legal Basis: This rule is based primarily on the 
authority of 49 U.S.C. 31144, which directs the Secretary of 
Transportation to ``determine whether an owner or operator is fit to 
operate a commercial motor vehicle'' and to ``maintain by regulation a 
procedure for determining the safety fitness of an owner or operator.'' 
This statute was first enacted as part of the Motor Carrier Safety Act 
of 1984, section 215, Public Law 98-554, 98 Stat. 2844 (Oct. 30, 1984). 
The proposed rule also relies on the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 31133, 
which gives the Secretary ``broad administrative powers to assist in 
the implementation'' of the provisions of the Motor Carrier Safety Act 
now found in chapter 311 of title 49, U.S.C. These powers include, 
among others, authority to conduct inspections and investigations, 
compile statistics, require production of records and property, 
prescribe recordkeeping and reporting requirements and to perform other 
acts considered appropriate. These powers are used to obtain the data 
used by the Safety Management System and by the proposed new 
methodology for safety fitness determinations. Under 49 CFR 1.87, the 
Secretary has delegated the authority to carry out the functions in 
subchapters I, III, and IV of chapter 311, title 49, U.S.C., to the 
FMCSA Administrator. Sections 31133 and 31144 are part of subchapter 
III of chapter 311.
    Alternatives: The Agency has been considering two alternatives. 
Each alternative focuses on the carriers with the highest crash rates, 
and represent the best opportunity for the Agency to have an impact on 
safety with its limited resources. The number of proposed unfit 
determinations that would result and the Agency's capacity to manage 
this population was also an important consideration in both options. 
While the Agency can accommodate the number of investigations and on-
road inspections resulting in proposed unfit determinations based on 
its current resources, the number of follow-up enforcement cases, 
compliance agreements, and oversight required from this population 
maximizes the capacity of the Agency's existing staff to administer the 
expected proposed and final unfit determinations.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The Agency is continuing to review 
the estimated costs and benefits of the proposed rule. Preliminary 
estimates indicate that annualized benefits may be in the range of $241 
to $286 million and annualized costs within the range of $6 and $8 
million.
    Risks: A risk of incorrectly identifying a compliant carrier as not 
compliant and consequently subjecting the carrier to unnecessary 
expenses has been analyzed and has been found to be negligible under 
the process being proposed.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   11/00/15
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Organizations.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Additional Information: 0.
    URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: David Miller, Regulatory Development Division, 
Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, 
Phone: 202 366-5370, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2126-AB11

DOT--FMCSA

95. +Entry-Level Driver Training (Section 610 Review)

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 31136

[[Page 77840]]

    CFR Citation: 49 CFR 380; 49 CFR 383; 49 CFR 384.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: FMCSA proposes to adopt new standards for mandatory 
training requirements for entry-level operators of commercial motor 
vehicles (CMVs) that are required to complete a skills test prior to 
obtaining a commercial driver's license (CDL). FMCSA is conducting a 
negotiated rulemaking (Reg-Neg) proceeding to implement the new entry-
level driver training (ELDT) provisions in the Moving Ahead for 
Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) and other relevant laws. 
Therefore, FMCSA proposes to require persons applying for new or 
upgraded CDLs to complete classroom, range, and behind-the-wheel 
training from a training provider listed on a National Registry. 
Training modules for those individuals applying for a Hazardous 
Materials (HM), Passenger (P), or School Bus (S) Endorsement may also 
be proposed. This notice of proposed rulemaking would strengthen the 
Agency's ELDT requirements, which would enhance the safety of CMV 
operations on our Nation's highways.
    Statement of Need: The Agency believes this rulemaking would 
enhance the safety of commercial motor vehicle (CMV) operations on our 
nation's highways by establishing a more extensive entry-level driver 
training (ELDT) protocol and by increasing the number of drivers who 
receive ELDT. It would revise the standards for mandatory training 
requirements for entry-level operators of CMVs in interstate and 
intrastate operations who are required to possess a commercial driver's 
license (CDL). FMCSA proposes new training standards for certain 
individuals applying for their initial CDL, an upgrade of their CDL 
(e.g., a Class B CDL holder seeking a Class A CDL), or a hazardous 
materials, passenger, or school bus endorsement for their license.
    Summary of Legal Basis: FMCSA's legal authority to propose this 
rulemaking is derived from the Motor Carrier Act of 1935, the Motor 
Carrier Safety Act of 1984, the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 
1986, and the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act.
    Alternatives: The Agency has been considering several alternatives.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The Agency is continuing to review 
the estimated costs and benefits of the proposed rule.
    Risks: A risk of a driver not receiving adequate training before 
applying for a CDL.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   11/00/15
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, 
Organizations.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Sean Gallagher, MC-PRR, Department of 
Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New 
Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20590, Phone: 202 366-3740, Email: 
[email protected].
    Related RIN: Related to 2126-AB06
    RIN: 2126-AB66

DOT--FMCSA

Final Rule Stage

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

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 31306
    CFR Citation: 49 CFR 382.
    Legal Deadline: Other, Statutory, October 1, 2014, clearinghouse 
required to be established by 10/01/2014.
    Abstract: This rulemaking would create a central database for 
verified positive controlled substances and alcohol test results for 
commercial driver's license (CDL) holders and refusals by such drivers 
to submit to testing. This rulemaking would require employers of CDL 
holders and service agents to report positive test results and refusals 
to test into the Clearinghouse. Prospective employers, acting on an 
application for a CDL driver position with the applicant's written 
consent to access the Clearinghouse, would query the Clearinghouse to 
determine if any specific information about the driver applicant is in 
the Clearinghouse before allowing the applicant to be hired and to 
drive CMVs. This rulemaking is intended to increase highway safety by 
ensuring CDL holders, who have tested positive or have refused to 
submit to testing, have completed the U.S. DOT's return-to-duty process 
before driving CMVs in interstate or intrastate commerce. It is also 
intended to ensure that employers are meeting their drug and alcohol 
testing responsibilities. Additionally, provisions in this rulemaking 
would also be responsive to requirements of the Moving Ahead for 
Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) Act. MAP-21 requires creation of 
the Clearinghouse by 10/1/14.
    Statement of Need: This rulemaking would improve the safety of the 
Nation's highways by ensuring that employers know when drivers test 
positive for drugs and/or alcohol and are not qualified to perform 
safety-sensitive functions. It would also ensure that drivers who have 
tested positive and have not completed the return to duty process are 
not driving and will ensure that they receive the required evaluation 
and treatment before resuming safety-sensitive functions.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Section 32402 of the Moving Ahead for 
Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21)) (Pub. L. 112-141, 126 stat. 
405) directs the Secretary of Transportation to establish a national 
clearinghouse for controlled substance and alcohol test results of 
commercial motor vehicle operators. In addition, FMCSA has general 
authority to promulgate safety standards, including those governing 
drivers' use of drugs or alcohol while operating a CMV. The Motor 
Carrier Safety Act of 1984 Public Law 98-554 (the 1984 Act) provides 
authority to regulate drivers, motor carriers, and vehicle equipment 
and requires the Secretary of Transportation to prescribe minimum 
safety standards for CMVs. Including: (1) CMVs are maintained, equipped 
loaded, and operated safely; (2) the responsibilities imposed on CMV 
operators do not impair their ability to operate the vehicles safely; 
(3) the physical condition of CMV operators is adequate to enable them 
to operate the vehicles safely; and (4) CMV operation does not have a 
deleterious effect on physical condition of the operators; and (5) CMV 
drivers are not coerced by a motor carrier, shipper, receiver, or 
transportation intermediary to operate a CMV in violation of 
regulations promulgated under (49 U.S.C. 31136(a)).
    Alternatives: To be determined.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: In the final rule the Agency 
estimated $230 million in annual benefits from increased crash 
reduction from the rule. This is against an estimated $174 million in 
total annual costs.
    Risks: A risk of not knowing when a driver has not completed the 
``return to duty'' process and enabling job-hopping within the 
industry.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   02/20/14  79 FR 9703
NPRM Comment Period End.............   04/21/14

[[Page 77841]]

 
NPRM Comment Period Extended End....   04/22/14
NPRM Comment Period Extended........   04/22/14  79 FR 22467
Final Rule..........................   03/00/16
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

DOT--NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION (NHTSA)

Proposed Rule Stage

97. +Rear Seat Belt Reminder System

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30101; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 
1.95
    CFR Citation: 49 CFR 571.208.
    Legal Deadline: NPRM, Statutory, October 1, 2014, Initiate.
    Final, Statutory, October 1, 2015, Final Rule.
    Abstract: This rulemaking would amend Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standard No. 208, occupant crash protection, to require automobile 
manufacturers to install a seat belt reminder system for the front 
passenger and rear designated seating positions in passenger vehicles. 
The seat belt reminder system is intended to increase belt usage and 
thereby improve the crash protection of vehicle occupants who would 
otherwise have been unbelted. This rulemaking would respond in part to 
a petition for rulemaking submitted by Public Citizen and Advocates for 
Highway and Auto Safety, as well as to requirements in MAP-21.
    Statement of Need: Based on recent FARS data, there was an annual 
average of 1,695 rear-seat passenger vehicle occupants killed. Of these 
fatalities, 1,057 rear-seat occupants (62.4%) were known to be 
unrestrained. According to recent NASS-GES data, there was an annual 
average of 46,927 rear-seat occupants injured, of which 15,254 (32.5%) 
were unrestrained. These unrestrained occupants who were killed or 
injured represent the rear-seat occupant target population. There was 
an annual average of 3,846 front outboard passenger seat occupant 
fatalities in the FARS data. Of these fatalities, 1,799 occupants 
(46.8%) were unrestrained. In addition, according to NASS-GES data, 
there was an annual average of 67,948 injured occupants in front 
outboard seating positions in crashes. Of those front outboard seat 
occupants injured, 20,369 (30%) were unrestrained. These unrestrained 
occupants who were killed or injured in crashes represent the front 
outboard passenger seat occupant target population.
    Summary of Legal Basis: MAP-21 required the Secretary to initiate a 
rulemaking proceeding to amend FMVSS No. 208 to provide a safety belt 
use warning system for designated seating positions in the rear seat. 
[1] It directed the Secretary to either issue a final rule, or, if the 
Secretary determined that such an amendment did not meet the 
requirements and considerations of 49 U.S.C. 30111, to submit a report 
to Congress describing the reasons for not prescribing such a standard.
    Alternatives: The agency considered several alternatives, including 
(1) Low cost front outboard passenger system without occupant 
protection; (2) requiring a SBRS for the front center seat; (3) system 
hardening from inadvertent and intentional defeat; and (4) awarding 
points through NCAP for rear SBRSs.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The proposed rule would result in 
43.7-65.4 equivalent lives saved (ELS) and 33.7-60.6 ELS at 3% and 7% 
discount rates, respectively. The estimated total cost range is $164.3 
million to $324.6 million.
    Note: These are preliminary agency estimates only. They have not 
been reviewed by others outside of DOT. The estimates could change 
after interagency review.
    Risks: The agency believes there are no substantial risks to this 
rulemaking.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   10/00/16
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Carla Rush, Safety Standards Engineer, Department 
of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, Phone: 202 366-4583, 
Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2127-AL37

DOT--NHTSA

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

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Unfunded Mandates: This action may affect the private sector under 
Pub. L. 104-4.
    Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 32902(k)(2); delegation of authority at 
49 CFR 1.95
    CFR Citation: 49 CFR 523; 49 CFR 534; 49 CFR 535.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This rulemaking would address fuel efficiency standards 
for medium- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicles and work trucks for 
model years beyond 2018. This rulemaking would respond to requirements 
of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA), title 1, 
subtitle A, sections 102 and 108, as they amend 49 U.S.C. 32902, which 
was signed into law December 19, 2007. The statute requires that NHTSA 
establish a medium- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicle and work truck 
fuel efficiency improvement program that achieves the maximum feasible 
improvement, including standards that are appropriate, cost-effective, 
and technologically feasible. The law requires that the new standards 
provide at least 4 full model years of regulatory lead-time and 3 full 
model years of regulatory stability (i.e., the standards must remain in 
effect for 3 years before they may be amended). This action would 
follow the first ever Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel 
Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles 
(``Phase 1'') (76 FR 57106, September 15, 2011). In June, 2013, the 
President's Climate Action Plan called for the Department of 
Transportation to develop fuel efficiency standards and

[[Page 77842]]

the Environmental Protection Agency to develop greenhouse gas emission 
standards in joint rulemaking within the President's second term. In 
February, 2014, the President directed DOT and EPA to complete the 
second phase of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency 
Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles during his 
second term.
    Statement of Need: Setting fuel consumption standards for 
commercial medium-duty and heavy-duty on-highway vehicles and work 
trucks will reduce fuel consumption, and will thereby improve U.S. 
energy security by reducing dependence on foreign oil, which has been a 
national objective since the first oil price shocks in the 1970s. 
Transportation accounts for about 70 percent of U.S. petroleum 
consumption, and medium- and heavy-duty vehicles currently account for 
about 20 percent of oil use in the U.S. transportation sector. Net 
petroleum imports now account for approximately 30 percent of U.S. 
petroleum consumption. World crude oil production is highly 
concentrated, exacerbating the risks of supply disruptions and price 
shocks. Therefore, setting fuel consumption standards for commercial 
medium-duty and heavy-duty on-highway vehicles and work trucks will 
reduce fuel consumption and improve U.S. energy security. In June, 
2013, the President's Climate Action Plan called for the Department of 
Transportation to develop fuel efficiency standards and the 
Environmental Protection Agency to develop greenhouse gas emission 
standards in joint rulemaking within the President's second term.
    Summary of Legal Basis: This rulemaking would respond to 
requirements of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 
(EISA), title 1, subtitle A, sections 102 and 108, as they amend 49 
U.S.C. 32902, which was signed into law December 19, 2007. These 
sections authorize the creation of a fuel efficiency improvement 
program, designed to achieve the maximum feasible improvement for 
commercial medium- and heavy-duty on-highway vehicles and work trucks, 
that includes appropriate test methods, measurement metrics, standards, 
and compliance and enforcement protocols that are appropriate, cost-
effective and technologically feasible.
    Alternatives: In the proposal, NHTSA evaluated five alternatives 
for semi tractors and trailers, heavy-duty pickup trucks and work vans, 
vocational vehicles, and separate standards for heavy-duty engines. 
Alternative 1 is a no-action alternative that serves as the baseline 
for the cost and benefit analyses; Alternative 2 would increase 
standards beyond model year 2018 levels in model years 2018 to 2024 or 
2025; Alternative 3, the Preferred Alternative, would set more 
stringent standards than Alternative 2 in model years 2018 to 2027; 
Alternative 4 approximately achieves the same stringency as Alternative 
3 in fewer model years (2018 to 2024 or 2025); and Alternative 5 
includes the most stringent of the alternative standards in model years 
2018 to 2024 or 2025.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The estimated total costs for the 
preferred alternative over the lifetimes of model year 2018 to 2029 
vehicles are $30.5 billion to $31.1 billion, and estimated total 
benefits are $261 billion to $276 billion (3% discount rate).
    Risks: The agency believes there are no substantial risks to this 
rulemaking.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   07/13/15  80 FR 40137
NPRM: Notice of Public Hearings and    07/28/15  80 FR 44863
 Extension of Comment Period.
NPRM: Comment Period Extended.......   09/08/15  80 FR 53756
NPRM: Extended Comment Period End...   09/17/15
NPRM: Extended Comment Period End...   10/01/15
Analyzing Comments..................   11/00/15
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

DOT--FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION (FTA)

Proposed Rule Stage

99. +Transit Asset Management

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5326(d)
    CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
    Legal Deadline: Other, Statutory, October 1, 2013, Secretary must 
issue rule to implement the Transit Asset Management System by October 
1, 2013.
    Abstract: This ANPRM has been consolidated with the ANPRM for the 
National and Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans. See 2132-AB20. 
This rule will establish a system for Transit Asset Management (TAM) 
for all operators of public transportation, for all modes of 
transportation throughout the United States. This national system will 
be based on the term ``State of Good Repair,'' to be developed through 
rulemaking, which will generate accurate data about the condition of 
the transit agencies' assets, and performance measures for improving 
the conditions of those assets.
    Statement of Need: In its most recent biennial Conditions and 
Performance Report, FTA estimated that the nation's transit state of 
good repair backlog is $86 billion and growing. It is the goal of the 
FTA to help bring the nation's public transportation capital assets 
into a state of good repair. To attain this goal, this NPRM establishes 
the National Transit Asset Management (TAM) System, that includes: The 
definition of state of good repair; requirements for Transit Asset 
Management Plans based on inventories of transit providers' facilities, 
equipment, rolling stock, and infrastructure, their assessments of the 
condition of those assets, and a prioritization of projects to meet 
state of good repair targets; requirements for reporting to the 
National Transit Database; an analytical process and decision support 
tool to assist transit provider in estimating their capital investment 
needs and prioritizing investments; and technical assistance from FTA. 
Also, this NPRM establishes performance measures for classes of assets 
and requirements for transit provider's to set performance targets for 
assets based on the performance measures. In addition, the National 
Transit Asset Management System complements the needs-based, formula 
program of Federal financial assistance for State of Good Repair 
administered under 49 U.S.C. 5337. The National TAM System is designed 
to foster informed decision-making on the needs for repair, 
rehabilitation, and

[[Page 77843]]

replacement of capital assets used or available for use in public 
transportation, based on accurate and comprehensive data and 
information about the condition of those assets. In concert with the 
planning requirements at 49 U.S.C. 5303 and 5304, and the regulations 
there under, FTA expects States, transit providers, and metropolitan 
planning organizations to allocate available Federal, State and local 
funding towards those capital assets most in need of recapitalization.
    Summary of Legal Basis: 49 U.S.C. 5326.
    Alternatives: MAP-21 requires the Department to issue this 
regulation. This NPRM will set forth FTA's rulemaking goals, soliciting 
comments on alternatives to regulation, such circulars and guidance.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The costs of this rulemaking are 
unknown, as the prospective shape and direction of the regulatory 
obligations are undetermined.
    Risks: Regulated parties could raise the traditional concerns about 
unfunded Federal mandates and lack of transparency. But, the costs of 
developing a TAM Plan are eligible for reimbursement under the section 
5307, 5311, and 5337 program.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM...............................   10/03/13  78 FR 61251
ANPRM Comment Period End............   01/02/14  .......................
NPRM................................   09/30/15  80 FR 58912
NPRM Comment Period End.............   11/30/15  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Small Entities Affected: Governmental Jurisdictions.
    Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
    URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Bonnie Graves, Attorney Advisor, Department of 
Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue 
SE., Washington, DC 20590, Phone: 202 366-0644, Email: 
[email protected].
    Related RIN: Merged with 2132-AB20
    RIN: 2132-AB07

DOT--FTA

100. +Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5329(c)
    CFR Citation: 49 CFR 673.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This rulemaking would establish requirements for States 
or recipients to develop and implement individual agency safety plans. 
The requirements of this rulemaking will be based on the principles and 
concepts of Safety Management Systems (SMS). SMS is the formal, top-
down, organization-wide approach to managing safety risks and assuring 
the effectiveness of a transit agency's safety risk controls. SMS 
includes systematic procedures, practices, and policies for managing 
hazards and risks.
    Statement of Need: The public transportation industry remains among 
the safest surface transportation modes in terms of total reported 
safety events, fatalities, and injuries. The National Safety Council 
(NSC) reports that, in most locations around the nation, passengers on 
public transportation vehicles are 40 to 70 times less likely to 
experience an accident than drivers and passengers in private 
automobiles. Nonetheless, given the complexity of public transportation 
service, the condition and performance of transit equipment and 
facilities, turnover in the transit workforce, and the quality of 
procedures, training, and supervision, the public transportation 
industry remains vulnerable to catastrophic accidents. This Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) proposes a minimal set of requirements for 
Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans that would carry out the 
several explicit statutory mandates in the Moving Ahead for Progress in 
the 21st Century Act (Pub. L. 112-141; July 6, 2012) (MAP-21), now 
codified at 49 U.S.C. 5329(d), to strengthen the safety of public 
transportation systems that receive Federal financial assistance under 
chapter 53. This NPRM proposes requirements for the adoption of Safety 
Management Systems (SMS) principles and methods; the development, 
certification, and update of Public Transportation Agency Safety Plans; 
and the coordination of Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan 
elements with other FTA programs and proposed rules, as specified in 
MAP-21.
    Summary of Legal Basis: 49 U.S.C. 5329(d).
    Alternatives: MAP-21 requires the Department to issue this 
regulation. The NPRM will set forth FTA's proposals for implementing 
the requirement for Public Transportation Safety Plans and solicit 
comments on alternatives to both the proposals therein and to 
regulation.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: FTA has determined that this is an 
``economically significant'' rule under Executive Order 12866, as it 
would cost approximately $111 million in the first year, and $90 
million per year thereafter. The average annual cost over a 20-year 
horizon period is $92 million. The benefits of the proposed rule are 
estimated at $775 million per year over the 20-year horizon period.
    Risks: The NPRM is merely a proposal for public comment, and would 
not impose any binding obligations. However, given that the safety 
program is new, there will likely be significant interest in any action 
FTA takes to implement the requirements of the program.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   01/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Candace Key, Department of Transportation, Federal 
Transit Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 
20590, Phone: 202 366-4011, Email: [email protected].
    Related RIN: Split from 2132-AB20, Related to 2132-AB22
    RIN: 2132-AB23

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

Proposed Rule Stage

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

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 60101 et seq.
    CFR Citation: 49 CFR 195.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This rulemaking would address effective procedures that 
hazardous liquid operators can use to improve the protection of High 
Consequence Areas (HCA) and other vulnerable areas along their 
hazardous liquid onshore pipelines. PHMSA is considering whether 
changes are needed to the regulations covering hazardous liquid onshore 
pipelines, whether other areas should be included as HCAs for integrity 
management (IM) protections, what the repair time frames should be for 
areas outside the HCAs that are

[[Page 77844]]

assessed as part of the IM program, whether leak detection standards 
are necessary, valve spacing requirements are needed on new 
construction or existing pipelines, and PHMSA should extend regulation 
to certain pipelines currently exempt from regulation. The agency would 
also address the public safety and environmental aspects any new 
requirements, as well as the cost implications and regulatory burden.
    Statement of Need: PHMSA is proposing to make the following changes 
to the hazardous liquid pipeline safety regulations: (1) Repeal the 
exception for gravity lines; (2) Extend certain reporting requirements 
to all hazardous liquid gathering lines; (3) Require inspections of 
pipelines in areas affected by extreme weather, natural disasters, and 
other similar events; (4) Require periodic assessments of pipelines 
that are not already covered under the integrity management (IM) 
program requirements; (5) Expand the use of leak detection systems on 
hazardous liquid pipelines to mitigate the effects of failures that 
occur outside of high consequence areas; (6) Modify the IM repair 
criteria, both by expanding the list of conditions that require 
immediate remediation and consolidating the timeframes for remediating 
all other conditions, and apply those same criteria to pipelines that 
are not subject to the IM requirements, with an adjusted schedule for 
performing non-immediate repairs; and, (7) Increase the use of inline 
inspection tools by requiring that any pipeline that could affect a 
high consequence area be capable of accommodating these devices within 
20 years, unless its basic construction will not permit that 
accommodation. (8) Other regulations will also be clarified to improve 
compliance and enforcement. These changes will protect the public, 
property, and the environment by ensuring that additional pipelines are 
subject to regulation, increasing the detection and remediation of 
unsafe conditions, and mitigating the adverse effects of pipeline 
failures. This rule responds to a congressional mandate in the 2011 
Pipeline Reauthorization Act (sections 5, 8, 21, 29, 14); NTSB 
recommendation P-12-03 and P-12-04; and GAO recommendation 12-388.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Congress established the current framework 
for regulating the safety of hazardous liquid pipelines in the 
Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Act (HLPSA) of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-129). 
Like its predecessor, the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act of 1968 (Pub. 
L. 90-481), the HLPSA provided the Secretary of Transportation 
(Secretary) with the authority to prescribe minimum Federal safety 
standards for hazardous liquid pipeline facilities. That authority, as 
amended in subsequent reauthorizations, is currently codified in the 
Pipeline Safety Laws (49 U.S.C. 60101 et seq.).
    Alternatives: The various alternatives analyzed included no action 
``status quo'' and individualized alternatives based on the proposed 
amendments.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: PHMSA cannot estimate costs or 
benefits precisely, but based on the information, the present value of 
costs and benefits over a 20-year period is approximately $56 million 
and $98 million, respectively at 7 percent. Thus, net benefits are 
approximately $46 million ($102 million-$56 million) over 20 years.
    Risks: The proposed rule will provide increased safety for the 
regulated entities and reduce pipeline safety risks.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM...............................   10/18/10  75 FR 63774
ANPRM Comment Period End............   01/18/11  .......................
ANPRM Comment Period Extended.......   01/04/11  76 FR 303
ANPRM Extended Comment Period End...   02/18/11  .......................
NPRM................................   10/13/15  80 FR 61609
NPRM Comment Period End.............   01/08/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

DOT--PHMSA

102. +Pipeline Safety: Gas Transmission

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 60101 et seq.
    CFR Citation: 49 CFR 192.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: In this rulemaking, PHMSA will be revisiting the 
requirements in the Pipeline Safety Regulations addressing integrity 
management principles for Gas Transmission pipelines. In particular, 
PHMSA will address: repair criteria for both HCA and non-HCA areas, 
assessment methods, validating and integrating pipeline data, risk 
assessments, knowledge gained through the IM program, corrosion 
control, management of change, gathering lines, and safety features on 
launchers and receivers.
    Statement of Need: PHMSA will be reviewing the definition of an HCA 
(including the concept of a potential impact radius), the repair 
criteria for both HCA and non-HCA areas, requiring the use of automatic 
and remote controlled shut off valves, valve spacing, and whether 
applying the integrity management program requirements to additional 
areas would mitigate the need for class location requirements. This 
rulemaking is in direct response to Congressional mandates in the 2011 
Pipeline reauthorization act, specifically; section 4 (e) Gas IM plus 6 
months), section 5(IM), 8 (leak detection), 23 (b)(2)(exceedance of 
MAOP); section 29 (seismicity).
    Summary of Legal Basis: Congress has authorized Federal regulation 
of the transportation of gas by pipeline under the Commerce Clause of 
the U.S. Constitution. Authorization is codified in the Pipeline Safety 
Laws (49 U.S.C. 60101 et seq.), a series of statutes that are 
administered by the DOT, PHMSA. PHMSA has used that authority to 
promulgate comprehensive minimum safety standards for the 
transportation of gas by pipeline.
    Alternatives: Alternative analyzed included no change and extension 
of the compliance deadlines associated with the major cost of the 
requirement area; namely, development and implementation of management 
of change processes that apply to all gas transmission pipelines beyond 
that which already applies to beyond IMP- and control center-related 
processes.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: PHMSA does not expect the proposed 
rule to adversely affect the economy or any sector of the economy in 
terms of productivity and employment, the environment, public health, 
safety, or State, local, or tribal government. PHMSA has also 
determined, as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, that the 
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities in the United States. Additionally, PHMSA

[[Page 77845]]

determined that the rule would not impose annual expenditures on State, 
local, or tribal governments in excess of $138 million, and thus does 
not require an Unfunded Mandates Reform Act analysis. However, the rule 
would impose annual expenditure on private sector in excess of $138 
million. Here is a summary of the costs and benefits: Present Values 
Calculated at 3 Percent Discount for Gas rule Avg Annual Cost Estimate: 
$138.3 Million/year. Avg Annual Benefit Estimate: $204.53 Million/year 
Avg Annual Net Benefit Estimate: $68.60 Million/year.
    Risks: This proposed rule will strengthen current pipeline 
regulations and lower the safety risk of all regulated entities.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM...............................   08/25/11  76 FR 53086
ANPRM Comment Period Extended.......   11/16/11  76 FR 70953
ANPRM Comment Period End............   12/02/11  .......................
End of Extended Comment Period......   01/20/12  .......................
NPRM................................   12/00/15  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

DOT--PHMSA

103. +Hazardous Materials: Oil Spill Response Plans and Information 
Sharing for High-Hazard Flammable Trains

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.
    CFR Citation: 49 CFR 130; 49 CFR 174.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: In this rulemaking, PHMSA is seeking comment on revisions 
to the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR) applicable to the 
transportation of oil by rail. Currently, the majority of the rail 
community transporting oil, including crude oil transported as a 
hazardous material, is subject to the basic oil spill response plan 
requirement of 49 CFR 130.31(a) based on the understanding that most 
rail tank cars being used to transport crude oil have a capacity 
greater than 3,500 gallons. However, a comprehensive response plan for 
the shipment of oil is only required when the oil is in a quantity 
greater than 42,000 gallons per package. Tank cars of this size are not 
used to transport oil by rail. As a result, the railroads do not file a 
comprehensive oil response plan. Based on this difference and the 
recent occurrence of high-profile accidents involving crude oil, the 
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has recommended in Safety 
Recommendation R-14-5 that the Department and PHMSA reconsider the 
threshold quantity for requiring the development of a comprehensive 
response plan for the shipment of oil. In response to the NTSB Safety 
Recommendation R-14-5 and significant interest from congressional 
stakeholders, environmental groups, and the general public, PHMSA is 
seeking specific comment on revisions to the oil spill response plan 
requirements in 49 CFR part 130, including threshold quantities.
    Statement of Need: This rulemaking is important to mitigate the 
effects of potential train accidents involving the release of flammable 
liquid energy products by increasing planning and preparedness. The 
proposals in this rulemaking are shaped by public comments, National 
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Safety Recommendations, analysis of 
recent accidents, and input from stakeholder outreach efforts 
(including first responders). To this end, PHMSA will consider 
expanding the applicability of comprehensive oil spill response plans; 
clarifying the requirements for comprehensive oil spill response plans; 
requiring railroads to share additional information; and providing an 
alternative test method for determining the initial boiling point of a 
flammable liquid.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The authority of 49 U.S.C. 5103(b), which 
authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to ``prescribe regulations 
for the safe transportation, including security, of hazardous materials 
in intrastate, interstate, and foreign commerce.'' The authority of 33 
U.S.C. 1321, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA), which 
directs the President to issue regulations requiring owners and 
operators of certain vessels and onshore and offshore oil facilities to 
develop, submit, update and in some cases obtain approval of oil spill 
response plans. Executive Order 12777 delegated responsibility to the 
Secretary of Transportation for certain transportation-related 
facilities. The Secretary of Transportation delegated the authority to 
promulgate regulations to PHMSA and provides FRA the approval authority 
for railroad ORSPs.
    Alternatives: PHMSA and FRA are committed to a comprehensive 
approach to addressing the risk and consequences of derailments 
involving flammable liquids by addressing not only oil spill response 
plans, but communication requirements between railroads and 
communities. Obtaining information and comments in a NPRM will provide 
the greatest opportunity for public participation in the development of 
regulatory amendments, and promote greater exchange of information and 
perspectives among the various stakeholders to promote future 
regulatory action on these issues.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The NPRM will request comments on 
both the path forward and the economic impacts. We will evaluate 
comments prior to developing the final rule, and once the final rule is 
drafted the costs and benefits will be detailed.
    Risks: DOT analyzed recent incidents, National Transportation 
Safety Board (NTSB) Safety Recommendations, received input from 
stakeholder outreach efforts (including first responders) to determine 
amending the applicability and requirements of comprehensive oil spill 
response plans and codifying requirements for information sharing is 
important. DOT will continue to research these topics and evaluate 
comment feedback prior to the final rule. DOT expects the highest 
ranked options will be low cost and most effective at providing better 
preparedness and planning to mitigate the effects of a derailment.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM...............................   08/01/14  79 FR 45079
ANPRM Comment Period End............   09/30/14  .......................
NPRM................................   01/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Additional Information: HM-251B; SB-N, IC-N, SLT-N.
    URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.

[[Page 77846]]

    Agency Contact: Ben Supko, Transportation Regulations Specialist, 
Department of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety 
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, 
Phone: 202 366-8553, Email: [email protected].
    Related RIN: Related to 2137-AE91, Related to 2137-AF07
    RIN: 2137-AF08

BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Statement of Regulatory Priorities

    The primary missions of the Department of the Treasury are:
     To promote prosperous and stable American and world 
economies, including promoting domestic economic growth and maintaining 
our Nation's leadership in global economic issues, supervising national 
banks and thrift institutions, and helping to bring residents of 
distressed communities into the economic mainstream.
     To manage the Government's finances by protecting the 
revenue and collecting the correct amount of revenue under the Internal 
Revenue Code, overseeing customs revenue functions, financing the 
Federal Government and managing its fiscal operations, and producing 
our Nation's coins and currency.
     To safeguard the U.S. and international financial systems 
from those who would use these systems for illegal purposes or to 
compromise U.S. national security interests, while keeping them free 
and open to legitimate users.
    Consistent with these missions, most regulations of the Department 
and its constituent bureaus are promulgated to interpret and implement 
the laws as enacted by the Congress and signed by the President. It is 
the policy of the Department to comply with applicable requirements to 
issue a notice of proposed rulemaking and carefully consider public 
comments before adopting a final rule. Also, the Department invites 
interested parties to submit views on rulemaking projects while a 
proposed rule is being developed.
    To the extent permitted by law, it is the policy of the Department 
to adhere to the regulatory philosophy and principles set forth in 
Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13609 and to develop regulations 
that maximize aggregate net benefits to society while minimizing the 
economic and paperwork burdens imposed on persons and businesses 
subject to those regulations.

Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau

    The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) issues 
regulations to implement and enforce the Federal laws relating to 
alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and ammunition excise taxes and certain 
non-tax laws relating to alcohol. TTB's mission and regulations are 
designed to:
    (1) Collect the taxes on alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and 
ammunition;
    (2) protect the consumer by ensuring the integrity of alcohol 
products; and
    (3) prevent unfair and unlawful market activity for alcohol and 
tobacco products.
    In the last several years, TTB has identified changes in the 
industries it regulates, as well as new technologies available in 
compliance enforcement. In response, TTB has focused on revising its 
regulations to ensure that it accomplishes its mission in a way that 
facilitates industry growth and reduces burdens where possible, while 
at the same time collecting the revenue and protecting consumers from 
deceptive labeling and advertising of alcohol beverages. This 
modernization effort resulted in the publishing of two key rulemakings 
that took effect in FY 2014-15 that reduced burden on TTB-regulated 
industry members.
    On March 27, 2014, TTB published a final rule (79 FR 17029) 
amending its regulations in 27 CFR part 73 regarding the electronic 
submission of forms and other documents. Among other things, this rule 
provided for the electronic submission to TTB of forms requiring third-
party signatures, such as bond forms and powers of attorney. It also 
provided that any requirement in the TTB regulations to submit a 
document to another agency may be met by the electronic submission of 
the document to the other agency, as long as the other agency provides 
for, and authorizes, the electronic submission of such document.
    On September 30, 2014, TTB published a final rule (79 FR 58674) 
that reduced the compliance burden for the beer industry. This rule 
reduced the penal sum of the bond required for certain small brewers to 
a flat $1,000, which applies to brewers whose excise tax liability is 
reasonably expected to be not more than $50,000 in a given calendar 
year and who were liable for not more than $50,000 in such taxes in the 
preceding calendar year. Additionally, TTB adopted as a final rule its 
prior proposal to provide that those brewers must file Federal excise 
tax returns, pay tax, and submit reports of operations less frequently, 
that is every quarter rather than twice monthly.
    As part of this rulemaking, TTB also made a number of changes to 
the forms brewers use to report on their operations. The two versions 
of the Brewer's Report of Operations forms (TTB F 5130.9 and TTB F 
5130.26) were streamlined based on feedback from the industry. These 
changes included removing two separate parts, adding clarifying 
instructions, and revising TTB F 5130.26 (previously for brewpub 
reporting only) to be an ``EZ'' reporting option for small brewers to 
facilitate the new quarterly reporting mandate. TTB released the new 
versions of the reports in the second quarter of FY 2015. This 
combination of regulatory amendments and form changes have reduced 
regulatory burdens and administrative costs for small brewers and 
created administrative efficiencies for TTB.
    In FY 2016, TTB will continue its multi-year Regulations 
Modernization effort by prioritizing projects that will update its 
Import and Export regulations, Labeling Requirements regulations, 
Specially Denatured and Completely Denatured Alcohol regulations, 
Nonbeverage Products regulations, Distilled Spirits Plant Reporting 
requirements, and Civil Monetary Penalty for Violations of the Alcohol 
Beverage Labeling Act regulation.
    This fiscal year TTB plans to give priority to the following 
regulatory matters:
    Revisions to Export and Import Regulations Related to the 
International Trade Data System. TTB is currently preparing for the 
implementation of the International Trade Data System (ITDS) and, 
specifically, the transition to an all-electronic import and export 
environment. The ITDS, as described in section 405 of the Security and 
Accountability for Every Port Act of 2006 (the ``SAFE Port Act'') 
(Public Law 109-347), is an electronic information exchange capability, 
or ``single window,'' through which businesses will transmit data 
required by participating Federal agencies for the importation or 
exportation of cargo. To enhance Federal coordination associated with 
the development of the ITDS and put in place specific deadlines for 
implementation, President Obama, on February 19, 2014, signed an 
Executive Order on Streamlining the Export/Import Process for America's 
Businesses. In line with section 3(e) of the Executive Order, TTB was 
required to develop a timeline for ITDS implementation. Updating the 
regulations for transition to the all-

[[Page 77847]]

electronic environment is part of the implementation process.
    TTB has completed its review of the relevant regulatory 
requirements and identified those that it intends to update to address 
an all-electronic environment. As noted above, TTB regulations in 27 
CFR part 73 have already been amended to remove regulatory barriers to 
the electronic submission of TTB-required documents to another agency. 
In FY 2016, TTB intends to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking to 
propose changes to TTB regulatory sections that address the submission 
of information or documentation at importation, and to update and 
streamline TTB regulatory processes for importations and make clear the 
circumstances in which the submission of certain data elements replaces 
the submission of paper documents. Specifically, TTB will propose that 
data from certain forms (e.g., the TTB F 5100.31 (Application for and 
Certification/Exemption of Label/Bottle Approval)) may be submitted 
electronically at importation through the ``single window'' in lieu of 
the submission of the paper documents to U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection personnel. TTB also reviewed existing requirements and 
processes to determine how the all-electronic environment can be used 
to reduce burden. For example, many regulatory provisions in TTB's 
import and export regulations require forms to be submitted in 
triplicate or quadruplicate, and the availability of the relevant data 
electronically makes such multiple submissions unnecessary. The 
amendments to the regulations that TTB will propose to implement ITDS 
for imports will facilitate legitimate trade and allow enforcement 
resources to be focused on identifying noncompliance.
    On August 7, 2015, TTB published a notice (80 FR 47558) announcing 
a pilot program for importers who want to gain experience with the ITDS 
``single window'' functionality for providing data on the TTB-regulated 
commodities. This pilot program will help familiarize both TTB and the 
public with the new environment and assist TTB and the public to refine 
the implementation of ITDS. TTB is planning to publish rulemaking on 
its import and export regulations in FY 2016, and the pilot program 
will provide valuable information for this undertaking.
    In addition, in recent years, TTB has identified selected sections 
of its export regulations (27 CFR parts 28 and 44) that it intends to 
amend to clarify and update the requirements. Under the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (IRC), the products taxed by TTB may be removed 
for exportation without payment of tax or with drawback of any excise 
tax previously paid, subject to the submission of proof of export. 
However, the current export regulations require industry members to 
obtain documents and follow procedures that do not reflect current 
technology or take into account current industry business practices. 
The notice of proposed rulemaking that TTB will publish to implement 
ITDS for exports will include proposals to amend the regulations to 
provide industry members with clear and updated procedures for removal 
of alcohol and tobacco products for exportation, thus facilitating 
exportation of those products. Increasing U.S. exports benefits the 
U.S. economy and is consistent with Treasury and Administration 
priorities.
    Revisions to the Labeling Requirements (Parts 4 (Wine), 5 
(Distilled Spirits), and 7 (Malt Beverages)). The Federal Alcohol 
Administration Act requires that alcohol beverages introduced in 
interstate commerce have a label issued and approved under regulations 
prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury. In accordance with the 
mandate of Executive Order 13563 of January 18, 2011, regarding 
improving regulation and regulatory review, TTB conducted an analysis 
of its labeling regulations to identify any that might be outmoded, 
ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome, and to modify, 
streamline, expand, or repeal them in accordance with that analysis. 
These regulations were also reviewed to assess their applicability to 
the modern alcohol beverage marketplace. As a result of this review, 
TTB plans to propose in FY 2016 revisions to modernize the regulations 
concerning the labeling requirements for wine, distilled spirits, and 
malt beverages. TTB anticipates that these regulatory changes will 
assist industry in voluntarily complying with these requirements for 
the over 160,000 label applications that are projected to be submitted 
in FY 2016, which will decrease industry burden associated with the 
label approval requirement and result in the regulated industries being 
able to bring products to market without undue delay.
    Revisions to Specially Denatured and Completely Denatured Alcohol 
Regulations. TTB proposed changes to regulations for specially 
denatured alcohol (SDA) and completely denatured alcohol (CDA) that 
will provide a reduction in regulatory burden while posing no risk to 
the revenue.
    Under the authority of the IRC, TTB regulates denatured alcohol 
that is unfit for beverage use, which may be removed from a regulated 
distilled spirits plant free of tax. SDA and CDA are widely used in the 
American fuel, medical, and manufacturing sectors. The industrial 
alcohol industry far exceeds the beverage alcohol industry in size and 
scope, and it is a rapidly growing industry in the United States. Some 
concerns have been raised that the current regulations may create 
significant roadblocks for industry members in getting products to the 
marketplace quickly and efficiently. To help alleviate these concerns, 
TTB published a notice of proposed rulemaking (78 FR 38628) and, in FY 
2016, plans to issue a final rule that will reclassify certain SDA 
formulas as CDA and issue new general-use formulas for articles made 
with SDA.
    TTB estimates that these changes will result in an 80 percent 
reduction in the formula approval submissions currently required from 
industry members. The reduction in formula submissions will enable TTB 
to redirect its resources to address backlogs that exist in other areas 
of TTB's mission activities, such as analyses of compliance samples for 
industrial/fuel alcohol to protect the revenue and working with 
industry to test and approve new and more environmentally friendly 
denaturants. Additionally, the reclassification of certain SDA formulas 
as CDA formulas will not jeopardize the revenue because it is more 
difficult to separate potable alcohol from CDA than it is from SDA, and 
CDA is less likely to be used for beverage purposes due to its taste. 
Similarly, authorizing new general-use formulas will not jeopardize the 
revenue because it will be difficult to remove potable alcohol from 
articles made with the specific SDA formulations. Other changes made by 
this final rule will remove unnecessary regulatory burdens and update 
the regulations to align them with current industry practice.
    Revision of the Part 17 Regulations, Drawback on Taxpaid Distilled 
Spirits Used in Manufacturing Nonbeverage Products, to Allow Self-
Certification of Nonbeverage Product Formulas. TTB is considering 
revisions to the regulations in 27 CFR part 17 governing nonbeverage 
products made with taxpaid distilled spirits. These nonbeverage 
products include foods, medicines, and flavors. This proposal, which 
TTB intends to publish in FY 2016, offers a new method of formula 
certification by incorporating quantitative standards into the 
regulations and establishing new voluntary procedures that would 
further

[[Page 77848]]

streamline the formula review process for products that meet the 
standards. This proposal provides adequate protection to the revenue 
because TTB will continue to receive submissions of certified formulas; 
however, TTB will not take action on certified formula submissions 
unless TTB discovers that the formulas require correction. By allowing 
for self-certification of certain nonbeverage product formulas, this 
proposal would nearly eliminate the need for TTB to formally approve 
all such formulas. These changes would result in significant cost 
savings for the nonbeverage alcohol industry, which currently must 
obtain formula approval from TTB, and some savings for TTB, which must 
review and take action to approve or disapprove each formula.
    Revisions to Distilled Spirits Plant Reporting Requirements. In FY 
2012, TTB published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) proposing to 
revise regulations in 27 CFR part 19 to replace the current four report 
forms used by distilled spirits plants to report their operations on a 
monthly basis with two new report forms that would be submitted on a 
monthly basis. (Plants that file taxes on a quarterly basis would 
submit the new reports on a quarterly basis.) This project will address 
numerous concerns and desires for improved reporting by the distilled 
spirits industry and result in cost savings to industry and TTB by 
significantly reducing the number of monthly plant operations reports 
that must be completed and filed by industry members and processed by 
TTB. TTB preliminarily estimates that this project will result in a 
reduction of paperwork burden hours for industry members, as well as 
savings in processing hours and contractor time for TTB. In addition, 
TTB estimates that this project will result in additional savings in 
staff time based on the more efficient and effective processing of 
reports and the use of report data to reconcile industry member tax 
accounts. In FY 2016, TTB intends to publish a Supplemental NPRM that 
will include new proposals to address comments received in response to 
the initial NPRM.
    Inflation Adjustment to the Civil Monetary Penalty for Violations 
of the Alcohol Beverage Labeling Act. The Federal Civil Penalties 
Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, as amended by the Debt Collection 
Improvement Act of 1996, requires Federal agencies to adjust certain 
civil monetary penalties for inflation according to a formula set out 
in the statute. In FY 2016, TTB plans to publish a final rule 
increasing the maximum penalty for violations of the Alcohol Beverage 
Labeling Act from $11,000 (the level at which it was set following the 
first inflation adjustment in 1996) to $16,000. The increased maximum 
penalty will help maintain the deterrent effect of the penalty.

Community Development Financial Institutions Fund

    The Community Development Financial Institutions Fund (CDFI Fund) 
was established by the Community Development Banking and Financial 
Institutions Act of 1994 (12 U.S.C. 4701 et seq.). The mission of the 
CDFI Fund is to increase economic opportunity and promote community 
development investments for underserved populations and in distressed 
communities in the United States. The CDFI Fund currently administers 
the following programs: The Community Development Financial 
Institutions (CDFI) Program, the Bank Enterprise Award (BEA) Program, 
the Native American CDFI Assistance (NACA) Program, the New Markets Tax 
Credit (NMTC) Program, the Financial Education and Counseling Pilot 
Program (FEC), the Capital Magnet Fund (CMF), and the CDFI Bond 
Guarantee Program (BGP).
    In FY 2016, the CDFI Fund will publish updated regulations for its 
Capital Magnet Fund (CMF) to incorporate the requirements of the 
Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit 
Requirements for Federal Awards (2 CFR part 200) and make other policy 
updates.

Customs Revenue Functions

    The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (the Act) provides that, although 
many functions of the former United States Customs Service were 
transferred to the Department of Homeland Security, the Secretary of 
the Treasury retains sole legal authority over customs revenue 
functions. The Act also authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to 
delegate any of the retained authority over customs revenue functions 
to the Secretary of Homeland Security. By Treasury Department Order No. 
100-16, the Secretary of the Treasury delegated to the Secretary of 
Homeland Security authority to promulgate regulations pertaining to the 
customs revenue functions subject to certain exceptions. This Order 
further provided that the Secretary of the Treasury retained the sole 
authority to approve such regulations.
    During the past fiscal year, among the customs-revenue function 
regulations issued were the United States-Australia Free Trade 
Agreement interim final rule, the Documentation Related to Goods 
Imported from U.S. Insular Possessions final rule, Technical 
Corrections to the North American Free Trade Agreement Uniform 
Regulations final rule, and Liberalization of Certain Documentary 
Evidence Required As Proof of Exportation on Drawback Claims final 
rule. On February 10, 2015, U.S. Customs and Border Protection 
published the United States-Australia Free Trade Agreement interim 
final rule (80 FR 7303) to the CBP regulations, which implemented the 
preferential tariff treatment and other customs-related provisions of 
the United States-Australia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act. In 
addition, on May 11, 2015, CBP and Treasury issued a final rule (80 FR 
26828) titled ``Technical Corrections to the North American Free Trade 
Agreement Uniform Regulations'' which amended CBP regulations 
implementing conforming changes of the preferential tariff treatment 
and other customs-related provisions of the North American Free Trade 
Agreement (NAFTA) entered into by the United States, Canada, and 
Mexico. On August 7, 2015, CBP issued a final rule (80 FR 47405) titled 
``Liberalization of Certain Documentary Evidence Required As Proof of 
Exportation on Drawback Claims'' which amended CBP regulations by 
removing some of the requirements for documentation used to establish 
proof of exportation for drawback claims.
    This past fiscal year, consistent with the goals of Executive 
Orders 12866 and 13563, Treasury and CBP issued a final rule titled 
``Documentation Related to Goods Imported From U.S. Insular 
Possessions'' on February 11, 2015 (80 FR 7537), that amended CBP 
regulations to eliminate the requirement that a customs officer at the 
port of export verify and sign CBP Form 3229, Certificate of Origin for 
U.S. Insular Possessions, and to require instead that the importer 
present this form, upon CBP's request, rather than submit it with each 
entry as the current regulations require. The amendments streamline the 
entry process by making it more efficient as it would reduce the 
overall administrative burden on both the trade and CBP. If the 
importer does not maintain CBP Form 3229 in its possession, the 
importer may be subject to a recordkeeping penalty.
    Treasury and CBP are currently working towards the implementation 
of the International Trade Data System (ITDS). The ITDS, as described 
in section 405 of the Security and Accountability for Every Port Act of 
2006 (the ``SAFE Port Act'') (Public Law 109-347), is an electronic 
information

[[Page 77849]]

exchange capability, or ``Single Window,'' through which businesses 
will transmit data required by participating agencies for the 
importation or exportation of cargo. To enhance Federal coordination 
associated with the development of the ITDS, Treasury and CBP plan to 
issue an interim regulation which will to reflect that on November 1, 
2015, the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) is a CBP-authorized 
Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) System. This regulatory document 
informs the public that the Automated Commercial System (ACS) is being 
phased out as a CBP-authorized EDI System for the processing electronic 
entry and entry summary filings (also known as entry filings). In the 
future when there is full functionality, ACE will replace the Automated 
Commercial System (ACS) as the CBP-authorized EDI system for processing 
commercial trade data.
    During fiscal year 2016, CBP and Treasury also plan to give 
priority to the following regulatory matters involving the customs 
revenue functions:
    Disclosure of Information for Certain Intellectual Property Rights 
Enforced at the Border. Treasury and CBP plan to finalize interim 
amendments to the CBP regulations which provides a pre-seizure notice 
procedure for disclosing information appearing on the imported 
merchandise and/or its retail packing suspected of bearing a 
counterfeit mark to an intellectual property right holder for the 
limited purpose of obtaining the right holder's assistance in 
determining whether the mark is counterfeit or not.
    Free Trade Agreements. Treasury and CBP also plan to issue final 
regulations this fiscal year to implement the preferential trade 
benefit provisions of the United States-Singapore Free Trade Agreement 
Implementation Act. Treasury and CBP also expect to issue final 
regulations implementing the preferential trade benefit provisions of 
the United States-Australia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act.
    In-Bond Process. Consistent with the practice of continuing to move 
forward with Customs Modernization provisions of the North American 
Free Trade Implementation Act to improve its regulatory procedures, 
Treasury and CBP plan to finalize this fiscal year the proposal to 
change the in-bond process by issuing final regulations to amend the 
in-bond regulations that were proposed on February 22, 2012 (77 FR 
10622). The proposed changes, including the automation of the in-bond 
process, would modernize, simplify, and facilitate the in-bond process 
while enhancing CBP's ability to regulate and track in-bond merchandise 
to ensure that in-bond merchandise is properly entered or exported.
    Inter-Partes Proceedings Concerning Exclusion Orders Based on 
Unfair Practices in Import Trade. Treasury and CBP plans to publish a 
proposal to amend its regulations with respect to administrative 
rulings related to the importation of articles in light of exclusion 
orders issued by the United States International Trade Commission 
(``Commission'') under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended. The proposed amendments seek to promote the speed, accuracy, 
and transparency of such rulings through the creation of an inter 
partes proceeding to replace the current ex parte process.
    Customs and Border Protection's Bond Program. Treasury and CBP plan 
to publish a final rule amending the regulations to reflect the 
centralization of the continuous bond program at CBP's Revenue 
Division. The changes proposed would support CBP's bond program by 
ensuring an efficient and uniform approach to the approval, 
maintenance, and periodic review of continuous bonds, as well as 
accommodating the use of information technology and modern business 
practices.

Office of the Comptroller of the Currency

    The primary mission of the Office of the Comptroller of the 
Currency (OCC) is to charter, regulate, and supervise all national 
banks and Federal Savings Associations (FSAs). The agency also 
supervises the Federal branches and agencies of foreign banks. The 
OCC's goal in supervising the financial institutions subject to its 
jurisdiction is to ensure that they operate in a safe and sound manner 
and in compliance with laws requiring fair treatment of their customers 
and fair access to credit and financial products.
    Significant rules issued during fiscal year 2015 include:
    Integration of National Bank and Federal Savings Association 
Regulations: Licensing Rules (12 CFR parts 4, 5, 7, 14, 32, 34, 100, 
116, 143, 144, 145, 146, 150, 152, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 174, 192, 
and 193). The OCC issued a final rule that integrates its rules 
relating to policies and procedures for corporate activities and 
transactions involving national banks and FSAs. The final rule also 
revises some of these rules in order to eliminate unnecessary 
requirements, consistent with safety and soundness; promote fairness in 
supervision; and to make other technical and conforming changes. The 
final rule also includes amendments to update OCC rules for agency 
organization and function. The final rule was issued on May 18, 2015, 
80 FR 28345.
    Flood Insurance (12 CFR parts 22 and 172). The banking agencies,\1\ 
Farm Credit Administration (FCA), and the National Credit Union 
Administration (NCUA) revised their regulations regarding loans in 
areas having special flood hazards to implement provisions of the 
Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act of 2014 (HFIAA), which 
amends some of the changes to the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 
mandated by the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012 
(Biggert-Waters). The rule requires the escrow of flood insurance 
payments on residential improved real estate securing a loan, 
consistent with the changes set forth in HFIAA. The final rule also 
incorporates an exemption in HFIAA for certain detached structures from 
the mandatory flood insurance purchase requirement. The rule also 
implements the provisions of Biggert-Waters related to the force 
placement of flood insurance. Finally, the rule integrates the OCC's 
flood insurance regulations for national banks and Federal savings 
associations. The final rule was issued on July 21, 2015, 80 FR 43216.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ OCC, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System 
(Board), and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Appraisal Management Companies (12 CFR part 34). The banking 
agencies, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), NCUA and the 
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) issued a rule that sets 
minimum standards for state registration and supervision of appraisal 
management companies (AMCs). The rule implements the minimum 
requirements in section 1473 of the Dodd-Frank Act to be applied by 
states in the registration and supervision of AMCs. It also implements 
the requirement in section 1473 of the Dodd-Frank Act for states to 
report to the Appraisal Subcommittee (ASC) of the Federal Financial 
Institutions Examination Council the information needed by the ASC to 
administer the national registry of AMCs. The final rule was issued on 
June 6, 2015, 80 FR 32658.
    Margin and Capital Requirements for Covered Swap Entities (12 CFR 
part 45). The banking agencies, FCA, and FHFA issued a proposed rule to 
establish minimum margin and capital requirements for registered swap 
dealers, major swap participants, security-based swap dealers, and 
major security-based swap participants for which one of the agencies is 
the prudential regulator. The proposed rule

[[Page 77850]]

will implement sections 731 and 764 of the Dodd-Frank Act, which 
require the agencies to adopt rules jointly to establish capital 
requirements and initial and variation margin requirements for such 
entities on all non-cleared swaps and non-cleared security-based swaps 
in order to offset the greater risk to such entities and the financial 
system arising from the use of swaps and security-based swaps that are 
not cleared. A second proposal was issued on September 24, 2014, 79 FR 
57348.
    Credit Risk Retention (12 CFR part 43). The banking agencies, 
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), FHFA, and the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) issued rules to implement the 
credit risk retention requirements of section 15G of the Securities 
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78o-11), as added by section 941 of the 
Dodd-Frank Act. Section 15G generally requires the securitizer of 
asset-backed securities to retain not less than 5 percent of the credit 
risk of the assets collateralizing the asset-backed securities. Section 
15G includes a variety of exemptions from these requirements, including 
an exemption for asset-backed securities that are collateralized 
exclusively by residential mortgages that qualify as ``qualified 
residential mortgages,'' as such term is defined by the agencies by 
rule. The final rule was issued on December 24, 2014, 78 FR 77602.
    Regulatory priorities for fiscal year 2016 include finalizing any 
proposals listed above as well as the following rulemakings:
    Automated Valuation Models (parts 34, 164). The banking agencies, 
NCUA, FHFA and CFPB, in consultation with the ASC and the Appraisal 
Standards Board of the Appraisal Foundation, are required to promulgate 
regulations to implement quality-control standards required under the 
statute. Section 1473(q) of the Dodd-Frank Act requires that automated 
valuation models used to estimate collateral value in connection with 
mortgage origination and securitization activity, comply with quality-
control standards designed to ensure a high level of confidence in the 
estimates produced by automated valuation models; protect against 
manipulation of data; seek to avoid conflicts of interest; require 
random sample testing and reviews; and account for other factors the 
agencies deem appropriate. The agencies plan to issue a proposed rule 
to implement the requirement to adopt quality-control standards.
    Incentive-Based Compensation Arrangements (12 CFR part 42). Section 
956 of the Dodd-Frank Act requires the banking agencies, NCUA, SEC, and 
FHFA, to jointly prescribe regulations or guidance prohibiting any type 
of incentive-based payment arrangement, or any feature of any such 
arrangement, that the regulators determine encourages inappropriate 
risks by covered financial institutions by providing an executive 
officer, employee, director, or principal shareholder with excessive 
compensation, fees or benefits, or that could lead to material 
financial loss to the covered financial institution. The Dodd-Frank Act 
also requires such agencies to jointly prescribe regulations or 
guidance requiring each covered financial institution to disclose to 
its regulator the structure of all incentive-based compensation 
arrangements offered by such institution sufficient to determine 
whether the compensation structure provides any officer, employee, 
director, or principal shareholder with excessive compensation or could 
lead to material financial loss to the institution. The proposed rule 
was issued on April 14, 2011, 76 FR 21170.
    Source of Strength (12 CFR part 47). The banking agencies plan to 
issue a proposed rule to implement section 616(d) of the Dodd-Frank 
Act. Section 616(d) requires that bank holding companies, savings and 
loan holding companies and other companies that directly or indirectly 
control an insured depository institution serve as a source of strength 
for the insured depository institution. The appropriate Federal banking 
agency for the insured depository institution may require that the 
company submit a report that would assess the company's ability to 
comply with the provisions of the statute and its compliance.
    Net Stable Funding Ratio (12 CFR part 50). The banking agencies 
plan to issue a proposed rule to implement the Basel net stable funding 
ratio standards. These standards would require large, internationally 
active banking organizations to maintain sufficient stable funding to 
support their assets, generally over a one-year time horizon.

Financial Crimes Enforcement Network

    As chief administrator of the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), the Financial 
Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) is responsible for developing and 
implementing regulations that are the core of the Department's anti-
money laundering and counter-terrorism financing efforts. FinCEN's 
responsibilities and objectives are linked to, and flow from, that 
role. In fulfilling this role, FinCEN seeks to enhance U.S. national 
security by making the financial system increasingly resistant to abuse 
by money launderers, terrorists and their financial supporters, and 
other perpetrators of crime.
    The Secretary of the Treasury, through FinCEN, is authorized by the 
BSA to issue regulations requiring financial institutions to file 
reports and keep records that are determined to have a high degree of 
usefulness in criminal, tax, or regulatory matters or in the conduct of 
intelligence or counter-intelligence activities to protect against 
international terrorism. The BSA also authorizes requiring designated 
financial institutions to establish anti-money laundering programs and 
compliance procedures. To implement and realize its mission, FinCEN has 
established regulatory objectives and priorities to safeguard the 
financial system from the abuses of financial crime, including 
terrorist financing, money laundering, and other illicit activity. 
These objectives and priorities include: (1) Issuing, interpreting, and 
enforcing compliance with regulations implementing the BSA; (2) 
supporting, working with, and as appropriate, overseeing compliance 
examination functions delegated to other Federal regulators; (3) 
managing the collection, processing, storage, and dissemination of data 
related to the BSA; (4) maintaining a government-wide access service to 
that same data and for network users with overlapping interests; (5) 
conducting analysis in support of policymakers, law enforcement, 
regulatory and intelligence agencies, and the financial sector; and (6) 
coordinating with and collaborating on anti-terrorism and anti-money 
laundering initiatives with domestic law enforcement and intelligence 
agencies, as well as foreign financial intelligence units.
    During fiscal year 2015, FinCEN issued the following regulatory 
actions:
    Anti-Money Laundering Program and SAR Requirements for Investment 
Advisers. On August 25, 2015, FinCEN published in the Federal Register 
a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to solicit public comment on 
proposed rules under the BSA that would prescribe minimum standards for 
anti-money laundering programs to be established by certain investment 
advisers and to require such investment advisers to report suspicious 
activity to FinCEN.
    Imposition of Special Measure against FBME Bank Ltd., formerly 
known as Federal Bank of the Middle East, Ltd., as a Financial 
Institution of Primary Money Laundering Concern. On July 29, 2015, 
FinCEN issued a final rule

[[Page 77851]]

imposing the fifth special measure under section 311 of the USA PATRIOT 
Act against FBME. The fifth special measure prohibits or conditions the 
opening or maintaining of correspondent or payable-through accounts for 
the designated institution by U.S. financial institutions. This action 
followed a notice of finding issued on July 22, 2014 that FBME is a 
financial institution of primary money laundering concern and an NPRM 
proposing the imposition of the fifth special measure. FBME filed suit 
on August 7, 2015 in the United States District Court for the District 
of Columbia; FBME also moved for a preliminary injunction. On August 
27, 2015, the Court granted the preliminary injunction and enjoined the 
rule from taking effect until a final judgment is entered.
    Imposition of Special Measure against Banca Privada d'Andorra as a 
Financial Institution of Primary Money Laundering Concern. On March 10, 
2015, FinCEN issued a finding that Banca Privada d'Andorra is a 
financial institution operating outside of the United States that is of 
primary money laundering concern under section 311 of the USA PATRIOT 
Act. Also on March 10, 2015, FinCEN issued an NPRM to impose the fifth 
special measure against the institution. The fifth special measure 
prohibits or conditions the opening or maintaining of correspondent or 
payable-through accounts for the designated institution by U.S. 
financial institutions.
    Administrative Rulings and Written Guidance. FinCEN published 4 
administrative rulings and written guidance pieces, and provided 30 
responses to written inquiries/correspondence interpreting the BSA and 
providing clarity to regulated industries.
    FinCEN's regulatory priorities for fiscal year 2016 include 
finalizing any initiatives mentioned above that are not finalized by 
fiscal year end, as well as the following in-process and potential 
projects:
    Customer Due Diligence Requirements. On August 4, 2014, FinCEN 
issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to solicit public comment 
on proposed rules under the BSA to clarify and strengthen customer due 
diligence requirements for banks, brokers or dealers in securities, 
mutual funds, and futures commission merchants and introducing brokers 
in commodities. The proposed rules contain explicit customer due 
diligence requirements and include a new regulatory requirement to 
identify beneficial owners of legal entity customers, subject to 
certain exemptions.
    Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts. FinCEN has drafted 
an NPRM to address requests from filers for clarification of certain 
requirements regarding the Report of Foreign Bank and Financial 
Accounts (FBAR), including requirements with respect to employees, who 
have signature authority over, but no financial interest in, the 
foreign financial accounts of their employers.
    Cross Border Electronic Transmittal of Funds. On September 27, 
2010, FinCEN issued an NPRM in conjunction with the feasibility study 
prepared pursuant to the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention 
Act of 2004 concerning the issue of obtaining information about certain 
cross-border funds transfers and transmittals of funds. As FinCEN has 
continued to work on developing the system to receive, store, and use 
this data, FinCEN has drafted a Supplemental NPRM to update the 
previously published proposed rule and provide additional information 
to those banks and money transmitters that will become subject to the 
rule.
    Anti-Money Laundering Program Requirements for Banks Lacking a 
Federal Functional Regulator. FinCEN has drafted an NPRM to remove the 
anti-money laundering (AML) program exemption for banks that lack a 
Federal functional regulator, including, but not limited to, private 
banks, non-federally insured credit unions, and certain trust 
companies. The proposed rule would prescribe minimum standards for AML 
programs and would ensure that all banks, regardless of whether they 
are subject to Federal regulation and oversight, are required to 
establish and implement AML programs.
    Amendments to the Definitions of Broker or Dealer in Securities. 
FinCEN has drafted an NPRM that proposes amendments to the regulatory 
definitions of broker or dealer in securities under the BSA 
regulations. The proposed changes would expand the current scope of the 
definitions to include funding portals and would require them to 
implement policies and procedures reasonably designed to achieve 
compliance with all of the BSA requirements that are currently 
applicable to brokers or dealers in securities.
    Amendment to the Bank Secrecy Act Regulations--Registration 
Requirements of Money Services Businesses. FinCEN is considering 
issuing an NPRM to amend the requirements for money services businesses 
with respect to registering with FinCEN.
    Changes to the Travel and Recordkeeping Requirements for Funds 
Transfers and Transmittals of Funds. FinCEN is considering changes to 
require that more information be collected and maintained by financial 
institutions on funds transfers and transmittals of funds and to lower 
the threshold.
    Changes to the Currency and Monetary Instrument Report (CMIR) 
Reporting Requirements. FinCEN will research, obtain, and analyze 
relevant data to validate the need for changes aimed at updating and 
improving the CMIR and ancillary reporting requirements. Possible areas 
of study to be examined could include current trends in cash 
transportation across international borders, transparency levels of 
physical transportation of currency, the feasibility of harmonizing 
data fields with bordering countries, and information derived from 
FinCEN's experience with Geographic Targeting Orders.
    Other Requirements. FinCEN also will continue to issue proposed and 
final rules pursuant to section 311 of the USA PATRIOT Act, as 
appropriate. Finally, FinCEN expects that it may propose various 
technical and other regulatory amendments in conjunction with its 
ongoing, comprehensive review of existing regulations to enhance 
regulatory efficiency, and as a result of the efforts of an interagency 
task force currently focusing on improvements to the U.S. regulatory 
framework for anti-money laundering.

Bureau of the Fiscal Service

    The Bureau of the Fiscal Service (Fiscal Service) administers 
regulations pertaining to the Government's financial activities, 
including: (1) Implementing Treasury's borrowing authority, including 
regulating the sale and issue of Treasury securities, (2) Administering 
Government revenue and debt collection, (3) Administering 
Governmentwide accounting programs, (4) Managing certain Federal 
investments, (5) Disbursing the majority of Government electronic and 
check payments, (6) Assisting Federal agencies in reducing the number 
of improper payments, and (7) Providing administrative and operational 
support to Federal agencies through franchise shared services.
    During fiscal year 2016, the Fiscal Service will accord priority to 
the following regulatory projects:
    Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Publishing Delinquent Debtor 
Information. The Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-
134, 110 Stat. 1321 (DCIA) authorizes

[[Page 77852]]

Federal agencies to publish or otherwise publicly disseminate 
information regarding the identity of persons owing delinquent nontax 
debts to the United States for the purpose of collecting the debts, 
provided certain criteria are met. Treasury proposes to issue a notice 
of proposed rulemaking seeking comments on a proposed rule that would 
establish the procedures Federal agencies must follow before 
promulgating their own rules to publish information about delinquent 
debtors and the standards for determining when use of this debt 
collection remedy is appropriate.
    Offset of Tax Refund Payments to Collect Past-Due Support. 
Currently, there is no time limit to recoup offset amounts that were 
collected from tax refunds to which the debtor taxpayer was not 
entitled. An interim rule with request for comments would provide a 
time limit for such recoupments.
    Debt Collection Authorities Under the Debt Collection Improvement 
Act of 1996. The Data Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014 
changed the statutory requirement for federal agencies to submit 
delinquent debts to Treasury for purposes of administrative offset from 
180 days delinquent to 120 days delinquent. The direct final rule will 
amend the regulations to conform to that statutory change.
    Amendment to Savings Bond Regulations. Fiscal Service plans to 
amend regulations in 31 CFR parts 315, 353, and 360 to allow 
consideration of certain state escheat claims when the state cannot 
show that the owner, coowner, or beneficiary is deceased.

Internal Revenue Service

    The Internal Revenue Service (IRS), working with the Office of Tax 
Policy, promulgates regulations that interpret and implement the 
Internal Revenue Code (Code) and related tax statutes. The purpose of 
these regulations is to carry out the tax policy determined by Congress 
in a fair, impartial, and reasonable manner, taking into account the 
intent of Congress, the realities of relevant transactions, the need 
for the Government to administer the rules and monitor compliance, and 
the overall integrity of the Federal tax system. The goal is to make 
the regulations practical and as clear and simple as possible.
    During fiscal year 2016, the IRS will accord priority to the 
following regulatory projects:
    Tax-Related Affordable Care Act Provisions. On March 23, 2010, the 
President signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 
(Pub. L. 111-148) and on March 30, 2010, the President signed the 
Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-152) 
(referred to collectively as the Affordable Care Act (ACA)). The ACA's 
reform of the health insurance system affects individuals, families, 
employers, health care providers, and health insurance providers. The 
ACA provides authority for Treasury and the IRS to issue regulations 
and other guidance to implement tax provisions in the ACA, some of 
which are already effective and some of which will become effective 
over the next several years. Since enactment of the ACA, Treasury and 
the IRS have issued a series of temporary, proposed, and final 
regulations implementing over a dozen provisions of the ACA, including 
the premium tax credit under section 36B of the Code, the small-
business health coverage tax credit under section 45R of the Code, new 
requirements for charitable hospitals under section 501(r) of the Code, 
limits on tax preferences for remuneration provided by certain health 
insurance providers under section 162(m)(6) of the Code, the employer 
shared responsibility provisions under section 4980H of the Code, the 
individual shared responsibility provisions under section 5000A of the 
Code, insurer and employer reporting under sections 6055 and 6056 of 
the Code, and several revenue-raising provisions, including fees on 
branded prescription drugs under section 9008 of the ACA, fees on 
health insurance providers under section 9010 of the ACA, the tax on 
indoor tanning services under 5000B of the Code, the net investment 
income tax under section 1411 of the Code, and the additional Medicare 
tax under sections 3101 and 3102 of the Code.
    In fiscal year 2016, Treasury and the IRS will continue to provide 
guidance to implement tax provisions of the ACA, including:
     Proposed and final regulations related to numerous aspects 
of the premium tax credit under section 36B, including the 
determination of minimum value of eligible-employer-sponsored plans;
     Regulations under section 4980I of the Code relating to 
the excise tax on high cost employer-provided coverage;
     Regulations on expatriate health plans under the 
Expatriate Health Coverage Clarification Act of 2014 for purposes of 
sections 36B, 4980I, and 5000A of the Code, and section 9010 of the 
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health 
Care and Education Reconciliation Act;
     Final regulations regarding issues related to the net 
investment income tax under section 1411 of the Code.
    Interest on Deferred Tax Liability for Contingent Payment 
Installment Sales. Section 453 of the Code generally allows taxpayers 
to report the gain from a sale of property in the taxable year or years 
in which payments are received, rather than in the year of sale. 
Section 453A of the Code imposes an interest charge on the tax 
liability that is deferred as a result of reporting the gain when 
payments are received. The interest charge generally applies to 
installment obligations that arise from a sale of property using the 
installment method if the sales price of the property exceeds $150,000, 
and the face amount of all such installment obligations held by a 
taxpayer that arose during, and are outstanding as of the close of, a 
taxable year exceeds $5,000,000. The interest charge provided in 
section 453A cannot be determined under the terms of the statute if an 
installment obligation provides for contingent payments. Accordingly, 
in section 453A(c)(6), Congress authorized the Secretary of the 
Treasury to issue regulations providing for the application of section 
453A in the case of installment sales with contingent payments. 
Treasury and the IRS intend to issue proposed regulations that, when 
finalized, will provide guidance and reduce uncertainty regarding the 
application of section 453A to contingent payments.
    Rules for Home Construction Contracts. In general, section 460(a) 
of the Code requires taxpayers to use the percentage-of-completion 
method (PCM) to account for taxable income from any long-term contract. 
Under the PCM, income is generally reported in installments as work is 
performed, and expenses are generally deducted in the taxable year 
incurred. However, taxpayers with contracts that meet the definition of 
a ``home construction contract,'' under section 460(e)(4), are not 
required to use the PCM for those contracts and may, instead, use an 
exempt method. Exempt methods include the completed contract method 
(CCM) and the accrual method. Under the CCM, for example, a taxpayer 
generally takes into account the entire gross contract price and all 
incurred allocable contract costs in the taxable year the taxpayer 
completes the contract. Treasury and the IRS believe that amended rules 
are needed to reduce uncertainty and controversy, including litigation, 
regarding when a contract qualifies as a ``home construction contract'' 
and when the income and allocable deductions are taken into account 
under the CCM. On August 4, 2008, Treasury and the IRS published 
proposed regulations on the types of

[[Page 77853]]

contracts that are eligible for the home construction contract 
exemption. The preamble to those regulations stated that Treasury and 
the IRS expected to propose additional rules specific to home 
construction contracts accounted for using the CCM. After considering 
comments received and the need for additional and clearer rules to 
reduce ongoing uncertainty and controversy, Treasury and the IRS have 
determined that it would be beneficial to taxpayers to present all of 
the proposed changes to the current regulations in a single document. 
Treasury and the IRS plan to withdraw the 2008 proposed regulations and 
replace them with new, more comprehensive proposed regulations.
    Research Expenditures. Section 41 of the Code provides a credit 
against taxable income for certain expenses paid or incurred in 
conducting research activities. To assist in resolving areas of 
controversy and uncertainty with respect to research expenses, Treasury 
and the IRS plan to issue final regulations with respect to the 
definition and credit eligibility of expenditures for internal use 
software.
    Income Inclusion When Lessee Treated as Having Acquired Investment 
Credit Property. Section 50(d)(5) of the Code provides that, for 
purposes of the investment credit, rules similar to former section 
48(d) (as in effect prior to the enactment of Revenue Reconciliation 
Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-508)) apply. Former section 48(d)(5)(B) of 
the Code generally provides that when a lessor of investment credit 
property elects to treat the lessee as having acquired the property, 
the lessee of the property must include an applicable amount in gross 
income. Treasury and the IRS plan to issue regulations to address how 
the section 50(d)(5) income-inclusion rules operate when a partnership 
is the lessee.
    Domestic Production Activities Income. Section 199 of the Code 
provides a deduction for certain income attributable to domestic 
production activities. To assist in resolving areas of controversy and 
uncertainty with respect to the eligibility of income from online 
computer software, Treasury and the IRS plan to issue regulations 
regarding the application of section 199 to online computer software.
    Consistent Basis Reporting between Estate and Person Acquiring 
Property from Decedent. On July 31, 2015, the President of the United 
States signed H.R. 3236, Surface Transportation and Veterans Health 
Care Choice Improvement Act of 2015 (Act) (P.L. 114-41), into law. 
Section 2004 of the Act added new Code sections 1014(f), 6035, and 
6662(k). Section 1014(f) provides rules requiring that the basis of 
certain property acquired from a decedent be consistent with the estate 
tax value of the property. Section 6035 requires executors who are 
required to file a return under section 6018(a) of the Code (and other 
persons required to file a return under section 6018(b)) after July 31, 
2015, to furnish statements with the IRS and certain estate 
beneficiaries providing information regarding the value of certain 
property acquired from a decedent. Section 6662(k) provides a penalty 
for certain recipients of property acquired from an estate required to 
file a return after July 31, 2015, who do not report a basis that is 
consistent with the value determined under section 1014(f) when the 
property is sold (or deemed sold). On August 21, 2015, Notice 2015-57 
was issued. This notice delayed the due date for any statements 
required by section 6035 to February 29, 2016. The IRS is in the 
process of issuing a form, a schedule, and instructions thereto to 
facilitate the reporting required by section 6035. It is expected these 
documents will be available in draft form for taxpayers' use prior to 
February 29, 2016. Treasury and the IRS will issue proposed regulations 
providing guidance under sections 1014(f), 6035, and 6662(k) within 18 
months of July 31, 2015.
    Arbitrage Investment Restrictions on Tax-Exempt Bonds. The 
arbitrage investment restrictions on tax-exempt bonds under section 148 
of the Code generally limit issuers from investing bond proceeds in 
higher-yielding investments. On September 16, 2013, Treasury and the 
IRS published proposed regulations (78 FR 56842) to address selected 
current issues involving the arbitrage investment restrictions, 
including guidance on the issue price definition used in the 
computation of bond yield, working capital financings, grants, 
investment valuation, modifications, terminations of qualified hedging 
transactions, and selected other issues. On June 24, 2015, Treasury and 
the IRS published proposed regulations (80 FR 36301) that revise the 
2013 guidance on the issue price definition. Treasury and the IRS plan 
to finalize the proposed regulations on the arbitrage investment 
restrictions, including the issue price definition used in the 
computation of bond yield.
    Guidance on the Definition of Political Subdivision for Tax-Exempt, 
Tax-Credit, and Direct-Pay Bonds. A political subdivision may be a 
valid issuer of tax-exempt, tax-credit, and direct-pay bonds. Concerns 
have been raised about what is required for an entity to be a political 
subdivision. Treasury and the IRS plan to provide additional guidance 
under section 103 of the Code for determining when an entity is a 
political subdivision.
    Contingent Notional Principal Contract Regulations. Notice 2001-44 
(2001-2 CB 77) outlined four possible approaches for recognizing 
nonperiodic payments made or received on a notional principal contract 
(NPC) when the contract includes a nonperiodic payment that is 
contingent in fact or in amount. The Notice solicited further comments 
and information on the treatment of such payments. After considering 
the comments received in response to Notice 2001-44, Treasury and the 
IRS published proposed regulations (69 FR 8886) (the 2004 proposed 
regulations) that would amend section 1.446-3 and provide additional 
rules regarding the timing and character of income, deduction, gain, or 
loss with respect to such nonperiodic payments, including termination 
payments. On December 7, 2007, Treasury and the IRS released Notice 
2008-2 requesting comments and information with respect to transactions 
frequently referred to as prepaid forward contracts. On May 8, 2015, 
Treasury and the IRS published temporary and proposed regulations (80 
FR 26437) relating to the treatment of nonperiodic payments. Treasury 
and the IRS plan to finalize the temporary regulations and to re-
propose regulations to address issues relating to the timing and 
character of nonperiodic contingent payments on NPCs, including 
termination payments and payments on prepaid forward contracts.
    Tax Treatment of Distressed Debt. A number of tax issues relating 
to the amount, character, and timing of income, expense, gain, or loss 
on distressed debt remain unresolved. During fiscal year 2016, Treasury 
and the IRS plan to address certain of these issues in published 
guidance.
    Definition of Real Property and Qualifying Income for REIT 
Purposes. A taxpayer must satisfy certain asset and income requirements 
to qualify as a real estate investment trust (REIT) under section 856 
of the Code. REITs have sought to invest in various types of assets 
that are not directly addressed by the current regulations or other 
published guidance. On May 14, 2014, Treasury and the IRS published 
proposed regulations (79 FR 27508) to update and clarify the definition 
of real property for REIT qualification purposes, including guidance 
addressing whether a component of a larger item is tested on its own or 
only as part of the larger item, the scope of the asset to be tested, 
and whether certain intangible assets qualify as real property. 
Treasury and the IRS plan to

[[Page 77854]]

finalize the proposed regulations in the fiscal year. Treasury and the 
IRS also plan to provide guidance clarifying the definition of income 
for purposes of section 856.
    Corporate Spin-offs and Split-offs. Section 355 and related 
provisions of the Code allow for the tax-free distribution of stock or 
securities of a controlled corporation if certain requirements are met. 
For example, the distributing corporation must distribute a controlling 
interest in the controlled corporation, and both the distributing and 
controlled corporations must be engaged in the active conduct of a 
trade or business immediately after the distribution. Treasury and the 
IRS intend to provide guidance on the qualification of a distribution 
for tax-free treatment under section 355, including (1) regulations 
that address when a corporation is treated as engaged in an active 
trade or business, and (2) final regulations that define predecessor or 
successor corporation for purposes of the exception to tax-free 
treatment under section 355(e). Treasury and the IRS also intend to 
provide guidance relating to the tax treatment of other transactions 
undertaken as part of a plan that includes a distribution of stock or 
securities of a controlled corporation, such as changes to the voting 
power of the controlled corporation's stock in anticipation of the 
distribution, the issuance of debt of the distributing corporation and 
retirement of such debt using stock or securities of the controlled 
corporation, and the transfer of cash or property between a 
distributing or controlled corporation and its shareholder(s) in 
connection with the distribution.
    Disguised Payments for Services. Section 707(a)(2)(A) of the Code 
provides that if a partner performs services for a partnership and 
receives a related direct or indirect allocation and distribution, and 
the performance of services and the allocation and distribution, when 
viewed together, are properly characterized as a transaction occurring 
between the partnership and a partner acting other than in its capacity 
as a partner, the transfer will be treated as occurring between the 
partnership and one who is not a partner. Treasury and the IRS 
published proposed regulations on July 23, 2015, to provide guidance on 
when an arrangement that is purported to be a distributive share under 
section 704(b) of the Code will be recharacterized as a disguised 
payment for services under section 707(a)(2)(A). The proposed 
regulations also provide for modifications to the regulations governing 
guaranteed payments under section 707(c) to make those regulations 
consistent with the proposed regulations under section 707(a)(2)(A). 
Treasury and the IRS expect to issue final regulations during fiscal 
year 2016.
    Transfers of Property to Partnerships with Related Foreign 
Partners. Section 721(c) of the Code provides authority to issue 
regulations that prevent the use of a partnership to shift gain to a 
foreign person. Treasury and the IRS exercised this authority on August 
6, 2015, by issuing Notice 2015-54. The notice denies nonrecognition 
treatment to certain contributions by U.S. persons to partnerships that 
have foreign partners related to the transferor, unless conditions that 
preserve U.S. taxing nexus with respect to the built-in gain in the 
transferred property are met. The notice also addresses the 
consequences under section 482 of the Code of controlled transactions 
involving partnerships. Treasury and the IRS intend to issue the 
regulations described in the notice in this fiscal year.
    Country-by-Country Reporting. This fiscal year, pursuant to 
authority granted under sections 6011, 6012, 6031, and 6038 of the 
Code, Treasury and the IRS expect to issue regulations requiring 
reporting of country-by-country information by large U.S. multinational 
enterprises (MNEs). The regulations will require those MNEs to report 
income, earnings, taxes paid, and certain economic activity for each 
country in which the MNE group conducts business, consistent with a 
template released by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and 
Development (OECD) as part of its report ``Guidance on Transfer Pricing 
Documentation and Country-by-Country Reporting.'' The information will 
be used for transfer pricing risk assessment.
    Currency. On September 6, 2006, Treasury and the IRS published a 
notice of proposed rulemaking under section 987 of the Code that 
proposes rules for translating a section 987 qualified business unit's 
income or loss into the taxpayer's functional currency for each taxable 
year, as well as for determining the amount of section 987 currency 
gain or loss that must be recognized when a section 987 qualified 
business unit makes a remittance. Treasury and the IRS expect to 
finalize the proposed regulations in this fiscal year.
    Disguised Sale and Allocation of Liabilities. A contribution of 
property by a partner to a partnership may be recharacterized as a sale 
under section 707(a)(2)(B) of the Code if the partnership distributes 
to the contributing partner cash or other property that is, in 
substance, consideration for the contribution. The allocation of 
partnership liabilities to the partners under section 752 of the Code 
may impact the determination of whether a disguised sale has occurred 
and whether gain is otherwise recognized upon a distribution. Treasury 
and the IRS published proposed regulations on January 30, 2014, to 
address certain issues that arise in the disguised sale context and 
other issues regarding the partners' shares of partnership liabilities. 
Treasury and the IRS are considering comments on the proposed 
regulations and expect to issue regulations on this issue in fiscal 
year 2016.
    Certain Partnership Distributions Treated as Sales or Exchanges. In 
1954, Congress enacted section 751 to prevent the use of a partnership 
to convert potential ordinary income into capital gain. In 1956, 
Treasury and the IRS issued regulations implementing section 751 of the 
Code. The current regulations, however, do not always achieve the 
purpose of the statute. In 2006, Treasury and the IRS published Notice 
2006-14 (2006-1 CB 498) to propose and solicit alternative approaches 
to section 751 that better achieve the purpose of the statute while 
providing greater simplicity. Treasury and the IRS published proposed 
regulations following up on Notice 2006-14 on November 3, 2014. These 
regulations were intended to provide guidance on determining a 
partner's interest in a partnership's section 751 property and how a 
partnership recognizes income required by section 751. Treasury and the 
IRS expect to issue final regulations during fiscal year 2016.
    Penalties and Limitation Periods. Congress amended several penalty 
provisions in the Internal Revenue Code in the past several years. 
Treasury and the IRS intend to publish a number of guidance projects in 
fiscal year 2016 addressing these penalty provisions. Specifically, 
Treasury and the IRS intend to publish final regulations under section 
6708 of the Code regarding the penalty for failure to make available 
upon request a list of advisees that is required to be maintained under 
section 6112 of the Code. The proposed regulations were published on 
March 8, 2013. Treasury and the IRS also intend to publish proposed 
regulations under sections 6662, 6662A, and 6664 of the Code to provide 
further guidance on the circumstances under which a taxpayer could be 
subject to the accuracy related penalty on underpayments or reportable 
transaction understatements and the reasonable cause exception.

[[Page 77855]]

    Inversion Transactions. On September 22, 2014, Treasury and the IRS 
issued Notice 2014-52, addressing the application of sections 7874 and 
367 of the Code to inversions, as well as certain tax avoidance 
transactions that are commonly undertaken after an inversion 
transaction. In this fiscal year, Treasury and the IRS expect to issue 
regulations implementing the rules described in Notice 2014-52. Also in 
this fiscal year, and as announced in Notice 2014-52, Treasury and the 
IRS expect to issue additional guidance to further limit inversion 
transactions that are contrary to the purposes of section 7874 and the 
benefits of post-inversion tax avoidance transactions.
    Information Reporting for Foreign Accounts of U.S. Persons. In 
March 2010, chapter 4 (sections 1471 to 1474) was added to subtitle A 
of the Internal Revenue Code as part of the Hiring Incentives to 
Restore Employment Act (HIRE Act) (Pub. L. 111-147). Chapter 4 was 
enacted to address concerns with offshore tax evasion by U.S. citizens 
and residents and generally requires foreign financial institutions 
(FFIs) to enter into an agreement (FFI Agreement) with the IRS to 
report information regarding financial accounts of U.S. persons and 
certain foreign entities with significant U.S. ownership. An FFI that 
does not enter into an FFI Agreement, or that is not otherwise deemed 
compliant with FATCA, generally will be subject to a withholding tax on 
the gross amount of certain payments from U.S. sources. Treasury and 
the IRS have issued proposed, temporary, and final regulations under 
chapter 4, followed by proposed and temporary regulations modifying 
certain provisions of the final regulations; proposed and temporary 
regulations under chapters 3 and 61, and section 3406, to coordinate 
with those chapter 4 regulations; as well as implementing revenue 
procedures and other guidance. Treasury and the IRS expect to issue 
further guidance with respect to FATCA and related provisions in this 
fiscal year, including finalizing of the aforementioned chapter 3, 4 
and 61 regulations and proposed regulations covering the compliance 
requirement of entities acting as sponsoring entities on behalf of 
certain foreign entities.
    Foreign Tax Credits and Covered Asset Acquisitions. Section 901(m) 
of the Code limits the availability of foreign tax credits in certain 
cases in which U.S. tax law and foreign tax law provide different rules 
for recognizing income and gain. In 2014, Treasury and the IRS issued 
two notices providing guidance under section 901(m) regarding the 
treatment of gains and losses from dispositions. In this fiscal year, 
Treasury and the IRS expect to issue regulations to implement these 
notices, and also provide substantial additional guidance under section 
901(m).
    Transfers of Property to Foreign Corporations. Section 367 of the 
Code provides special rules to address the transfer of property, 
including intangible property, by U.S. persons to foreign corporations 
in certain nonrecognition transactions. Under existing temporary 
regulations issued in 1986, favorable treatment is afforded to the 
outbound transfer of ``foreign goodwill and going concern value,'' 
which has created incentives for taxpayers to categorize transfers of 
high-value intangible property as such. On September 14, 2015, Treasury 
and the IRS released proposed regulations that would eliminate that 
favorable treatment. Treasury and the IRS released on the same day 
temporary and proposed regulations under section 482 that clarify the 
coordination of the application of the transfer pricing rules in 
conjunction with other provisions, including section 367. Treasury and 
the IRS intend to finalize the proposed section 367 regulations and the 
temporary and proposed section 482 regulations in this fiscal year.
    Section 501(c) Guidance. After reviewing over 160,000 comments 
submitted on the proposed regulations under section 501(c)(4) published 
in fiscal year 2014, Treasury and the IRS plan to issue revised 
proposed regulations that provide guidance under section 501(c) 
relating to limitations on political campaign activities of certain 
tax-exempt organizations.
    Guidance on Multiemployer Benefit Suspensions. The Multiemployer 
Pension Reform Act of 2014 (MPRA) enacted new rules for multiemployer 
plans that are projected to have insufficient funds, at some point in 
the future, to pay the full plan benefits to which individuals will be 
entitled. MPRA permits the sponsor of such a plan to reduce the pension 
benefits payable to plan participants and beneficiaries if certain 
conditions are satisfied, after submitting an application to Treasury 
for approval and conducting a participant vote. Two sets of proposed 
and temporary regulations, each set covering different aspects of the 
legislation, have been published, as well as a revenue procedure 
concerning the application process. A public hearing on the first set 
of regulations has been held and over 700 comments received. Treasury 
and the IRS plan to finalize both sets of regulations in this fiscal 
year.
    ABLE Account guidance. On December 19, 2014, Congress passed The 
Stephen Beck, Jr., Achieving a Better Life Experience (ABLE) Act of 
2014, adding section 529A to the Code to enable states to create 
qualified ABLE programs under which disabled individuals may establish 
a tax-advantaged account to pay for disability-related expenses. To be 
eligible to establish an ABLE account, the individual must have become 
disabled prior to age 26. As required by the statute, Treasury and the 
IRS on June 19, 2015, published proposed regulations implementing the 
provision. States may rely on the proposed regulations for establishing 
a qualified ABLE program. Treasury and the IRS intend to finalize the 
regulations during the 2016 fiscal year, taking into account all 
comments received.
    Guidance Responding to the SEC's Money Market Reform Rule. On July 
23, 2014, the SEC adopted a final rule to reduce the systemic risk that 
money market funds present to the national economy. Later that day, 
Treasury and the IRS issued simplifying guidance, including proposed 
regulations (79 FR 43694), designed to ameliorate the tax compliance 
difficulties that the SEC rule would otherwise pose for certain money 
market funds and their shareholders. In fiscal year 2016, Treasury and 
the IRS intend to finalize the proposed regulations.
    Guidance Relating to Publicly Traded Partnerships. Section 7704 of 
the Code provides that a partnership whose interests are traded on 
either an established securities market or on a secondary market (a 
``publicly traded partnership'') is generally treated as a corporation 
for Federal tax purposes. However, section 7704(c) permits publicly 
traded partnerships to be treated as partnerships for Federal tax 
purposes if 90 percent or more of partnership income consists of 
``qualifying income.'' Section 7704(d) provides that income is 
generally qualifying income if it is passive income or is derived from 
exploration, development, mining or production, processing, refining, 
transportation, or marketing of a mineral or natural resource. Treasury 
and the IRS issued proposed regulations in 2015 to provide guidance and 
reduce uncertainty regarding the scope of the natural resource 
exception. After considering comments on the proposed regulations, 
Treasury and the IRS expect to issue final regulations in fiscal year 
2016.
BILLING CODE 4810-25-P


[[Page 77856]]



DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS (VA)

Statement of Regulatory Priorities

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

VA Regulatory Priorities

    VA's main regulatory priority is to implement the Veterans Access, 
Choice, and Accountability Act of 2014, which has been amended by 
Congress in 2015 (Public Laws 114-19 and 114-41). The purpose of the 
law is to establish a program to furnish hospital care and medical 
services through non-VA health care providers to veterans who cannot be 
seen within VA's wait time goals, live far from any VA medical 
facility, or would face undue hardship travelling to a VA medical 
facility.

Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations

    Pursuant to section 6 of Executive Order 13563 ``Improving 
Regulation and Regulatory Review'' (Jan. 18, 2011), the following 
Regulatory Identifier Numbers (RINs) have been identified as associated 
with retrospective review and analysis in the Department's final 
retrospective review of regulations plan. Some of these entries on this 
list may be completed actions, which do not appear in The Regulatory 
Plan. However, more information can be found about these completed 
rulemakings in past publications of the Unified Agenda on Reginfo.gov 
in the Completed Actions section for that agency. These rulemakings can 
also be found on Regulations.gov. The final agency plans can be found 
at: http://www.va.gov/ORPM/docs/RegMgmt_VA_EO13563_VA_OIRA_Status_Report_201507.pdf.
    VA's most recent report on its retrospective review of regulations 
can be found at: http://www.va.gov/ORPM/docs/RegMgmt_VA_EO13563_RegRevPlan20110810.docx.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Significantly reduce
            RIN                   Title            burdens on small
                                                      businesses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2900-AP50..................  Revise and       No.
                              Streamline VA
                              Acquisition
                              Regulation to
                              Adhere to
                              Federal
                              Acquisition.
2900-AO53..................  Fiduciary        No.
                              Activities.
Multiple RINs..............  VA Schedule for  No.
                              Rating
                              Disabilities
                              (with specific
                              body system).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

BILLING CODE 8320-01-P

ARCHITECTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS COMPLIANCE BOARD

FY 2016 Regulatory Plan

Statement of Regulatory and Deregulatory Priorities

    The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board 
(Access Board) is an independent federal agency established by section 
502 of the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. 792). The Access Board is 
responsible for developing accessibility guidelines and standards under 
various laws to ensure that individuals with disabilities have access 
to and use of buildings and facilities, transportation vehicles, 
information and communication technology, and medical diagnostic 
equipment. Other federal agencies adopt the accessibility guidelines 
and standards issued by the Access Board as mandatory requirements for 
entities under their jurisdiction.
    This plan highlights four rulemaking priorities for the Access 
Board in FY 2016: (A) Information and Communication Technology 
Accessibility Standards and Guidelines; (B) Americans with Disabilities 
Act (ADA) Accessibility Guidelines for Transportation Vehicles; (C) 
Medical Diagnostic Equipment Accessibility Standards; and (D) 
Accessibility Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities in the Public Right-
of-Way. The guidelines and standards would enable individuals with 
disabilities to achieve greater participation in our society, 
independent living, and economic self-sufficiency, and would promote 
our national values of equity, human dignity, and fairness, the 
benefits of which are difficult to quantify.
    The rulemakings are summarized below.

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

    This rulemaking would update in a single document the accessibility 
standards for electronic and information technology covered by section 
508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. 794d) 
(Section 508), and the accessibility guidelines for telecommunications 
equipment and customer premises equipment covered by section 255 of the 
Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 255) (Section 255). Section 508 
requires the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council (FAR Council) and 
each appropriate federal department or agency to revise their 
procurement policies and directives no later than 6 months after the 
Access Board's publication of standards. The FAR Council has 
incorporated the accessibility standards for electronic and information 
technology in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (48 CFR Chapter 1). 
Under section 255, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is 
responsible for issuing implementing regulations and enforcing section 
255. The FCC has promulgated enforceable standards (47 CFR parts 6 and 
7) implementing section 255 that are consistent with the Access Board's 
accessibility guidelines for telecommunications equipment and

[[Page 77857]]

customer premises equipment. The Access Board's 2010 ANPRM included a 
proposal to amend section 220 of the Americans with Disabilities Act 
Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG), but, based on public comments, the 
ADAAG proposal is no longer included in this rulemaking and will be 
pursued separately at a later date.
    A.1. Statement of Need: The Access Board issued the Electronic and 
Information Technology Accessibility Standards in 2000 (65 FR 80500, 
December 21, 2000), and the Telecommunications Act Accessibility 
Guidelines for telecommunications equipment and customer premises 
equipment in 1998 (63 FR 5608, February 3, 1998). Since the standards 
and the guidelines were issued, technology has evolved and changed. 
Telecommunications products and electronic and information technology 
products have converged. For example, smartphones can perform many of 
the same functions as computers. Real time text technologies and video 
relay services are replacing TTY's (text telephones). The Access Board 
is updating the standards and guidelines together to address changes in 
technology and to make them consistent.
    A.2. Summary of the Legal Basis: Section 508 and Section 255 
require the Access Board to develop accessibility standards for 
electronic and information technology and accessibility guidelines for 
telecommunications equipment and customer premises equipment, and to 
periodically review and update the standards and guidelines to reflect 
technological advances and changes.
    Section 508 requires that when developing, procuring, maintaining, 
or using electronic and information technology, each federal department 
or agency must ensure, unless an undue burden would be imposed on the 
department or agency, that electronic and information technology 
(regardless of the type of medium) allows individuals with disabilities 
to have access to and use of information and data that is comparable to 
the access and use of the information and data by others without 
disabilities. Section 255 requires telecommunications manufacturers to 
ensure that telecommunications equipment and customer premises 
equipment are designed, developed, and fabricated to be accessible to 
and usable by individuals with disabilities when it is readily 
achievable to do so.
    A.3. Alternatives: The Access Board established a 
Telecommunications and Electronic and Information Technology Advisory 
Committee to recommend changes to the existing standards and 
guidelines. The advisory committee was comprised of a broad cross-
section of stakeholders, including representatives from industry, 
disability groups, and government agencies from the U.S. the European 
Commission, Canada, Australia, and Japan. Recognizing the importance of 
standardization across markets worldwide, the advisory committee 
coordinated its work with standard-setting bodies in the U.S. and 
abroad, such as the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). The Access Board 
expects that the Information and Communication Technology Standards and 
Guidelines will have international influences. The Access Board first 
published Advance Notices of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRMs) in the 
Federal Register in 2010 and 2011 requesting public comments on draft 
updates to the standards and guidelines (75 FR 13457, March 22, 2010; 
and 76 FR 76640, December 8, 2011). The NPRM was published in the 
Federal Register on February 27, 2015 (80 FR 10880). The comment period 
closed on May 28, 2015. The proposed rule, comments on the proposed 
rule, records and transcripts from three public hearings, and the 
preliminary regulatory impact analysis are available in the rulemaking 
docket at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=ATBCB-2015-0002. 
The final rule will address and incorporate comments submitted in 
response to the NPRM.
    A.4. Anticipated Costs and Benefits: The Access Board worked with a 
contractor to assess costs and benefits and prepare a preliminary 
regulatory impact assessment to accompany the NPRM. Baseline cost 
estimates of complying with Section 508 and Section 255 are made, and 
incremental costs due to the revised or new requirements are estimated 
for federal agencies and telecommunications equipment manufacturers. 
Anticipated benefits are also numerous, including hard-to quantify 
benefits such as increased ability for people with disabilities to 
obtain information and conduct transactions electronically. The Access 
Board will prepare a final regulatory impact assessment to accompany 
the final rule, which will incorporate information received from 
commenters to the NPRM.

B. Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) Accessibility Guidelines for 
Transportation Vehicles (RIN: 3014-AA38).

    This rulemaking would update the accessibility guidelines for 
buses, over-the-road buses, and vans covered by the Americans with 
Disabilities Act (ADA). The accessibility guidelines for other 
transportation vehicles covered by the ADA, including vehicles operated 
in fixed guideway systems (e.g., rapid rail, light rail, commuter rail, 
high speed rail and intercity rail) would be updated in a future 
rulemaking. The guidelines ensure that transportation vehicles covered 
by the ADA are readily accessible to and usable by individuals with 
disabilities. The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) has issued 
enforceable standards (49 CFR part 37) that apply to the acquisition of 
new, used, and remanufactured transportation vehicles, and the 
remanufacture of existing transportation vehicles covered by the ADA. 
DOT is expected to update its standards in a separate rulemaking to be 
consistent with the updated guidelines.
    B.1. Statement of Need: The Access Board issued the ADA 
Accessibility Guidelines for Transportation Vehicles in 1991, and 
amended the guidelines in 1998 to include additional requirements for 
over-the-road buses. Level boarding bus systems were introduced in the 
U.S. after the 1991 guidelines were issued. We are revising the 1991 
guidelines to include new requirements for level boarding bus systems, 
automated stop and route announcements, and other changes.
    B.2. Summary of the Legal Basis: Title II of the ADA applies to 
state and local governments and title III of the ADA applies to places 
of public accommodation operated by private entities. The ADA covers 
designated public transportation services provided by state and local 
governments and specified public transportation services provided by 
private entities that are primarily engaged in the business of 
transporting people and whose operations affect commerce. (See 42 
U.S.C. 12141 to 12147 and 12184.) Bus rapid transit systems, including 
level boarding bus systems, that provide public transportation 
services, are covered by the ADA.
    The Access Board is required by the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act 
to establish and maintain guidelines for the accessibility standards 
adopted by DOT for transportation vehicles acquired or manufactured by 
entities covered by the ADA. Compliance with the new guidelines is not 
required until DOT revises its accessibility standards for 
transportation vehicles acquired or remanufactured by entities covered 
by the ADA to be consistent with the new guidelines.
    B.3. Alternatives: The Access Board issued a Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking to revise the 1991 guidelines for buses, over-the-road 
buses, and vans in 2010

[[Page 77858]]

(75 FR 43748, July 26, 2010). The proposed rule, comments on the 
proposed rule, transcripts from public hearings and an information 
meeting, and other related documents are available in the rulemaking 
docket at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=ATBCB-2010-0004. 
The final rule will address and incorporate comments submitted in 
response to the NPRM.
    B.4. Anticipated Costs and Benefits: In conjunction with the NPRM, 
the Access Board published a report entitled ``Cost Estimates for 
Automated Stop and Route Announcements'' (July 2010), which is 
available on the agency Web site (www.access-board.gov) and the 
rulemaking docket. A final regulatory assessment will be prepared to 
accompany the final rule. The final regulatory assessment will evaluate 
estimated incremental costs for new or revised requirements for buses, 
over-the-road buses, and vans in the final rule, as well as provide a 
description of qualitative benefits. It is anticipated that this rule 
will improve access to wheeled transportation vehicles for persons who 
have mobility disabilities, persons who have difficulty hearing or are 
deaf, and persons who have difficulty seeing or are blind to make 
better use of transportation services.

C. Medical Diagnostic Equipment Accessibility Standards (RIN: 3014-
AA40).

    The Access Board plans to issue a final rule establishing 
accessibility standards for medical diagnostic equipment used in or in 
conjunction with medical settings such as physicians' offices, clinics, 
emergency rooms, and hospitals. The standards will contain minimum 
technical criteria to ensure that medical diagnostic equipment, 
including examination tables, examination chairs, weight scales, 
mammography equipment, and other imaging equipment used by health care 
providers for diagnostic purposes are accessible to and usable by 
individuals with disabilities. The Access Board published a Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register in 2012 (77 FR 6916, 
February 9, 2012).
    C.1. Statement of Need: A national survey of a diverse sample of 
individuals with a wide range of disabilities, including mobility and 
sensory disabilities, showed that the respondents had difficulty 
getting on and off examination tables and chairs, radiology equipment 
and weight scales, and experienced problems with physical comfort, 
safety and communication. Focus group studies of individuals with 
disabilities also provided information on barriers that affect the 
accessibility and usability of various types of medical diagnostic 
equipment. The national survey and focus group studies are discussed in 
the NPRM.
    C.2. Summary of the Legal Basis: Section 4203 of the Patient 
Protection and Affordable Care Act (Pub. L. 111-148, 124 Stat. 570) 
amended title V of the Rehabilitation Act, which establishes rights and 
protections for individuals with disabilities, by adding section 510 to 
the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. 794f) (Section 510). Section 510 
requires the Access Board, in consultation with the Commissioner of the 
Food and Drug Administration (FDA), to develop standards that contain 
minimum technical criteria to ensure that medical diagnostic equipment 
used in or in conjunction with medical settings such as physicians' 
offices, clinics, emergency rooms, and hospitals are accessible to and 
usable by individuals with disabilities.
    Section 510 does not address who is required to comply with the 
standards. However, the Americans with Disabilities Act requires health 
care providers to provide individuals with disabilities full and equal 
access to their health care services and facilities. The U.S. 
Department of Justice (DOJ) is responsible for issuing regulations to 
implement the Americans with Disabilities Act and enforcing the law. 
The NPRM discusses DOJ activities related to health care providers and 
medical diagnostic equipment.
    C.3. Alternatives: The Access Board worked with the FDA and DOJ in 
developing the standards. The Access Board considered the Association 
for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation's ANSI/AAMI HE 75:2009, 
``Human factors engineering-Design of medical devices,'' which includes 
recommended practices to provide accessibility for individuals with 
disabilities. The Access Board also established a Medical Diagnostic 
Equipment Accessibility Standards Advisory Committee that included 
representatives from the disability community and manufacturers of 
medical diagnostic equipment to make recommendations on issues raised 
in public comments and responses to questions in the NPRM. The Advisory 
Committee report, completed in December 2013, is available at http://www.access-board.gov/guidelines-and-standards/health-care/about-this-rulemaking/advisory-committee-final-report. The final rule will be 
based recommendations of the advisory committee, and will also address 
and incorporate comments submitted in response to the NPRM.
    C.4. Anticipated Costs and Benefits: In conjunction with the NPRM, 
the Access Board published a preliminary regulatory assessment of the 
proposed MDE standards. The Access Board is working on a final 
regulatory assessment, which will evaluate the incremental costs and 
benefits of the final rule from quantitative and qualitative 
perspectives as information permits. It is anticipated that the final 
MDE standards will address many of the barriers that have been 
identified as affecting the accessibility and usability of diagnostic 
equipment by individuals with disabilities. The standards aim to 
facilitate independent transfers by individuals with disabilities onto 
and off of diagnostic equipment, and enable them to maintain their 
independence, confidence, and dignity, lessening the need for health 
care personnel to assist individuals with disabilities when 
transferring on and off of diagnostic equipment. The standards also are 
expected to improve the quality of health care for individuals with 
disabilities and ensure that they receive examinations, diagnostic 
procedures, and other health care services equivalent to those received 
by individuals without disabilities.

D. Accessibility Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities in the Public 
Right-of-Way (RIN: 3014-AA26).

    The rulemaking would establish accessibility guidelines to ensure 
that sidewalks and pedestrian facilities in the public right-of-way are 
accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. A 
Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking consolidated this rulemaking 
with RIN 3014-AA41; accessibility guidelines for shared use paths 
(which are multi-use paths designed primarily for use by bicyclists and 
pedestrians--including persons with disabilities--for transportation 
and recreation purposes). The U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. 
Department of Transportation, and other federal agencies are expected 
to adopt the accessibility guidelines for pedestrian facilities in the 
public right-of way and for shared use paths, as enforceable standards 
in separate rulemakings for the construction and alteration of 
facilities covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act, section 504 
of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Architectural Barriers Act.
    D.1. Statement of Need: While the Access Board has issued 
accessibility guidelines for the design, construction, and alteration 
of buildings and facilities covered by the Americans with

[[Page 77859]]

Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Architectural Barriers Act (ABA) (36 CFR 
part 1191), these guidelines were developed primarily for buildings and 
facilities on sites. Some of the provisions in these guidelines can be 
readily applied to pedestrian facilities in the public right-of-way 
such as curb ramps. However, other provisions need to be adapted or new 
provisions developed for pedestrian facilities that are built in the 
public right-of-way as well as shared use paths.
    D.2. Summary of the Legal Basis: Section 502 (b)(3) of the 
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. 792 (b)(3), requires 
the Access Board to establish and maintain minimum guidelines for the 
standards issued by other agencies pursuant to the ADA and ABA. In 
addition, section 504 of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. 12204, required the Access 
Board to issue accessibility guidelines for buildings and facilities 
covered by that law.
    D.3. Alternatives: The Access Board established a Public Rights-of-
Way Access Advisory Committee to make recommendations for the 
guidelines. The advisory committee was comprised of a broad cross-
section of stakeholders, including representatives of state and local 
government agencies responsible for constructing facilities in the 
public right-of-way, transportation engineers, disability groups, and 
bicycling and pedestrian organizations. The Access Board released two 
drafts of the guidelines for public comment, an NPRM (76 FR 44664, July 
11, 2011) based on the advisory committee report and public comments on 
the draft guidelines, and a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking 
(SNPRM) regarding shared use paths (78 FR 10110, February 13, 2013). 
The final rule will address and incorporate comments submitted in 
response to the NPRM and SNPRM.
    D.4. Anticipated Costs and Benefits: In conjunction with the NPRM, 
the Access Board published a preliminary regulatory assessment of the 
proposed accessibility guidelines for pedestrian facilities in the 
public right-of-way, which is available in the rulemaking docket at 
http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=ATBCB-2011-0004. The Access 
Board identified four provisions in the NPRM that were expected to have 
more than minimal monetary impacts on state and local governments. 
Three of these four requirements are related to: (1) Detectable warning 
surfaces on newly constructed and altered curb ramps and blended 
transitions at pedestrian street crossings; (2) accessible pedestrian 
signals and pushbuttons when pedestrian signals are newly installed or 
replaced at signalized intersections; and (3) pedestrian activated 
signals at roundabouts with multi-lane pedestrian crossings. In 
addition, the fourth requirement for provision of a 2 percent maximum 
cross slope on pedestrian access routes within pedestrian street 
crossings with yield or stop control was estimated to have more than 
minimal monetary impacts on state and local governments when 
constructing roadways with pedestrian crossings in hilly areas. The 
NPRM included questions requesting information to assess the costs and 
benefits of these provisions, as well as other provisions that may have 
cost impacts. The Access Board will prepare a final regulatory impact 
assessment to accompany the final rule based on information provided in 
response to questions in the NPRM and other sources.

BILLING CODE 8150-01-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA)

Statement of Priorities

Overview

    For more than 40 years, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
(EPA) has worked to protect people's health and the environment. By 
taking advantage of the best thinking, the newest technologies and the 
most cost-effective, sustainable solutions, EPA and its federal, state, 
local, and community partners have made important progress to address 
pollution where people live, work, play, and learn. From cleaning up 
contaminated waste sites to reducing greenhouse gases, mercury and 
other air emissions, to investing in water and wastewater treatment, 
the American people have seen and felt tangible benefits to their 
health and surroundings. Efforts to reduce air pollution alone have 
produced hundreds of billions of dollars in benefits in the United 
States.
    To keep up this momentum in the coming year, EPA will use 
regulatory authorities, along with grant- and incentive-based programs, 
technical and compliance assistance and tools, research and educational 
initiatives to address the priorities set forth in EPA's Strategic 
Plan:
     Addressing Climate Change and Improving Air Quality
     Protecting America's Waters
     Cleaning up Communities and Advancing Sustainable 
Development
     Ensuring the Safety of Chemicals and Preventing Pollution
     Protecting Human Health and the Environment by Enforcing 
Laws and Assuring Compliance
    All of this work will be undertaken with a strong commitment to 
science, law and transparency.

Highlights of EPA'S Regulatory Plan

    EPA's more than forty years of protecting public health and the 
environment demonstrates our nation's commitment to reducing pollution 
that can threaten the air we breathe, the water we use and the 
communities we live in. This Regulatory Plan contains information on 
some of our most important upcoming regulatory actions. As always, our 
Semiannual Regulatory Agenda contains information on a broader spectrum 
of EPA's upcoming regulatory actions.
Guiding Priorities
    The EPA's success depends on supporting innovation and creativity 
in both what we do and how we do it. To guide the agency's efforts, the 
Agency has established several guiding priorities. These priorities are 
enumerated in the list that follows, along with recent progress and 
future objectives for each.
1. Addressing Climate Change and Improving Air Quality
    The Agency will continue to deploy existing regulatory tools where 
appropriate and warranted. Addressing climate change calls for 
coordinated national and global efforts to reduce emissions and develop 
and deploy new, cleaner technologies. Using the Clean Air Act, EPA will 
continue to develop greenhouse gas standards for both mobile and 
stationary sources.
    Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards for Power Plants. As part of the 
President's Climate Action Plan, in July 2015, the EPA promulgated the 
Clean Power Plan final rules setting guidelines for states to follow in 
reducing carbon emissions from existing power plants, as well as 
finalizing emission standards for new plants. At the same time, EPA 
proposed Model Rules, to be finalized in 2016, to help the states 
develop plans that adequately implement the carbon-reduction 
guidelines. The July 2015 proposal also included a Federal Plan that 
will serve as a backstop in cases where states do not adequately 
implement the guidelines. By 2030 carbon emissions from existing plants 
are estimated to be reduced by 32% from 2005 levels.
    Heavy-Duty Vehicles GHG Emission Standards. In 2011, in cooperation 
with the Department of Transportation (DOT), EPA issued the first-ever

[[Page 77860]]

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for 
Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles for model years 2014-2018. 
On June 19, 2015, EPA and DOT proposed a second set of standards to 
further reduce greenhouse gas emissions and fuel consumption from a 
wide range of on-road vehicles from semi-trucks to the largest pickup 
trucks and vans and all types and sizes of work trucks and buses. These 
new standards will be finalized in 2016. This action is another 
important component of the President's Climate Action Plan.
    Reviewing and Implementing Air Quality Standards. Despite progress, 
millions of Americans still live in areas that exceed one or more of 
the national air pollution standards. This year's regulatory plan 
describes efforts to review the primary National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards (NAAQS) for lead. It also includes a rule to reduce state-to-
state atmospheric transport of pollutants that contribute to 
nonattainment of the ozone NAAQS.
2. Protecting America's Waters
    Despite considerable progress, many of America's waters remain 
imperiled. Water quality protection programs face complex challenges, 
from nutrient loadings and stormwater runoff to invasive species and 
drinking water contaminants. These challenges demand both traditional 
and innovative strategies.
3. Cleaning up Communities and Advancing Sustainable Development
    Just as today's economy is vastly different from that of 40 years 
before, EPA's regulatory program is evolving to recognize the progress 
that has already been made in environmental protection and to 
incorporate new technologies and approaches that allow us to provide 
for an environmentally sustainable future more efficiently and 
effectively.
    Establishing User Fees for the Use of RCRA Manifests. The e-
Manifest Final Rule of February 7, 2014 codified certain provisions of 
the ``Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest Establishment Act'' (or the 
Act), which directed the EPA to adopt a regulation that authorized the 
use of electronic manifests to track hazardous waste shipments 
nationwide. The Act also instructed the EPA to develop a user-fee-
funded e-Manifest system. Since the Act grants broad discretion to the 
EPA to determine the fees and gives the Agency authority to collect 
such fees for both electronic manifests and any paper manifests that 
continue in use, the EPA plans to issue a rulemaking to establish the 
appropriate electronic and paper manifest fees. The initial fees, to be 
established in the final rule, are expected to cover the operation and 
maintenance costs for the system, as well as the costs associated with 
the development of the system. The EPA plans to also announce in the 
final rule the date on which the system will be implemented and 
available to users.
    Once the national e-Manifest system becomes available, hazardous 
waste handlers will be able to complete, sign, transmit, and store 
electronic manifests through the national IT system, or they can elect 
to continue tracking the hazardous waste under the paper manifest 
system. Further, waste handlers that currently submit manifests to the 
states will no longer be required to do so, unless required by the 
state, as the EPA will collect both the remaining paper manifest copies 
and electronic manifests in the national system and will disseminate 
the manifest data to those States that want it.
    CERCLA Section 108(b)--Hard Rock Mining. Section 108(b) of the 
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 
(CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, establishes certain authorities 
concerning financial responsibility requirements. The Agency has 
identified classes of facilities within the Hard Rock mining industry 
as those for which financial responsibility requirements will be first 
developed. EPA's 108(b) rules will address the degree and duration of 
risks associated with aspects of hazardous substance management at hard 
rock mining and mineral processing facilities. These regulations will 
help ensure that businesses make financial arrangements to address 
risks from hazardous substances at their sites, and encourage 
businesses to improve their management of hazardous substances.
    Modernization of the Accidental Release Prevention Regulations 
under Clean Air Act. On August 1, 2013, President Obama signed 
Executive Order 13650, entitled Improving Chemical Facility Safety and 
Security (E.O. 13650 or the E.O.). The E.O. was prompted by major 
chemical accidents, such as the explosion at the West Fertilizer 
facility in West, Texas on April 17, 2013. E.O. 13650 directs the 
federal government to carry out a number of tasks whose overall aim is 
to prevent chemical accidents. Among the tasks discussed, the E.O. 
directs agencies to consider possible changes to existing chemical 
safety regulations, such as the EPA's Risk Management Plan (RMP) 
regulation (40 CFR part 68).
    Both EPA and the Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) 
had previously issued regulations, as required by the Clean Air Act 
Amendments of 1990, in response to a number of catastrophic chemical 
accidents occurring worldwide that had resulted in public and worker 
fatalities and injuries, environmental damage, and other community 
impacts. OSHA published the Process Safety Management (PSM) standard 
(29 CFR part 1910.119) in 1992. EPA modeled the RMP regulation after 
OSHA's PSM standard and published the RMP rule in two stages--a list of 
regulated substances and threshold quantities in 1994; and the RMP 
final regulation, containing risk management requirements, in 1996. 
Both the OSHA PSM standard and the EPA RMP regulation aim to prevent, 
or minimize the consequences of, accidental chemical releases to 
workers and the community.
    The EPA is considering modifications to the current RMP regulations 
in order to (1) reduce the likelihood and severity of accidental 
releases, (2) improve emergency response when those releases occur, and 
(2) enhance state and local emergency preparedness and response in an 
effort to mitigate the effects of accidents.
4. Ensuring the Safety of Chemicals and Preventing Pollution
    One of EPA's highest priorities is to make significant progress in 
assuring the safety of chemicals. Using sound science as a compass, EPA 
protects individuals, families, and the environment from potential 
risks of pesticides and other chemicals. In its implementation of these 
programs, EPA uses several different statutory authorities, including 
the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), the 
Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), the Toxic Substances 
Control Act (TSCA) and the Pollution Prevention Act (PPA), as well as 
collaborative and voluntary activities. In FY 2016, the Agency will 
continue to satisfy its overall directives under these authorities and 
highlights the following actions in this Regulatory Plan:
    EPA's Existing Chemicals Management Program Under TSCA. As part of 
EPA's ongoing efforts to ensure the safety of chemicals, EPA plans to 
take a range of identified regulatory actions for certain chemicals and 
assess other chemicals to determine if risk reduction action is needed 
to address potential concerns. After completing risk assessments and 
identifying concerns related to several specific uses of 
Trichloroethylene (TCE) and methylene chloride, and n-methylpyrrolidone 
(NMP), EPA is

[[Page 77861]]

initiating action under TSCA section 6 to address these risks and 
determine what requirements may be necessary to adequately protect the 
public, workers, and the environment from unreasonable risk of exposure 
to these chemicals.
    Addressing Formaldehyde Used in Composite Wood Products. As 
directed by the Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products Act 
of 2010, EPA is developing a final regulation to address formaldehyde 
emissions from hardwood plywood, particleboard and medium-density 
fiberboard that is sold, supplied, offered for sale, or manufactured in 
the United States.
    Lead-based Paint Program. EPA is developing a final rule that would 
implement several amendments to the EPA lead-based paint program that 
would improve efficiencies and save resources for those involved. EPA 
proposed changes in 2014 to the EPA lead-based paint program that 
would, among other things, amend the renovation, repair and painting 
rule by removing the requirement for hands-on refresher training for 
renovators so that they can take the refresher course online and 
without the need to travel to a training facility for the hands-on 
portion. EPA also proposed to amend the lead-based paint abatement 
program by removing the requirement for firms, training providers and 
individuals to apply for and be certified or accredited in each EPA-
administered jurisdiction where they work (i.e., state, tribe or 
territory where EPA runs the abatement program). In addition, as 
directed by TSCA section 402(c)(3), EPA is developing a proposed rule 
to address renovation or remodeling activities that create lead-based 
paint hazards in pre-1978 public buildings and commercial buildings. 
EPA previously issued a final rule to address lead-based paint hazards 
created by these activities in target housing and child-occupied 
facilities.
    Reassessment of PCB Use Authorizations. When enacted in 1978, TSCA 
banned the manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, and use 
of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), except when uses would pose no 
unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment. EPA is 
reassessing certain ongoing, authorized uses of PCBs that were 
established by regulation in 1979, including the use, distribution in 
commerce, marking and storage for reuse of liquid PCBs in electric 
equipment, to determine whether those authorized uses still meet TSCA's 
``no unreasonable risk'' standard. EPA plans to propose the revocation 
or revision of any PCBs use authorizations included in this 
reassessment that no longer meet the TSCA standard.
    Enhancing Agricultural Worker Protection. As a result of extensive 
stakeholder engagement and public meetings, EPA is acting to enhance 
the pesticide worker safety program. EPA plans to issue final 
amendments to the agricultural worker protection regulation that 
strengthens protections for agricultural farm workers and pesticide 
handlers. The revisions will address key environmental justice concerns 
for a population that may be disproportionately affected by pesticide 
exposure. The final rule is expected to improve pesticide safety 
training, use of personal protective equipment, and access to 
decontamination supplies, and improve agricultural workers' ability to 
protect themselves and their families from potential secondary exposure 
to pesticides and pesticide residues. Other changes are intended to 
bring hazard communications and respirator requirements more in line 
with Occupational Safety and Health Administration requirements and to 
clarify current requirements to facilitate program implementation and 
enforcement.
    Strengthening Pesticide Applicator Safety. As part of EPA's effort 
to enhance the pesticide worker safety program, the Agency also 
proposed revisions to the existing regulation concerning the 
certification of applicators of restricted-use pesticides. This 
proposed rule is intended to ensure that the federal certification 
standards adequately protect applicators, the public and the 
environment from potential risks associated with use of restricted use 
pesticides. The proposed changes are intended to improve the competency 
of certified applicators of restricted use pesticides, increase 
protection for noncertified applicators of restricted use pesticides 
operating under the direct supervision of a certified applicator 
through enhanced pesticide safety training and standards for 
supervision of noncertified applicators, and establish a minimum age 
requirement for such noncertified applicators. Also, in keeping with 
EPA's commitment to work more closely with tribal governments to 
strengthen environmental protection in Indian Country, certain proposed 
changes are intended to provide more practical options for establishing 
certification programs in Indian Country.
    Evaluating Pesticide Risks to Bees and Other Pollinators. As part 
of the efforts outlined in the ``National Strategy to Promote the 
Health of Honey Bees and Other Pollinators,'' EPA is working to update 
its pesticide data requirements to provide the Agency with data needed 
to determine the potential exposure and effects of pesticides on bees 
and other important non-target insect pollinators. Pollinator insects 
are ecologically and economically important. Recognizing heightened 
concerns for honey bees due to pollinator declines and that the science 
has now evolved to where additional toxicity and exposure protocols are 
available, EPA issued interim study guidance for bees in 2011. EPA 
developed finalized guidance in 2014 on the conduct of exposure and 
effect studies used to characterize the potential risk of pesticides to 
bees. The development and implementation of updates data requirements 
is intended to provide the information the Agency needs to evaluate 
whether a proposed or existing use of a pesticide may have an 
unreasonable adverse effect on these important insects and support 
pesticide registration decisions under FIFRA.
5. Protecting Human Health and the Environment by Enforcing Laws and 
Assuring Compliance
    Today's pollution challenges require a modern approach to 
compliance, taking advantage of new tools and approaches while 
strengthening vigorous enforcement of environmental laws. Next 
Generation Compliance is EPA's integrated strategy to do that, designed 
to bring together the best thinking from inside and outside EPA.
    EPA's Next Generation Compliance consists of five interconnected 
components, each designed to improve the effectiveness of our 
compliance program:
     Design regulations and permits that are easier to 
implement, with a goal of improved compliance and environmental 
outcomes.
     Use and promote advanced emissions/pollutant detection 
technology so that regulated entities, the government, and the public 
can more easily see pollutant discharges, environmental conditions, and 
noncompliance.
     Shift toward electronic reporting to help make 
environmental reporting more accurate, complete, and efficient while 
helping EPA and co-regulators better manage information, improve 
effectiveness and transparency.
     Expand transparency by making information more accessible 
to the public.
     Develop and use innovative enforcement approaches (e.g., 
data analytics and targeting) to achieve more widespread compliance.

[[Page 77862]]

Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations
    Pursuant to section 6 of Executive Order 13563 ``Improving 
Regulation and Regulatory Review'' (Jan. 18, 2011), the following EPA 
actions have been identified as associated with retrospective review 
and analysis in the Agency's final plan for retrospective review of 
regulations, or one of its subsequent updates. Some of the entries on 
this list may not appear in The Regulatory Plan but appear in EPA's 
semiannual regulatory agenda. These rulemakings can also be found on 
Regulations.gov. EPA's final agency plan can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/regdarrt/retrospective/.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Regulatory
                   Rulemaking title                      Identifier No.
                                                              (RIN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Source Performance Standards for Grain Elevators--         2060-AP06
 Amendments...........................................
Treatment of Data Influenced by Exceptional Events--           2060-AS02
 Rule Revisions.......................................
Public Notice Provisions in CAA Permitting Programs...         2060-AS59
Regional Haze Regulations--Revision to SIP Submission          2060-AS55
 Date and Requirements for Progress Reports...........
Title V Petitions Process Improvement Rulemaking......         2060-AS61
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Lead           2040-AF15
 and Copper: Regulatory Revisions.....................
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System                2040-AF25
 (NPDES) Application and Program Updates Rule.........
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Group             2040-AF29
 Regulation of Carcinogenic Volatile Organic Compound
 (VOCs)...............................................
Management Standards for Hazardous Waste                       2050-AG39
 Pharmaceuticals......................................
Hazardous Waste Export-Import Revisions Rule..........         2050-AG77
Improvements to the Hazardous Waste Generator                  2050-AG70
 Regulatory Program (Parts 261-265)...................
Revisions to Resource Conservation and Recovery Act            2050-AG75
 Subtitle D Research, Demonstration & Development
 Permit Rule..........................................
Pesticides; Certification of Pesticide Applicators....         2070-AJ20
Lead; Lead-based Paint Program; Amendment to                   2070-AK02
 Jurisdiction-Specific Certification and Accreditation
 Requirements and Renovator Refresher Training
 Requirements.........................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                 Aggregation of Benefits and Costs From Monetized Rules Reported in the Regulatory Plan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Benefits  (millions $/    Costs  (millions $/year)  Net benefits  (millions $/
                                                                                   year)           ---------------------------           year)
                           Rule                              Base year  ---------------------------                           --------------------------
                                                                              Low          High          Low          High          Low          High
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Discount Rate = 3%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oil and Gas Emission Standards for New and Modified                2012         $200          $210         $150          $170          $35           $42
 Sources..................................................
GHG Emissions and Efficiency Standards for Medium- and             2012        3,700         4,900      (5,660)       (7,300)        9,400        12,300
 Heavy-Duty Engines-Phase 2 *.............................
Model Trading Rules for GHG Emissions from EGUs                    2012        3,564         8,249        2,546         1,426        1,018         6,823
 Constructed Before 1-8-14; Amendments....................
Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for           2012            0             0            0             0            0             0
 Lead.....................................................
GHG Endangerment Findings for Aircraft....................         2012            0             0            0             0            0             0
RFS 2014-2016.............................................         2012            0             0          118           595        (118)         (595)
Pesticides; Certification of Pesticide Applicators........         2012           21            22           50            50         (28)          (28)
Formaldehyde Emissions Standards for Composite Wood                2012           21            50           75            84         (62)          (25)
 Products.................................................
Formaldehyde; Third-Party Certification Framework for the          2012           $0            $0        $0.04         $0.04      ($0.04)       ($0.04)
 Formaldehyde Standards...................................
                                                           ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Aggregate Estimates...................................         2012        7,507        13,431      (2,721)       (4,975)       10,245        18,517
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Discount Rate = 7%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oil and Gas Emission Standards for New and Modified                2012          200           210          150           170           35            42
 Sources..................................................
GHG Emissions and Efficiency Standards for Medium- and             2012        4,200         4,800      (6,000)       (5,460)       10,100        10,200
 Heavy-Duty Engines-Phase 2 *.............................
Model Trading Rules for GHG Emissions from EGUs                    2012        3,463         7,842        2,546         1,426        1,120         6,416
 Constructed Before 1-8-14; Amendments....................
Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for           2012            0             0            0             0            0             0
 Lead.....................................................
GHG Endangerment Findings for Aircraft....................         2012            0             0            0             0            0             0
RFS 2014-2016.............................................         2012            0             0          118           595        (118)         (595)
Pesticides; Certification of Pesticide Applicators........         2012           21            22           50            50         (28)          (28)

[[Page 77863]]

 
Formaldehyde Emissions Standards for Composite Wood                2012           21            50           75            84         (62)          (25)
 Products.................................................
Formaldehyde; Third-Party Certification Framework for the          2012            0             0         0.04          0.04       (0.04)        (0.04)
 Formaldehyde Standards...................................
                                                           ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Aggregate Estimates...................................         2012        7,905        12,923      (3,061)       (3,135)       11,046        16,010
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* In order to maintain consistency between the NHTSA's and EPA's analyses, the fuel savings values are treated as negative costs consistent with the
  information presented in the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the rulemaking (http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0827-0243).

Burden Reduction
    As described above, EPA continues to review its existing 
regulations in an effort to achieve its mission in the most efficient 
means possible. To this end, the Agency is committed to identifying 
areas in its regulatory program where significant savings or 
quantifiable reductions in paperwork burdens might be achieved, as 
outlined in Executive Orders 13563 and 13610, while protecting public 
health and our environment.
Rules Expected to Affect Small Entities
    By better coordinating small business activities, EPA aims to 
improve its technical assistance and outreach efforts, minimize burdens 
to small businesses in its regulations, and simplify small businesses' 
participation in its voluntary programs. Actions that may affect small 
entities can be tracked on EPA's Regulatory Development and 
Retrospective Review Tracker (http://www.epa.gov/regdarrt/) at any 
time. This Plan includes the following rules that may be of particular 
interest to small entities:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Regulatory  Identifier No.
            Rulemaking title                           (RIN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Formaldehyde Emission Standards for       2070-AJ44
 Composite Wood Products.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel         2060-AS16
 Efficiency Standards for Medium- and
 Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles--Phase
 2.
Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission      2060-AS30
 Standards for New and Modified Sources.
Financial Responsibility Requirements     2050-AG61
 Under CERCLA Section 108(b) for Classes
 of Facilities in the Hard Rock Mining
 Industry.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

International Regulatory Cooperation Activities
    EPA has considered international regulatory cooperation activities 
as described in Executive Order 13609 and has identified the following 
international activity that is anticipated to lead to a significant 
regulation in the following year:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Regulatory  Identifier No.
            Rulemaking title                           (RIN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Formaldehyde Emission Standards for       2070-AJ44
 Composite Wood Products.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Streamlining the Export/Import Process for America's Businesses
    EPA has considered import and export streamlining activities as 
described in Executive Order 13659 and identified the following 
rulemaking activity:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Regulatory  Identifier No.
            Rulemaking title                           (RIN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hazardous Waste Export-Import Revisions   2050-AG77
 Rule.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


EPA--AIR AND RADIATION (AR)

Proposed Rule Stage

104. Interstate Transport Rule for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Clean Air Act
    CFR Citation: 40 CFR 51.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This proposed rule would address Clean Air Act (CAA) 
requirements concerning the transport of air pollution across State 
boundaries. It is the next step for the EPA to move forward with the 
States to address interstate transport with respect to the 2008 ozone 
National Ambient Air Quality Standards. This action will not address 
the particulate matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
    Statement of Need: Interstate transport poses significant 
challenges with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS in the eastern United 
States, and this ozone pollution transport presents public health and 
welfare concerns.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The statutory authority for this proposed 
action is provided by the CAA as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.). 
Specifically, sections 110 and 301 of the CAA provide the primary 
statutory bases for this proposal. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), also 
known as the ``good neighbor provision,'' provides the basis for this 
proposed action. It requires that each state SIP shall include 
provisions sufficient to ``prohibit . . . any source or other type of 
emissions activity within the State from emitting any air pollutants in 
amounts which will--(I) contribute significantly to nonattainment in, 
or interfere with maintenance by, any other State with respect to any 
[NAAQS].''
    Alternatives: Alternatives will be identified as the proposal is 
developed.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Costs and benefits will be analyzed 
as the proposal is developed.
    Risks: Risks will be analyzed as the proposal is developed.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   11/00/15
Final Rule..........................   08/00/16
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal.
    Additional Information: Docket #:EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0500.
    Sectors Affected: 221112 Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation

[[Page 77864]]

    URL for More Information: http://www.epa.gov/airtransport/ozonetransportNAAQS.html.
    Agency Contact: David Risley, Environmental Protection Agency, Air 
and Radiation, 6204M, Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 202 343-9177, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 2060-AS05

EPA--AR

105. Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Emission Standards for New and 
Modified Sources

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Clean Air Act
    CFR Citation: 40 CFR 60.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: Consistent with the White House Methane Strategy and the 
January 14, 2015, announcement of the EPA's approach to achieving 
methane and volatile organic compounds (VOC) reductions from the oil 
and natural gas sector, this action will finalize amendments to the 
2012 new source performance standards (NSPS) for this sector. The 
proposed rule published 9/18/15, included methane and VOC standards for 
sources not covered by the 2012 Oil and Gas NSPS, such as completions 
of hydraulically fractured oil wells, pneumatic pumps and fugitive 
emissions at well sites and compressor stations. The proposal also 
included methane standards for sources covered in the 2012 NSPS. In 
addition, in response to the reconsideration petitions received for the 
2012 NSPS and the 2013 amendments to the NSPS, this proposal addressed 
the issues for which the EPA is granting reconsideration.
    Statement of Need: This action finalizes amendments the new source 
performance standards for the oil and natural gas source category by 
setting standards for both methane and volatile organic compounds for 
certain equipment, processes, and activities across this source 
category that were not covered in the 2012 rules. This action responds 
to the 2014 Climate Action Plan: Strategy to Reduce Methane Emissions 
(the Methane Strategy). The Methane Strategy instructs the EPA to 
complete regulations pertaining to the sources of methane in the oil 
and gas sector by the end of 2016. Specifically, in January 2015, the 
Administration announced a new goal to cut methane emissions from the 
oil and gas sector. Additionally, this action finalizes certain issues 
raised in reconsideration petitions pertaining to the previously 
promulgated rule in 2012. EPA proposed these amendments on August 18, 
2015.
    Summary of Legal Basis: New source performance standards are issued 
under CAA section 111.
    Alternatives: Alternatives for this final rule have not yet been 
determined. The EPA proposed both methane and VOC standards for several 
emission sources not currently covered by the NSPS (i.e., hydraulically 
fractured oil well completions, fugitive emissions from well sites and 
compressor stations, and pneumatic pumps). In addition, the EPA 
proposed methane standards for certain emission sources that are 
currently regulated for VOC (i.e., hydraulically fractured gas well 
completions, equipment leaks at natural gas processing plants). The 
proposed amendments would establish methane standards for certain 
equipment across the source category and extend the current VOC 
standards to the remaining unregulated equipment. Lastly, amendments 
proposed to the current NSPS that improve implementation of several 
aspects of the current standards. Except for the implementation 
improvements and the setting of standards for methane, these amendments 
do not change the requirements for operations already covered by the 
current standards. The EPA has incorporated flexibility to the extent 
possible into the proposed rule affected sources can achieve emissions 
reductions in a cost-effective way. In additional to proposing 
alternatives options where possible, the EPA solicited comments on 
alternative approaches. We believe that affected sources already 
complying with more stringent State requirements may also be in 
compliance with this rule. Furthermore, the EPA is mindful that some 
facilities that will be subject to the proposed EPA standards will also 
be subject to current or future requirements of the Department of 
Interior's Bureau of Land Management (BLM) rules covering production of 
natural gas on Federal lands. The EPA and BLM have maintained an 
ongoing dialogue during development of this action to identify 
opportunities for alignment and ways to minimize potential conflicting 
requirements and will continue to coordinate through the agencies' 
respective proposals and final rulemakings.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The EPA is currently assessing the 
costs and benefits associated with the final action. The August 18, 
2015, proposal estimated the emission reductions are 340,000 to 400,000 
tons of methane, 170,000 to 180,000 tons of VOC, and 1,900 to 2,500 
tons of hazardous air pollutants in 2025. The proposal's methane-
related monetized climate benefits are estimated to be $460 to $550 
million in 2025. The estimate of total annualized engineering costs of 
the proposed NSPS (with gas savings) is $320 to $420 million in 2025. 
The quantified net benefits are estimated to be $120 to $150 million in 
2025 using a 3 percent discount rate (model average) for climate 
benefits.
    Risks: This action is a reconsideration of new source performance 
standards and, thus, does not assess risk.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   09/18/15  80 FR 56593
NPRM Comment Period End.............   11/17/15  .......................
Final Rule..........................   06/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Additional Information: Docket #: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505.
    URL for More Information: www.epa.gov/airquality/oilandgas.
    Agency Contact: Bruce Moore, Environmental Protection Agency, Air 
and Radiation, E143-01, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, Phone: 919 
541-5460, Fax: 919 541-0246, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2060-AS30

EPA--AR

106. Model Trading Rules for Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Electric 
Utility Generating Units Constructed on or Before January 8, 2014

    Priority: Economically Significant.
    Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
    CFR Citation: 40 CFR 62.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The EPA is planning a notice of final rulemaking for 
model rules to implement greenhouse gas emission guidelines for 
existing fossil fuel-fired electric generating units (EGUs). Emission 
guidelines were signed 8/3/15 as the Carbon Pollution Emission 
Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating 
Units (the Clean Power Plan). This plan is part of the President's 
Climate Action Plan announced in June 2013 to reduce carbon emissions 
from the power sector by 30 percent below 2005 levels. This

[[Page 77865]]

action offers States model trading rules that they can follow in 
developing their own plans in order to capitalize on the flexibility 
built into the final Emission Guidelines.
    Statement of Need: The Federal plan and model trading rules 
proposal is part of President Obama's Climate Action Plan (CAP). The 
CAP called for the reduction of carbon emissions from the power sector 
by 30 percent below 2005 levels. In this action, the EPA has proposed a 
Federal plan to implement the Clean Power Plan emission guidelines 
(EGs) for affected fossil fuel-fired EGUs operating in States that do 
not have approved State plans. Specifically, the EPA has co-proposed 
two different approaches to a Federal plan to implement the Clean Power 
Plan EGs--a rate-based trading approach and a mass-based trading 
approach. The proposal also serves to provide a model rule that States 
can tailor for implementation as a State plan. A State program that 
adheres to the model trading rule provisions specified in this 
rulemaking would be presumptively approvable. The Federal plan will 
achieve the same levels of emissions performance as required of State 
plans under the EGs. The agency has proposed a finding that it is 
necessary or appropriate to implement a Clean Air Act (CAA) section 
111(d) Federal plan for the affected EGUs located in Indian country. 
The agency has also proposed certain enhancements to the process and 
timing for State submittals and EPA action in the CAA section 111(d) 
framework regulations of 40 CFR part 60, subpart B (these proposals are 
not a part of the Federal plan or model trading rules).
    Summary of Legal Basis: Greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution threatens 
the American public's health and welfare by contributing to long-
lasting changes in our climate that can have a range of negative 
effects on human health and the environment. The U.S. Supreme Court 
ruled that GHGs meet the definition of ``air pollutant'' in the CAA, 
and this decision clarified that the CAA's authorities and requirements 
apply to GHG emissions. GHGs, including carbon dioxide (CO2) 
from power plants, may persist in the atmosphere from decades to 
millennia, depending on the specific GHG. This special characteristic 
makes it crucial to take initial steps now to limit GHG emissions from 
fossil fuel-fired power plants, specifically emissions of 
CO2, since they are the nation's largest sources of carbon 
pollution. Section 111(d)(2) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7411(d)(2), provides 
the EPA the same authority to prescribe a plan for a state in cases 
where the state fails to submit a satisfactory plan as the agency would 
have under CAA section 110(c) in the case of failure to submit an 
implementation plan. In addition, the EPA has authority under CAA 
section 111(d)(1) to prescribe regulations that establish procedures 
similar to CAA section 110 with respect to the submission of state 
plans, and the EPA also has general rulemaking authority, as necessary, 
to implement the CAA under CAA section 301. This rule will provide 
model rules that states can tailor for implementation as a state plan 
to ensure that emission standards under authority of section 111 of the 
CAA (the Clean Power Plan EGs) are implemented for affected EGUs.
    Alternatives: The final Clean Power Plan EGs are related to, but 
separate from the model trading rules and the federal plan. The final 
EGs detail the CO2 reduction goals for sources by state. The 
purpose of the model rules is to provide states an example that the 
states can follow in developing their own plans in order to capitalize 
on the flexibility built into the final Clean Power Plan EGs. The 
purpose of the federal plan is to lay out mechanisms to achieve 
reductions in CO2 emissions from affected EGUs that are not 
covered by an EPA-approved state plan. The EPA has co-proposed two 
basic approaches to a federal plan, a rate-based emission trading 
program and a mass-based emission trading program. Within these two 
approaches, the EPA has presented a range of options for comment 
through which affected EGUs would meet a rate-based goal or a mass-
based equivalent. The EPA has incorporated flexibility to the extent 
possible into the proposed federal plan so affected units can achieve 
these reductions in a cost-effective way.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The EPA estimated the annual 
incremental compliance cost for the rate-based Federal plan approach to 
be $2.5 billion in 2020, $1.0 billion in 2025 and $8.4 billion in 2030. 
The EPA estimated the annual incremental compliance cost for the mass-
based Federal plan approach to be $1.4 billion in 2020, $3.0 billion in 
2025, and $5.1 billion in 2030. The Federal plan would be implemented 
only in those States that do not have a fully approved State plan as 
required under the final Clean Power Plan. In those States where a 
Federal plan may be required, a final Federal plan will implement the 
same emission guidelines for affected power plants outlined in the 
Clean Power Plan. The model trading rules and the Federal plan would 
not require additional control requirements or impose additional costs. 
States operating under a Federal plan may adopt complementary measures 
outside of that plan to facilitate compliance and lower costs to the 
benefit of power generators and consumers. Implementing the proposed 
action will generate benefits by reducing emissions of CO2 
and criteria pollutant precursors, including sulfur dioxide, nitrogen 
oxides, and directly emitted particles. The estimated benefits 
associated with these emission reductions are beyond those achieved by 
previous EPA rulemakings including the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards 
rule. The health and welfare benefits from reducing air pollution were 
considered co-benefits for the proposal. We were only able to quantify 
the climate benefits from reduced emissions of CO2 and the 
health co-benefits associated with reduced exposure to PM2.5 
and ozone. There were many additional benefits which we were not able 
to quantify, leading to an underestimate of monetized benefits. In 
summary, we estimated the total combined climate benefits and health 
co-benefits for the rate-based Federal plan approach to be $3.5 to $4.6 
billion in 2020, $18 to $28 billion in 2025, and $34 to $54 billion in 
2030 (3 percent discount rate, 2011$). Total combined climate benefits 
and health co-benefits for the mass-based Federal plan approach were 
estimated to be $5.3 to $8.1 billion in 2020, $19 to $29 billion in 
2025, and $32 to $48 billion in 2030 (3 percent discount rate, 2011$).
    Risks: The risk addressed is the current and future threat of 
climate change to public health and welfare, as demonstrated in the 
2009 Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Finding for Greenhouse Gases 
Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. The EPA made this 
determination based primarily upon the recent, major assessments by the 
U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), the National Research 
Council (NRC) of the National Academies and the Intergovernmental Panel 
on Climate Change (IPCC).
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   10/23/15  80 FR 64965
NPRM Comment Period End.............   01/21/16  .......................
Final Rule..........................   08/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State, Tribal.
    Agency Contact: Toni Jones, Environmental Protection Agency, Air

[[Page 77866]]

and Radiation, E143-03, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, Phone: 919 
541-0316, Fax: 919 541-3470, Email: [email protected].
    Nicholas Swanson, Environmental Protection Agency, Air and 
Radiation, E143-03, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, Phone: 919 541-
4080, Fax: 919 541-1039, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2060-AS47

EPA--AR

107.  Proposed Renewable Fuel Volume Standards for 2017 and 
Biomass Based Diesel Volume (BBD) for 2018

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7619 Clean Air Act
    CFR Citation: 40 CFR 80.
    Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, November 30, 2015. Statutory 
November 30.
    Abstract: The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to promulgate 
regulations that specify the annual volume requirements for renewable 
fuels under the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program. Standards are to 
be set for four different categories of renewable fuels: cellulosic 
biofuel, biomass-based diesel (BBD), advanced biofuel, and total 
renewable fuel. The statute requires the standards be finalized by 
November 30 of the year prior to the year in which the standards would 
apply. In the case of biomass-based diesel, the statute requires 
applicable volumes be set no later than 14 months before the year for 
which the requirements would apply. This action would propose the 
applicable volumes for all renewable fuel categories for 2017, and 
would also proposed the BBD standard for 2018.
    Statement of Need: The Clean Air Act section 211(o) specifies 
annual volume requirements for renewable fuels under the Renewable Fuel 
Standard (RFS) program. Standards are to be set for four different 
categories of renewable fuels: cellulosic biofuel, biomass-based diesel 
(BBD), advanced biofuel, and total renewable fuel. The statute requires 
the standards be finalized by November 30 of the year prior to the year 
in which the standards would apply. In the case of biomass-based 
diesel, the statute requires applicable volumes be set no later than 14 
months before the year for which the requirements would apply. This 
action would, as required by law, propose the applicable volumes for 
all renewable fuel categories for 2017, and would also proposed the BBD 
standard for 2018.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Clean Air Act section 211(o) requires EPA 
to implement the Renewable Fuels Standard Program. The CAA requires 
that the Agency set annual volume requirements for four different 
categories of renewable fuels: cellulosic biofuel, biomass based diesel 
(BBD), advanced biofuel, and total renewable fuel. The statute requires 
the standards be finalized by November 30 of the year prior to the year 
in which the standards would apply.
    Alternatives: Application of specific provisions for this program 
are set forth in the law. The law requires standards be established 
annually. The only alternatives authorized under the law are those 
which allow for waiving in whole or in part the volumes of renewable 
fuel for which the standards apply.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Illustrative cost scenarios will be 
prepared during development of the rule. The short time frame provided 
for the annual renewable fuel rule process does not allow sufficient 
time for EPA to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the benefits of the 
standards, and the statute does not require it. Moreover, the costs and 
benefits of the RFS program as a whole are best assessed when the 
program is fully mature in 2022. We continue to believe that this is 
the case, as the annual standard-setting process encourages 
consideration of the program on a piecemeal (i.e., year to year) basis, 
which may not reflect the long-term economic effects of the program. 
Therefore, for the purpose of the annual rulemaking, we are preparing 
illustrative cost impacts.
    Risks: Failure to set RFS annual standards would create uncertainty 
in the marketplace as to the volumes of renewable fuels that are 
required for blending in transportation fuels.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   06/00/16  .......................
Final Rule..........................   12/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: David Korotney, Environmental Protection Agency, 
Air and Radiation, N27, Ann Arbor, MI 48105, Phone: 734 214-4507, 
Email: [email protected].
    Paul Argyropoulos, Environmental Protection Agency, Air and 
Radiation, 6401A, Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 202 564-1123, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 2060-AS72

EPA--OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION (OCSPP)

Proposed Rule Stage

108. Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs); Reassessment of use 
Authorizations

    Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 
undetermined.
    Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
    Legal Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2605 Toxic Substances Control Act
    CFR Citation: 40 CFR 761.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The EPA's regulations governing the use of 
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in electrical equipment and other 
applications were first issued in the late 1970s and have not been 
updated since 1998. The EPA has initiated rulemaking to reassess the 
ongoing authorized uses of PCBs to determine whether certain use 
authorizations should be ended or phased out because they can no longer 
be justified under section 6(e) of the Toxic Substances Control Act, 
which requires that the authorized use will not present an unreasonable 
risk of injury to health and the environment. As the first step in this 
reassessment, the EPA published an Advanced Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (ANPRM) in 2010. The EPA reviewed and considered all 
comments received on the ANPRM in planning the current rulemaking. This 
action will address the following specific areas: (1) The use, 
distribution in commerce, marking and storage for reuse of liquid PCBs 
in electric equipment; (2) improvements to the existing use 
authorization for natural gas pipelines; and (3) definitional and other 
regulatory ``fixes.'' The reassessment of use authorizations related to 
liquid PCBs in equipment will focus on small capacitors in fluorescent 
light ballasts, large capacitors, transformers and other electrical 
equipment. In addition, revised testing, characterization, and 
reporting requirements for PCBs in natural gas pipeline systems to 
provide more transparency for the Agency and the public when PCB 
releases occur will be considered. Consistent with Executive Order 
13563, ``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review'', wherever 
possible and consistent with the overall objectives of this rulemaking, 
the Agency will also eliminate or fix regulatory inefficiencies noted 
by the Agency or in public comments on the ANPRM.

[[Page 77867]]

    Statement of Need: The EPA is reassessing authorized uses of PCBs 
to determine whether certain uses should be ended or phased out because 
they can no longer be justified under section 6(e) of the Toxic 
Substances Control Act, which requires that the authorized use will not 
present an unreasonable risk of injury to health and the environment. A 
rulemaking is needed to revise or revoke any PCB use authorizations 
that no longer meet the TSCA unreasonable risk standard.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The authority for this action comes from 
TSCA section 6(e)(2)(B) and (C) of TSCA (15 U.S.C. 605(e)(2)(B) and 
(C)), as well as TSCA section 6(e)(1)(B) (15 U.S.C. 2605(e)(1)(B)).
    Alternatives: The EPA published an Advanced Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (ANPRM) on April 7, 2010, and took comment through August 
20, 2010. EPA reviewed and considered all comments received on the 
ANPRM in planning the current rulemaking.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The EPA is currently evaluating the 
costs and benefits of this action.
    Risks: The EPA is currently evaluating the possible risks presented 
by ongoing uses of PCBs. PCB exposures can cause significant human 
health and ecological effects. The EPA and the International Agency for 
Research on Cancer (IARC) have characterized some commercial PCB 
mixtures as probably carcinogenic to humans. In addition to 
carcinogenicity, potential effects of PCB exposure include 
neurotoxicity, reproductive and developmental toxicity, immune system 
suppression, liver damage, skin irritation, and endocrine disruption. 
PCBs persist in the environment for long periods of time and 
bioaccumulate, especially in fish and marine animals. PCBs are also 
readily transported across long distances in the environment, and can 
easily cycle between air, water, and soil.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM...............................   04/07/10  75 FR 17645
Second ANPRM........................   06/16/10  75 FR 34076
NPRM................................   06/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: Local, State, Tribal.
    Federalism: This action may have federalism implications as defined 
in E.O. 13132.
    Additional Information: Docket #: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0757.
    Sectors Affected: 31-33 Manufacturing; 54 Professional, Scientific, 
and Technical Services; 92 Public Administration; 53 Real Estate and 
Rental and Leasing; 811 Repair and Maintenance; 48-49 Transportation 
and Warehousing; 22 Utilities; 562 Waste Management and Remediation 
Services.
    URL for More Information: http://www.epa.gov/pcb.
    Agency Contact: Sara Kemme, Environmental Protection Agency, Office 
of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, 7404T, Washington, DC 
20460, Phone: 202 566-0511, Fax: 202 566-0473, Email: 
[email protected].
    Peter Gimlin, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Chemical 
Safety and Pollution Prevention, 7404T, Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 
202 566-0515, Fax: 202 566-0473, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2070-AJ38

EPA--OCSPP

109. Trichloroethylene (TCE); Rulemaking Under TSCA Section 6(a)

    Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 
undetermined.
    Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
    Legal Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2605 Toxic Substances Control Act
    CFR Citation: 40 CFR NYD.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: Section 6 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) 
provides authority for the EPA to ban or restrict the manufacture 
(including import), processing, distribution in commerce, and use of 
chemicals, as well as any manner or method of disposal. The EPA 
identified trichloroethylene (TCE) for risk evaluation as part of its 
Work Plan for Chemical Assessment under TSCA. TCE is used in industrial 
and commercial processes, and also has some limited uses in consumer 
products. In the June 2014 TSCA Work Plan Chemical Risk Assessment for 
TCE, the EPA identified risks associated with commercial degreasing and 
some consumer uses. EPA is initiating rulemaking under TSCA section 6 
to address these risks, if the EPA finds that there is a reasonable 
basis to conclude that the risks to human health or the environment are 
unreasonable.
    Statement of Need: In the June 2014 TSCA Work Plan Chemical Risk 
Assessment for TCE, the EPA identified risks associated with commercial 
degreasing and some consumer uses. The EPA is initiating a rulemaking 
under TSCA section 6 to address these risks. Specifically, the EPA will 
determine whether the continued use of TCE in some commercial 
degreasing uses, as a spotting agent in dry cleaning, and in certain 
consumer products would pose an unreasonable risk to human health and 
the environment.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Section 6 of the Toxic Substances Control 
Act provides authority for the EPA to ban or restrict the manufacture 
(including import), processing, distribution in commerce, and use of 
chemicals, as well as any manner or method of disposal.
    Alternatives: Alternatives will be developed as part of the 
development of a proposed rule.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The EPA will prepare a regulatory 
impact analysis as part of the development of a proposed rule.
    Risks: In the published TCE Risk Assessment, the EPA identified 
significant risks to human health in occupational, consumer and 
residential settings. The risk assessment identified health risks from 
TCE exposures to consumers using aerosol degreasers and spray 
fixatives, and health risks to workers when TCE is used in commercial 
shops and as a stain removing agent in dry cleaning.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   03/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
    Federalism: Undetermined.
    Sectors Affected: 325 Chemical Manufacturing.
    URL for More Information: http://www.epa.gov/oppt/existingchemicals/.
    Agency Contact: Toni Krasnic, Environmental Protection Agency, 
Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, 7405M, Washington, 
DC 20460, Phone: 202 564-0984, Email: [email protected].
    Katherine Sleasman, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of 
Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, 7405M, Washington, DC 20460, 
Phone: 202 564-7716, Fax: 202 564-4775, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 2070-AK03

EPA--OCSPP

110. N-Methylpyrrolidone (NMP) and Methylene Chloride; Rulemaking Under 
TSCA Section 6(A)

    Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 
undetermined.
    Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
    Legal Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2605 Toxic Substances Control Act

[[Page 77868]]

    CFR Citation: 40 CFR NYD.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: Section 6 of the Toxic Substances Control Act provides 
authority for the EPA to ban or restrict the manufacture (including 
import), processing, distribution in commerce, and use of chemicals, as 
well as any manner or method of disposal of chemicals. The EPA 
identified n-methylpyrrolidone (NMP) and methylene chloride for risk 
evaluation as part of its TSCA Work Plan for Chemical Assessments. NMP 
and methylene chloride are used in commercial processes and in consumer 
products in residential settings. In the August 2014 TSCA Work Plan 
Chemical Risk Assessment for methylene chloride and the March 2015 TSCA 
Work Plan Chemical Risk Assessment for NMP, the EPA identified risks 
associated with commercial and consumer paint and varnish stripping 
uses. The EPA is initiating rulemaking under TSCA section 6 to address 
these risks, if the EPA finds that there is a reasonable basis to 
conclude that the risks to human health or the environment are 
unreasonable.
    Statement of Need: The EPA identified n-methylpyrrolidone and 
methylene chloride for risk evaluation as part of its Work Plan for 
Chemical Assessments under TSCA. In the August 2014 Risk Assessment for 
methylene chloride and March 2015 Risk Assessment for NMP, the EPA 
identified risks associated with commercial and consumer paint removal 
uses. The EPA is initiating rulemaking under TSCA section 6 to address 
these risks. Specifically, the EPA will determine whether the use of 
NMP or methylene chloride in commercial and consumer paint removal 
poses an unreasonable risk to human health and the environment.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Section 6 of the Toxic Substances Control 
Act provides authority for the EPA to ban or restrict the manufacture 
(including import), processing, distribution in commerce, and use of 
chemicals, as well as any manner or method of disposal.
    Alternatives: Alternatives will be developed as part of the 
development of a proposed rule.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The EPA will prepare a regulatory 
impact analysis as part of the development of a proposed rule.
    Risks: As indicated in the published Risk Assessments and 
supplemental analyses for these chemicals, the EPA determined that 
there is risk of adverse human health effects (acute and chronic) for 
methylene chloride and NMP in occupational, consumer and residential 
settings.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   03/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected:
    Undetermined.
    Federalism: Undetermined.
    Sectors Affected: 325 Chemical Manufacturing.
    URL for More Information: http://www.epa.gov/oppt/existingchemicals/.
    Agency Contact: Niva Kramek, Environmental Protection Agency, 
Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, 7506P, Washington, 
DC 20460, Phone: 703 605-1193, Fax: 703 305-5884, Email: 
[email protected].
    Katherine Sleasman, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of 
Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, 7405M, Washington, DC 20460, 
Phone: 202 564-7716, Fax: 202 564-4775, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 2070-AK07

EPA--SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE (SWER)

Proposed Rule Stage

111. Financial Responsibility Requirements Under CERCLA Section 108(B) 
for Classes of Facilities in the Hard Rock Mining Industry

    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. 9601 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 9608(b)
    CFR Citation: None.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: Section 108(b) of the Comprehensive Environmental 
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, 
establishes certain authorities concerning financial responsibility 
requirements. The Agency has identified classes of facilities within 
the hard rock mining industry as those for which financial 
responsibility requirements will be first developed. EPA intends to 
include requirements for financial responsibility, as well as 
notification and implementation.
    Statement of Need: EPA's 108(b) rules will address the degree and 
duration of risks associated with aspects of hazardous substance 
management at hard rock mining and mineral processing facilities. These 
regulations will help ensure that businesses make financial 
arrangements to address risks from hazardous substances at their sites, 
and encourage businesses to improve their management of hazardous 
substances.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Section 108(b) of the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 
1980, as amended, establishes certain regulatory authorities concerning 
financial responsibility requirements. Specifically, the statutory 
language addresses the promulgation of regulations that require classes 
of facilities to establish and maintain evidence of financial 
responsibility consistent with the degree and duration of risk 
associated with the production, transportation, treatment, storage, or 
disposal of hazardous substances.
    Alternatives: The EPA is considering proposing for comment 
alternatives for allowable types of financial instruments.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The EPA expects that the primary 
costs of the rule will be the costs to facilities for procuring 
required financial instruments. The EPA also expects to incur 
administrative and oversight costs. These regulations will help ensure 
that businesses make financial arrangements to address risks from 
hazardous substances at their sites, and encourage businesses to 
improve their management of hazardous substances.
    Risks: EPA's 108(b) rules are intended to address the risks 
associated with the production, transportation, treatment, storage or 
disposal of hazardous substances at hard rock mining and mineral 
processing facilities.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice..............................   07/28/09  74 FR 37213
NPRM................................   08/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal.
    Federalism: This action may have federalism implications as defined 
in E.O. 13132.
    Additional Information: Docket #:EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0265. Split from 
RIN 2050-AG56.
    Sectors Affected: 212 Mining (except Oil and Gas); 331 Primary 
Metal Manufacturing.
    URL for More Information: http://www.epa.gov/superfund/policy/financialresponsibility/.

[[Page 77869]]

    URL for Public Comments: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0265-0001.
    Agency Contact: Ben Lesser, Environmental Protection Agency, Solid 
Waste and Emergency Response, 5302P, Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 703 
308-0314, Email: [email protected].
    Barbara Foster, Environmental Protection Agency, Solid Waste and 
Emergency Response, 5304P, Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 703 308-7057, 
Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2050-AG61

EPA--SWER

112. User Fee Schedule for Electronic Hazardous Waste Manifest

    Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 
undetermined.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6939(g)
    CFR Citation: Undetermined.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: After promulgation of the first e-Manifest regulation in 
February 2014 to authorize the use of electronic manifests and to 
codify key provisions of the Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest 
Establishment Act (or Act), the EPA is moving forward on the 
development of the separate e-Manifest User Fee Schedule Regulation. 
The Act authorizes the EPA to impose on manifest users reasonable 
service fees that are necessary to pay costs incurred in developing, 
operating, maintaining and upgrading the system, including costs 
incurred in collecting and processing data from any paper manifest 
submitted to the system after the date on which the system enters 
operation. The agency plans to issue both a proposed and final rule in 
setting the appropriate electronic manifest and manifest fees. The EPA 
intends to propose for comment the fee methodology for establishing the 
electronic manifest and paper service fees. The agency plans in a final 
rule to establish a program of fees that will be imposed on users of 
the e-manifest system and announce the user fee schedule for manifest-
related activities, including activities associated with the collection 
and processing of paper manifests submitted to the EPA. The agency also 
plans in that final rule to announce (1) the date upon which the EPA 
will be ready to transmit and receive manifests through the national e-
Manifest system and (2) the date upon which the user community must 
comply with the new e-Manifest regulation.
    Statement of Need: On February 7, 2014, the EPA promulgated the e-
Manifest Final rule, in order to comply with the Hazardous Waste 
Electronic Manifest Establishment Act, which required the EPA to issue 
a regulation authorizing electronic manifests by October 5, 2013. In 
issuing that rule, the EPA completed an important step that must 
precede the development of a national e-Manifest system, as required by 
the Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest Establishment Act. This rule is 
the second regulation that must precede the development of the e-
Manifest system. This action will implement the broad discretion 
granted on the Agency to establish reasonable user fees for the various 
activities associated with using and submitting electronic and paper 
manifests to the national system. Additionally, OMB Circular A-25 on 
User Charges provides that agencies of the Executive Branch must 
generally set user fee charges or fees through regulation.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Section 2(c) of the e-Manifest Act 
authorizes the EPA to impose on manifest users reasonable user fees to 
pay any costs incurred in developing, operating, maintaining, and 
upgrading the system, including any costs incurred in collecting and 
processing data from any paper manifest submitted to the system. Thus, 
this Action will implement the broad discretion granted on the Agency 
to establish reasonable user fees for the various activities associated 
with using and submitting electronic and paper manifests to the 
national system.
    Alternatives: The EPA plans to issue rulemaking to establish the 
appropriate electronic manifest and paper manifest fees. The EPA plans 
to propose for comment alternatives for imposing and collecting 
electronic manifest and paper fees.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: When the e-Manifest Final Rule was 
published in February 2014, the Agency deferred the development of the 
detailed risk impact analysis (RIA) for the e-Manifest system until the 
User Fee Schedule Rule. Thus, the RIA for the proposed User Fee 
Schedule Rule will not be limited to the impacts of the user fees 
announced in the rule, but will also estimate the costs and benefits of 
the overall e-Manifest system. The primary costs in the e-Manifest RIA 
will be the cost to build the system, the costs for industry and state 
governments to connect to the system, and the cost to run the system. 
The most significant benefit of the e-Manifest system estimated in the 
RIA will be reduced burden for industry to comply with RCRA manifesting 
requirements, and the reduced burden on states that collect and utilize 
manifest data for program management purposes.
    Risks: This action does not address any particular risks in the 
EPA's jurisdiction as it does not change existing requirements for 
manifesting hazardous waste shipments. It will merely propose for 
comment our fee methodology for setting the appropriate fees of 
electronic manifests, and paper manifests that continue in use, at such 
time as the system to receive them is built and operational.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   05/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, State, Local.
    Additional Information: Docket #:EPA-HQ-RCRA-2001-0032.
    Sectors Affected: 11 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting; 21 
Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction; 22 Utilities; 23 
Construction; 31-33 Manufacturing; 42 Wholesale Trade; 44-45 Retail 
Trade; 48-49 Transportation and Warehousing; 51 Information; 562 Waste 
Management and Remediation Services; 92 Public Administration.
    URL for More Information: http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/hazard/transportation/manifest/e-man.htm.
    Agency Contact: Rich LaShier, Environmental Protection Agency, 
Solid Waste and Emergency Response, 5304P, Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 
703 308-8796, Fax: 703 308-0514, Email: [email protected].
    Bryan Groce, Environmental Protection Agency, Solid Waste and 
Emergency Response, 5304P, Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 703 308-8750, 
Fax: 703 308-0514, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2050-AG80

EPA--SWER

113. Modernization of the Accidental Release Prevention Regulations 
Under Clean Air Act

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7412(r)
    CFR Citation: 40 CFR 68.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: In response to Executive Order 13650, the EPA is 
considering potential revisions to its Risk Management Program 
regulations and related programs. The Agency may

[[Page 77870]]

consider the addition of new accident prevention or emergency response 
program elements, and/or changes to existing elements, and/or other 
changes to the existing regulatory provisions.
    Statement of Need: In response to Executive Order 13650, the EPA is 
considering potential revisions to its Risk Management Program 
regulations. The Executive Order establishes the Chemical Facility 
Safety and Security Working Group (``Working Group''), co-chaired by 
the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Administrator of the EPA, and 
the Secretary of Labor or their designated representatives at the 
Assistant Secretary level or higher, and composed of senior 
representatives of other federal departments, agencies, and offices. 
The Executive Order requires the Working Group to carry out a number of 
tasks whose overall goal is to prevent chemical accidents, such as the 
explosion that occurred at the West Fertilizer facility in West, Texas, 
on April 17, 2013, which killed 15 people, injured many others, and did 
extensive damage to the town. Section 6(a)(i) of the Executive Order 
requires the Working Group to develop options for improved chemical 
facility safety and security that identify ``improvements to existing 
risk management practices through agency programs, private sector 
initiatives, Government guidance, outreach, standards, and 
regulations.'' Section 6(c) of Executive Order 13650 requires the 
Administrator of the EPA to review the RMP Program (RMP).
    Summary of Legal Basis: Clean Air Act Section 112(r)(7) authorizes 
the EPA Administrator to promulgate regulations to prevent accidental 
releases. Section 112(r)(7)(A) authorizes release prevention, 
detection, and correction requirements that may include a broad range 
of methods, make distinctions among classes and types of facilities, 
and may take into consideration other factors, including, but not 
limited to, size, location, process and substance factors, and response 
capabilities. Section 112(r)(7)(B) authorizes reasonable regulations 
and appropriate guidance to provide, to the greatest extent 
practicable, for the prevention and detection of accidental releases of 
regulated substances and for response to such releases by the owners or 
operators of the sources of such releases.
    Alternatives: The EPA is considering revisions to the accident 
prevention, emergency response, recordkeeping, and other provisions in 
40 CFR part 68 to address chemical accident risks. The proposed action 
will contain the EPA's preferred option, as well as alternative 
regulatory options. The EPA also is considering publishing guidance to 
address some issues that may be raised in the proposed action.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Costs will include the burden on 
regulated entities associated with implementing new or revised 
requirements, including program implementation, training, equipment 
purchases, and recordkeeping, as applicable. Some costs will also 
accrue to implementing agencies and local governments, due to enhanced 
local coordination and recordkeeping requirements. Benefits will result 
from avoiding the harmful accident consequences to communities and the 
environment, such as deaths, injuries, and property damage, 
environmental damage, and from mitigating the effects of releases that 
may occur.
    Risks: The proposed action will address the risks associated with 
accidental releases of listed regulated toxic and flammable substances 
to the air from stationary sources. Substances regulated under the RMP 
program include highly toxic and flammable substances that can cause 
deaths, injuries, property and environmental damage, and other on- and 
off-site consequences if accidentally released. The proposed action 
will reduce these risks by making accidental releases less likely, and 
by mitigating the severity of releases that may occur. The proposed 
action would not address the risks of non-accidental chemical releases, 
accidental releases of non-regulated substances, chemicals released to 
other media, and air releases from mobile sources.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   11/00/15  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State, Tribal.
    Sectors Affected: 325 Chemical Manufacturing; 49313 Farm Product 
Warehousing and Storage; 42491 Farm Supplies Merchant Wholesalers; 
311511 Fluid Milk Manufacturing; 311 Food Manufacturing; 221112 Fossil 
Fuel Electric Power Generation; 311411 Frozen Fruit, Juice, and 
Vegetable Manufacturing; 49311 General Warehousing and Storage; 31152 
Ice Cream and Frozen Dessert Manufacturing; 311612 Meat Processed from 
Carcasses; 211112 Natural Gas Liquid Extraction; 32519 Other Basic 
Organic Chemical Manufacturing; 42469 Other Chemical and Allied 
Products Merchant Wholesalers; 49319 Other Warehousing and Storage; 322 
Paper Manufacturing; 42471 Petroleum Bulk Stations and Terminals; 32411 
Petroleum Refineries; 311615 Poultry Processing; 49312 Refrigerated 
Warehousing and Storage; 22132 Sewage Treatment Facilities; 11511 
Support Activities for Crop Production; 22131 Water Supply and 
Irrigation Systems.
    URL for More Information: http://www2.epa.gov/rmp.
    Agency Contact: James Belke, Environmental Protection Agency, Solid 
Waste and Emergency Response, 5104A, Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 202 
564-8023, Fax: 202 564-8444, Email: [email protected].
    Kathy Franklin, Environmental Protection Agency, Solid Waste and 
Emergency Response, 5104A, Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 202 564-7987, 
Fax: 202 564-2625, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2050-AG82

EPA--AIR AND RADIATION (AR)

Final Rule Stage

114. Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Lead

    Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 
undetermined.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7408; 42 U.S.C. 7409
    CFR Citation: 40 CFR 50.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: Under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, the EPA is 
required to review and if appropriate revise the air quality criteria 
for the primary (health-based) and secondary (welfare-based) national 
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) every 5 years. On November 12, 
2008, the EPA published a final rule to revise the primary and 
secondary NAAQS for lead to provide increased protection for public 
health and welfare. The EPA has now initiated the next review. This new 
review includes the preparation of an Integrated Review Plan, an 
Integrated Science Assessment, and, if warranted, a Risk/Exposure 
Assessment, and also a Policy Assessment Document by the EPA, with 
opportunities for review by EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory 
Committee and the public. These documents inform the Administrator's 
proposed decision as to whether to retain or revise the standards. The 
proposed decision was published in the Federal Register with 
opportunity provided for public comment. The Administrator's final 
decisions will take into consideration these documents and

[[Page 77871]]

public comment on the proposed decision.
    Statement of Need: Under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, EPA 
is required to review and if appropriate revise the air quality 
criteria for the primary (health-based) and secondary (welfare-based) 
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) every 5 years. In the 
last lead NAAQS review, EPA published a final rule on November 12, 
2008, to revise the primary and secondary NAAQS for lead to provide 
increased protection for public health and welfare.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, 
EPA is required to review and if appropriate revise the air quality 
criteria for the primary (health-based) and secondary (welfare-based) 
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) every 5 years.
    Alternatives: The main alternative for the Administrator's decision 
on the review of the national ambient air quality standards for lead is 
whether to retain or revise the existing standards.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The Clean Air Act makes clear that 
the economic and technical feasibility of attaining standards are not 
to be considered in setting or revising the NAAQS, although such 
factors may be considered in the development of state plans to 
implement the standards. Accordingly, when the Agency proposes 
revisions to the standards, the Agency prepares cost and benefit 
information in order to provide states information that may be useful 
in considering different implementation strategies for meeting proposed 
or final standards. In those instances, cost and benefit information is 
generally included in the regulatory analysis accompanying the final 
rule.
    Risks: As part of the review, the EPA prepares an Integrated Review 
Plan, an Integrated Science Assessment, and, if warranted, a Risk/
Exposure Assessment, and also a Policy Assessment document, with 
opportunities for review by the EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory 
Committee and the public. These documents will inform the 
Administrator's decision as to whether to retain or revise the 
standards. The proposed decision was published in the Federal Register 
with opportunity provided for public comment. The Administrator's final 
decisions will take into consideration these documents and public 
comment on the proposed decision.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   01/05/15  80 FR 277
Final Rule..........................   06/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: State.
    Additional Information: Docket #:EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0108.
    URL for More Information: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/standards/pb/s_pb_index.html.
    Agency Contact: Deirdre Murphy, Environmental Protection Agency, 
Air and Radiation, C539-02, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, Phone: 
919 541-0729, Fax: 919 541-0840, Email: [email protected].
    Ginger Tennant, Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation, 
C504-06, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, Phone: 919 541-4072, Fax: 
919 541-0237, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2060-AQ44

EPA--AR

115. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium-
and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles--Phase 2

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Clean Air Act
    CFR Citation: 40 CFR 1036; 40 CFR 1037; 40 CFR 9; 40 CFR 22; 40 CFR 
85; 40 CFR 86; 40 CFR 600; 40 CFR 1033; 40 CFR 1039; 40 CFR 1042; 40 
CFR 1043; 40 CFR 1065; 40 CFR 1066; 40 CFR 1068.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: During the President's second term, the EPA and the 
Department of Transportation, in close coordination with the California 
Air Resources Board, are developing a comprehensive National Program 
for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission and Fuel 
Efficiency Standards for model years beyond 2018. These second sets of 
standards would further reduce greenhouse gas emissions and fuel 
consumption from a wide range of on-road vehicles from semi-trucks to 
the largest pickup trucks and vans, and all types and sizes of work 
trucks and buses. This action will be in continued response to the 
President's directive to take coordinated steps to produce a new 
generation of clean vehicles. This action follows the first ever 
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for 
Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles (75 FR 57106, September 15, 
2011).
    Statement of Need: Under Clean Air Act authority, the EPA has 
determined that emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) from new motor 
vehicles and engines cause or contribute to air pollution that may 
reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health and welfare. 
Therefore, there is a need to reduce GHG emissions from medium- and 
heavy-duty vehicles to protect public health and welfare. The medium- 
and heavy-duty truck sector accounts for approximately 23 percent of 
the U.S. mobile source GHG emissions and is the second-largest mobile 
source sector. GHG emissions from this sector are forecast to continue 
increasing rapidly; reflecting the anticipated impact of factors such 
as economic growth and increased movement of freight by trucks. This 
rulemaking would significantly reduce GHG emissions from future medium- 
and heavy-duty vehicles by setting GHG standards that will lead to the 
introduction of GHG-reducing vehicle and engine technologies.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The Clean Air Act section 202(a)(1) states 
that ``The Administrator shall by regulation prescribe (and from time 
to time revise) in accordance with the provisions of this section, 
standards applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any 
class or classes of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines, 
which in his judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may 
reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.'' 
Section 202(a) covers all on-highway vehicles including medium- and 
heavy-duty trucks. In April 2007, the Supreme Court found in 
Massachusetts v. EPA that greenhouse gases fit well within the Act's 
definition of ``air pollutant'' and that EPA has statutory authority to 
regulate emission of such gases from new motor vehicles. Lastly, in 
April 2009, EPA issued the Proposed Endangerment and Cause-or-
Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under the Clean Air Act. The 
endangerment proposal stated that greenhouse gases from new motor 
vehicles and engines cause or contribute to air pollution that may 
reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health and welfare.
    Alternatives: The rulemaking will include an evaluation of 
regulatory alternatives. In addition, the rule is expected to include 
tools such as averaging, banking, and trading of emissions credits as 
an alternative approach for compliance with the program.

[[Page 77872]]

    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Detailed analysis of economy-wide 
cost impacts, greenhouse gas emission reductions, and societal benefits 
will be performed during development of the rule.
    Risks: The failure to set new GHG standards for medium- and heavy-
duty trucks risks continued increases in GHG emissions from the 
trucking industry and therefore increased risk of unacceptable climate 
change impacts.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   07/13/15  80 FR 40137
NPRM Comment Period End.............   09/11/15  .......................
NPRM Comment Period Extended........   09/02/15  80 FR 53756
NPRM Comment Period Extended End....   10/01/15  .......................
Final Rule..........................   07/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, State.
    Agency Contact: Matt Spears, Environmental Protection Agency, Air 
and Radiation, Mail Code: ASD1, Ann Arbor, MI 48105, Phone: 734 214-
4921, Fax: 734 214-4816, Email: [email protected].
    Charles Moulis, Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation, 
NFEVL, Ann Arbor, MI 48105, Phone: 734 214-4826.
    RIN: 2060-AS16

EPA--AR

116. Renewable Fuel Volume Standards, 2014-2016 (Reg Plan)

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq., Clean Air Act
    CFR Citation: 40 CFR 80, subpart M.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to promulgate 
regulations that specify the annual volume requirements for renewable 
fuels under the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program. Standards are to 
be set for four different categories of renewable fuels: Cellulosic 
biofuel, biomass-based diesel (BBD), advanced biofuel, and total 
renewable fuel. The statute requires the standards be finalized by 
November 30 of the year prior to the year in which the standards would 
apply. In the case of biomass-based diesel, the statute requires 
applicable volumes be set no later than 14 months before the year for 
which the requirements would apply. This action would finalize the 
applicable volumes for all renewable fuel categories for 2014, 2015 and 
2016, and would also finalize the BBD standard for 2017.
    Statement of Need: The Clean Air Act Section 211(o) specifies 
annual volume requirements for renewable fuels under the Renewable Fuel 
Standard (RFS) program. Standards are to be set for four different 
categories of renewable fuels: Cellulosic biofuel, biomass based diesel 
(BBD), advanced biofuel, and total renewable fuel. The statute requires 
the standards be finalized by November 30 of the year prior to the year 
in which the standards would apply. In the case of biomass based 
diesel, the statute requires applicable volumes be set no later than 14 
months before the year for which the requirements would apply. This 
action would, as required by law, finalize the applicable volumes for 
all renewable fuel categories for 2014--2016, and would also finalize 
the BBD standard for 2017.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Clean Air Act Section 211(o) requires EPA 
to implement the Renewable Fuels Standard Program. The Act requires the 
Agency set annual volume requirements for four different categories of 
renewable fuels: Cellulosic biofuel, biomass based diesel (BBD), 
advanced biofuel, and total renewable fuel. The statute requires the 
standards be finalized by November 30 of the year prior to the year in 
which the standards would apply.
    Alternatives: Application of specific provisions for this program 
are set forth in the law. The law requires standards be established 
annually. The only alternatives authorized under the law are those 
which allow for waiving in whole or in part the volumes of renewable 
fuel for which the standards apply.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Costs and benefits of the program 
were analyzed in the 2010 Final Rule establishing the regulatory 
provisions for the RFS program.
    Risks: Risks of the program were analyzed in the 2010 Final Rule 
establishing the regulatory provisions for the RFS program.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   06/10/15  80 FR 33100
NPRM Comment Period End.............   07/27/15  .......................
Final Rule..........................   12/00/15  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Energy Effects: Statement of Energy Effects planned as required by 
Executive Order 13211.
    International Impacts: This regulatory action will be likely to 
have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise be of 
international interest.
    Additional Information: Docket #: EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0111.
    Sectors Affected: 325199 All Other Basic Organic Chemical 
Manufacturing; 325193 Ethyl Alcohol Manufacturing; 424690 Other 
Chemical and Allied Products Merchant Wholesalers; 454319 Other Fuel 
Dealers; 424710 Petroleum Bulk Stations and Terminals; 324110 Petroleum 
Refineries; 424720 Petroleum and Petroleum Products Merchant 
Wholesalers (except Bulk Stations and Terminals)
    URL for More Information: http://www2.epa.gov/renewable-fuel-standard-program.
    Agency Contact: David Korotney, Environmental Protection Agency, 
Air and Radiation, N27, Ann Arbor, MI 48105, Phone: 734 214-4507, 
Email: [email protected].
    Paul Argyropoulos, Environmental Protection Agency, Air and 
Radiation, 6401A, Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 202 564-1123, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 2060-AS22

EPA--AR

117. Findings That Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Aircraft Cause or 
Contribute to Air Pollution That May Reasonably Be Anticipated To 
Endanger Public Health and Welfare Under CAA Section 231 (Reg Plan)

    Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 
undetermined.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Clean Air Act
    CFR Citation: 40 CFR 87; 40 CFR 1068.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The EPA issued its proposed findings under section 231(a) 
of the Clean Air Act (CAA) on July 1, 2015 (80 FR 37757) that aircraft 
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions cause or contribute to air pollution 
which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health and 
welfare. This action will finalize the proposed findings and respond to 
public comments. If finalized, the findings are scientific 
determinations under section 231(a) of the Clean Air Act; the EPA is 
not planning at this time

[[Page 77873]]

to propose or issue aircraft engine GHG emission standards. This action 
continues to rely on the peer-reviewed science from the major climate 
change science assessments of the U.S. Global Change Research Program 
(USGCRP), National Research Council (NRC), and the Intergovernmental 
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) underlying the 2009 endangerment and 
cause or contribute findings for GHGs under section 202 of the CAA, 
along with updated reports from the same major climate change 
assessments.
    Statement of Need: This action makes a determination regarding the 
current and future threat of climate change to public health and 
welfare. This action comes in response to a citizen petition submitted 
by Friends of the Earth, Oceana, the Center for Biological Diversity, 
and Earthjustice requesting that the EPA issue a GHG endangerment 
finding and standards under section 231(a)(2)(A) of the Act for GHG 
emissions from aircraft engines. Further, the EPA anticipates that the 
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) will adopt a final 
international aircraft carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions standard in 
February 2016. The outcome of the final aircraft GHG endangerment and 
cause or contribute findings is a pre-requisite for the subsequent 
domestic rulemaking process.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Section 231(a)(2)(A) of the CAA states that 
``The Administrator shall, from time to time, issue proposed emission 
standards applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any 
class or classes of aircraft engines which in [her] judgment causes, or 
contributes to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to 
endanger public health or welfare.'' Before the Administrator may issue 
standards addressing emissions of GHGs under section 231, the 
Administrator must satisfy a two-step test. First, the Administrator 
must decide whether, in her judgment, the air pollution under 
consideration may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health 
or welfare. Second, the Administrator must decide whether, in her 
judgment, emissions of an air pollutant from certain classes of 
aircraft engines cause or contribute to this air pollution. If the 
Administrator answers both questions in the affirmative, she must issue 
standards under section 231. See Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497, 
533 (2007) (interpreting analogous provision in CAA section 202).
    Alternatives: This section is not applicable, as this action is a 
scientific determination and does not create any regulatory standards 
under section 231(a)(2)(A) of the CAA.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This section is not applicable, as 
this action is a scientific determination and does not create any 
regulatory standards under section 231(a)(2)(A) of the CAA.
    Risks: The risks discussed here are the current and future threat 
of climate change to public health and welfare, relying on the 
scientific and technical evidence in the record for the 2009 section 
202 CAA endangerment and cause or contribute findings and building on 
it with more recent major scientific assessments.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM...............................   07/01/15  80 FR 37757
ANPRM Comment Period End............   08/31/15  .......................
NPRM................................   07/01/15  80 FR 37757
NPRM Comment Period End.............   08/31/15  .......................
Final Rule..........................   06/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
     Docket #: EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0228.
    URL for More Information: http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/aviation.htm.
    Agency Contact: Lesley Jantarasami, Environmental Protection 
Agency, Air and Radiation, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, 6207-A, 
Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 202 343-9929, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 2060-AS31

EPA--OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION (OCSPP)

Final Rule Stage

118. Pesticides; Certification of Pesticide Applicators

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq. Federal Insecticide Fungicide 
and Rodenticide Act
    CFR Citation: 40 CFR 156; 40 CFR 171.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The EPA is developing a final rule to revise the federal 
regulations governing the certified pesticide applicator program (40 
CFR part 171). In August 2015, the EPA proposed revisions based on 
years of extensive stakeholder engagement and public meetings, to 
ensure that they adequately protect applicators, the public, and the 
environment from potential harm due to exposure to restricted use 
pesticides (RUPs). This action is intended to improve the training and 
awareness of certified applicators of RUPs and to increase protection 
for noncertified applicators of RUPs operating under the direct 
supervision of a certified applicator through enhanced pesticide safety 
training and standards for supervision of noncertified applicators.
    Statement of Need: Change is needed to strengthen the protections 
for pesticide applicators, the public, and the environment from harm 
due to pesticide exposure.
    Summary of Legal Basis: This action is issued under the authority 
of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 
U.S.C. 136-136y, particularly sections 136a(d), 136i, and 136w.
    Alternatives: The Agency has developed mechanisms to improve 
applicator trainers and make training materials more accessible. The 
Agency has also developed nationally relevant training and 
certification materials to preserve State resources while improving 
competency. However, these mechanisms and materials do not address 
other requisite needs for improving protections, such as requirements 
for determining competency and recertification. The EPA worked with key 
stakeholders to identify and evaluate various alternatives and 
regulatory options during the development of the proposed rule. These 
are discussed in detail in the proposed rule, and Economic Analysis 
that was prepared for the proposed rule.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The EPA prepared an Economic 
Analysis (EA) of the potential costs and impacts associated with the 
proposed rule, a copy or which is available in the docket, discussed in 
more detail in unit III of the proposed rule; and briefly summarized 
here. The EPA monetized benefits based on avoided acute pesticide 
incidents are estimated at $80.5 million/year after adjustment for 
underreporting of pesticide incidents (EA chapter 6.5). Qualitative 
benefits include the following:
     Willingness to pay to avoid acute effects of pesticide 
exposure beyond cost of treatment and loss of productivity.
     Reduced latent effect of avoided acute pesticide exposure.
     Reduced chronic effects from lower chronic pesticide 
exposure to workers, handlers, and farmworker families,

[[Page 77874]]

including a range of illnesses such as non-Hodgkins lymphoma, prostate 
cancer, Parkinson's disease, lung cancer, chronic bronchitis, and 
asthma. (EA chapter 6.4 & 6.6) EPA estimated total incremental costs of 
$47.2 million/year (EA chapter 5), which included the following:
     $19.5 million/year for costs to Private Applicators, with 
an estimated 490,000 impacted and an average cost of $40 per applicator 
(EA chapter 5 & 5.6).
     $27.4 million/year for costs to Commercial Applicators, 
with an estimated 414,000 impacted and an average cost of $66 per 
applicator (EA chapter 5 & 5.6).
     $359,000 for costs to States and other jurisdictions, with 
an estimated 63 impacted (EA chapter 5). The EPA estimated that there 
is no significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. EPA 
estimated that the proposed rule may affect over 800,000 small farms 
that use pesticides, although about half are unlikely to apply 
restricted use pesticides. The estimated impact for small entities is 
less than 0.1% of the annual revenues for the average small entity (EA 
chapter 5.7). The EPA also estimated that the proposed rule will have a 
negligible effect on jobs and employment because most private and 
commercial applicators are self-employed; and the estimated incremental 
cost per applicator represents from 0.3 to 0.5 percent of the cost of a 
part-time employee (EA chapter 5.6).
    Risks: Applicators are at risk from exposure to pesticides they 
handle for their work. The public and the environment may also be at 
risk from misapplication by applicators. Revisions to the regulations 
are expected to minimize these risks by ensuring the competency of 
certified applicators.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   08/24/15  80 FR 51355
Final Rule..........................   10/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State, Tribal.
    Additional Information: Docket #: EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0183. Includes 
retrospective review under Executive Order 13563.
    Sectors Affected: 9241 Administration of Environmental Quality 
Programs; 111 Crop Production; 32532 Pesticide and Other Agricultural 
Chemical Manufacturing; 5617 Services to Buildings and Dwellings.
    URL for More Information: http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/safety/applicators/applicators.htm.
    URL for Public Comments: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0183-0001.
    Agency Contact: Michelle Arling, Environmental Protection Agency, 
Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, 7506P, Washington, 
DC 20460, Phone: 703 308-5891, Fax: 703 308-2962, Email: 
[email protected].
    Kevin Keaney, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Chemical 
Safety and Pollution Prevention, 7506c, Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 
703 305-7666, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2070-AJ20

EPA--OCSPP

119. Formaldehyde Emission Standards for Composite Wood Products

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Unfunded Mandates: This action may affect the private sector under 
Pub. L. 104-4.
    Legal Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2697 Toxic Substances Control Act
    CFR Citation: 40 CFR 770.
    Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, January 1, 2013, Deadline for 
promulgation of regulations, per 15 U.S.C. 2697(d).
    Abstract: The EPA is developing a final rule under the Formaldehyde 
Standards for Composite Wood Products Act that was enacted in 2010 as 
title VI of Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 15 U.S.C. 2697. In 
2013, EPA issued two proposed rules. A proposed rule to establish a 
framework for a TSCA title VI Third-Party Certification Program whereby 
third-party certifiers (TPCs) are accredited by accreditation bodies 
(ABs) so that they may certify composite wood product panel producers 
under TSCA title VI. That proposed rule identified the roles and 
responsibilities of the groups involved in the TPC process (EPA, ABs, 
and TPCs), as well as the criteria for participation in the program. It 
also proposed general requirements for TPCs, such as conducting and 
verifying formaldehyde emission tests, inspecting and auditing panel 
producers, and ensuring that panel producers' quality assurance and 
quality control procedures comply with the regulations set forth in the 
proposed rule. A separate proposed rule issued in 2013 under RIN 2070-
AJ92 covered the implementation of the statutory formaldehyde emission 
standards for hardwood plywood, medium-density fiberboard, and 
particleboard sold, supplied, offered for sale, or manufactured 
(including imported) in the United States. Pursuant to TSCA section 
3(7), the definition of manufacture'' includes import. As required by 
title VI, these regulations apply to hardwood plywood, medium-density 
fiberboard, and particleboard. TSCA Title VI also directs EPA to 
promulgate supplementary provisions to ensure compliance with the 
emissions standards, including provisions related to labeling; chain of 
custody requirements; sell-through provisions; ultra-low-emitting 
formaldehyde resins; no-added formaldehyde-based resins; finished 
goods; third-party testing and certification; auditing and reporting of 
third-party certifiers; recordkeeping; enforcement; laminated products; 
and exceptions from the requirements of regulations promulgated 
pursuant to this subsection for products and components containing de 
minimis amounts of composite wood products. As noted in the previously 
published Regulatory Agenda entry for each rulemaking, EPA has decided 
to issue a single final rule that addresses both of these proposals. As 
such, EPA is also combining the entries for the Regulatory Agenda.
    Statement of Need: TSCA title VI directs EPA to promulgate 
regulations to implement the statutory formaldehyde emission standards 
and emissions testing requirements for composite wood products 
(hardwood plywood, particleboard, and medium-density fiberboard). It 
also directs EPA to include regulatory provisions relating to third-
party testing and certification in addition to the auditing and 
reporting of third-party certifiers.
    Summary of Legal Basis: EPA will issue this rule under title VI of 
the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 15 U.S.C. 2697, enacted in the 
Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products Act of 2010, which 
provides authority for the EPA to ``promulgate regulations to implement 
the standards required under subsection (b)'' of the Act. This 
provision includes authority to promulgate regulations relating to 
``third-party testing and certification'' and ``auditing and reporting 
of third-party certifiers.'' Congress directed EPA to consider a number 
of elements for inclusion in the implementing regulations, many of 
which are aspects of the California Air Resources Board (CARB) program. 
These elements include: (a) Labeling, (b) chain of custody 
requirements, (c) sell-through provisions, (d) ultra low-emitting 
formaldehyde resins, (e) no-added formaldehyde-based resins, (f)

[[Page 77875]]

finished goods, (g) third-party testing and certification, (h) auditing 
and reporting of TPCs, (i) recordkeeping, (j) enforcement, (k) 
laminated products, and (l) exceptions from the requirements of 
regulations promulgated for products and components containing de 
minimis amounts of composite wood products.
    Alternatives: TSCA title VI establishes national formaldehyde 
emission standards for composite wood products and the EPA has not been 
given the authority to change those standards. EPA is evaluating 
allowable alternatives in this rulemaking.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The Economic Analysis issued with 
the proposed third-party certification program rule provides the EPA 
analysis of the potential costs and impacts associated with the 
proposed third-party certification program. As proposed, the annualized 
costs are estimated at approximately $34,000 per year using either a 3% 
discount rate or a 7% discount rate. These requirements would impact an 
estimated nine small entities, of which eight are expected to have 
impacts of less than 1% of revenues or expenses, and one is expected to 
have impacts between 1% and 3%. State, Local, and Tribal Governments 
are not expected to be subject to the requirements, which apply to 
third-party certifiers and accreditation bodies. The proposal does not 
have a significant intergovernmental mandate, significant or unique 
effect on small governments, or have Federalism implications. The 
Economic Analysis issued with the proposed implementation rule provides 
EPA's analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated with the 
proposed implementation requirements. As proposed, the rulemaking will 
reduce exposures to formaldehyde, resulting in benefits from avoided 
adverse health effects. For the subset of health effects where the 
results were quantified, the estimated annualized benefits (due to 
avoided incidence of eye irritation and nasopharyngeal cancer) are $20 
million to $48 million per year using a 3% discount rate, and $9 
million to $23 million per year using a 7% discount rate. There are 
additional unquantified benefits due to other avoided health effects. 
The annualized costs for the proposed implementation requirements are 
estimated at $72 million to $81 million per year using a 3% discount 
rate, and $80 million to $89 million per year using a 7% discount rate. 
Government entities are not expected to be subject to the rule's 
requirements, which apply to entities that manufacture (including 
import), fabricate, distribute, or sell composite wood products. EPA 
also estimated that the rulemaking would impact nearly 879,000 small 
businesses: Over 851,000 have costs impacts less than 1% of revenues, 
over 23,000 firms have impacts between 1% and 3%, and over 4,000 firms 
have impacts greater than 3% of revenues. Most firms with impacts over 
1% have annualized costs of less than $250 per year. The proposed 
implementation rule increases the level of environmental protection for 
all affected populations without having any disproportionately high and 
adverse human health or environmental effects on any population, 
including any minority or low-income population or children. The 
estimated costs of the proposed implementation rule exceed the 
quantified benefits. There are additional unquantified benefits due to 
other avoided health effects. After assessing both the costs and the 
benefits of the proposal, including the unquantified benefits, EPA has 
made a reasoned determination that the benefits of the proposal justify 
its costs.
    Risks: At room temperature, formaldehyde is a colorless, flammable 
gas that has a distinct, pungent smell. Small amounts of formaldehyde 
are naturally produced by plants, animals and humans. Formaldehyde is 
used widely by industry to manufacture a range of building materials 
and numerous household products. It is in resins used to manufacture 
some composite wood products (e.g., hardwood plywood, particleboard and 
medium-density fiberboard). Everyone is exposed to small amounts of 
formaldehyde in the air, some foods, and products, including composite 
wood products. The primary way you can be exposed to formaldehyde is by 
breathing air containing it. Formaldehyde can cause irritation of the 
skin, eyes, nose, and throat. High levels of exposure may cause some 
types of cancers.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM...............................   12/03/08  73 FR 73620
Second ANPRM........................   01/30/09  74 FR 5632
NPRM................................   06/10/13  78 FR 34795
NPRM Comment Period Extended........   07/23/13  78 FR 44090
NPRM Comment Period Extended........   08/21/13  78 FR 51696
Final Rule..........................   05/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    International Impacts: This regulatory action will be likely to 
have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise be of 
international interest.
    Additional Information: Docket #: ANPRM stage: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2008-
0627; NPRM Stage: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2011-0380; NPRM2 Stage: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2012-
0018. This entry includes the rulemaking previously identified under 
RIN 2070-AJ92.
    Sectors Affected: 541611 Administrative Management and General 
Management Consulting Services; 325199 All Other Basic Organic Chemical 
Manufacturing; 541990 All Other Professional, Scientific, and Technical 
Services; 561990 All Other Support Services; 813910 Business 
Associations; 337212 Custom Architectural Woodwork and Millwork 
Manufacturing; 321213 Engineered Wood Member (except Truss) 
Manufacturing; 541330 Engineering Services; 423210 Furniture Merchant 
Wholesalers; 442110 Furniture Stores; 444130 Hardware Stores; 321211 
Hardwood Veneer and Plywood Manufacturing; 444110 Home Centers; 33712 
Household and Institutional Furniture Manufacturing; 337127 
Institutional Furniture Manufacturing; 423310 Lumber, Plywood, 
Millwork, and Wood Panel Merchant Wholesalers; 453930 Manufactured 
(Mobile) Home Dealers; 321991 Manufactured Home (Mobile Home) 
Manufacturing; 336213 Motor Home Manufacturing; 337122 Nonupholstered 
Wood Household Furniture Manufacturing; 444190 Other Building Material 
Dealers; 423390 Other Construction Material Merchant Wholesalers; 
325211 Plastics Material and Resin Manufacturing; 321992 Prefabricated 
Wood Building Manufacturing; 813920 Professional Organizations; 321219 
Reconstituted Wood Product Manufacturing; 441210 Recreational Vehicle 
Dealers; 337215 Showcase, Partition, Shelving, and Locker 
Manufacturing; 321212 Softwood Veneer and Plywood Manufacturing; 541380 
Testing Laboratories; 336214 Travel Trailer and Camper Manufacturing; 
337121 Upholstered Household Furniture Manufacturing; 3212 Veneer, 
Plywood, and Engineered Wood Product Manufacturing; 337110 Wood Kitchen 
Cabinet and Countertop Manufacturing; 337211 Wood Office Furniture 
Manufacturing.
    URL for More Information: Docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2012-0018-0001; http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/chemtest/formaldehyde/index.html.

[[Page 77876]]

    URL for Public Comments: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPPT-2011-0380-0001.
    Agency Contact: Cindy Wheeler, Environmental Protection Agency, 
Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, 7404T, Washington, 
DC 20460, Phone: 202 566-0484, Email: [email protected].
    Robert Courtnage, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of 
Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, 7404T, Washington, DC 20460, 
Phone: 202 566-1081, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2070-AJ44

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION (EEOC)

Statement of Regulatory and Deregulatory Priorities

    The mission of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC, 
Commission, or agency) is to ensure equality of opportunity in 
employment by vigorously enforcing and educating the public about the 
following Federal statutes: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 
as amended (prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, 
color, sex (including pregnancy), religion, or national origin); the 
Equal Pay Act of 1963, as amended (makes it illegal to pay unequal 
wages to men and women performing substantially equal work under 
similar working conditions at the same establishment); the Age 
Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended (prohibits 
employment discrimination based on age of 40 or older); Titles I and V 
of the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended, and sections 501 
and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act, as amended (prohibit employment 
discrimination based on disability); Title II of the Genetic 
Information Nondiscrimination Act (prohibits employment discrimination 
based on genetic information and limits acquisition and disclosure of 
genetic information); and section 304 of the Government Employee Rights 
Act of 1991 (protects certain previously exempt state & local 
government employees from employment discrimination on the basis of 
race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, or disability).
    The first item in this Regulatory Plan is entitled ``The Federal 
Sector's Obligation To Be a Model Employer of Individuals with 
Disabilities.'' The EEOC's regulations implementing section 501, as set 
forth in 29 CFR part 1614, require Federal agencies and departments to 
be ``model employers'' of individuals with disabilities. The Commission 
issued an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) on May 15, 
2014, (79 FR 27824), and intends to issue a proposed rule to revise the 
regulations regarding the Federal Government's affirmative employment 
obligations in 29 CFR part 1614 to include a more detailed explanation 
of how Federal agencies and departments should ``give full 
consideration to the hiring, placement, and advancement of qualified 
individuals with disabilities.'' Any revisions would be informed by 
Management Directive 715, and may include goals consistent with 
Executive Order 13548. Furthermore, any revisions would result in costs 
only to the Federal Government; would contribute to increasing the 
employment of individuals with disabilities; and would not affect risks 
to public health, safety, or the environment.
    The second item is entitled ``Federal Sector Equal Employment 
Opportunity Process.'' In July 2012, the Commission published a final 
rule containing 15 discrete changes to various parts of the Federal 
sector EEO process, and indicated that the rule was the Commission's 
initial step in a broader review of the Federal sector EEO process. The 
Commission issued an ANPRM on February 6, 2015, and intends to issue an 
NPRM in August 2016, aimed at making the process more fair and 
efficient.
    The third item is entitled ``Amendments to Regulations Under the 
Americans With Disabilities Act.'' This rule would amend the 
regulations to implement the equal employment provisions of the 
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to address the interaction 
between title I of the ADA and financial inducements and/or penalties 
as part of wellness programs offered through health plans. EEOC also 
plans to address other aspects of wellness programs that may be subject 
to the ADA's nondiscrimination provisions. The EEOC issued an NPRM on 
July 20, 2014, and intends to issue a final rule in February 2016.
    The fourth item is entitled ``Amendments to Regulations Under the 
Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008.'' This rule would 
amend the regulations on the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act 
of 2008 to address inducements to employees' spouses or other family 
members who respond to questions about their current or past medical 
conditions on health risk assessments. It will also correct a 
typographical error in the rule's discussion of wellness programs and 
add references to the Affordable Care Act, where appropriate. The EEOC 
issued an NPRM on October 30, 2015. The EEOC intends to issue a final 
rule in February 2016.
    Consistent with section 4(c) of Executive Order 12866, this 
statement was reviewed and approved by the Chair of the Agency. The 
statement has not been reviewed or approved by the other members of the 
Commission.

Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Effect on small
            RIN                     Title                 business
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3046-AA91.................  Revisions to           This rulemaking may
                             procedures for         decrease burdens on
                             complaints or          small businesses by
                             charges of             making the charge/
                             employment             complaint process
                             discrimination based   more efficient.
                             on disability
                             subject to the
                             Americans with
                             Disabilities Act and
                             Section 504 of the
                             Rehabilitation Act
                             of 1973.
3046-AA92.................  Revisions to           This rulemaking may
                             procedures for         decrease burdens on
                             complaints/charges     small businesses by
                             of employment          making the charge/
                             discrimination based   complaint process
                             on disability filed    more efficient.
                             against employers
                             holding government
                             contacts or
                             subcontracts.

[[Page 77877]]

 
3046-AA93.................  Revisions to           This rulemaking may
                             procedures for         decrease burdens on
                             complaints of          small businesses by
                             employment             making the charge/
                             discrimination filed   complaint process
                             against recipients     more efficient.
                             of federal financial
                             assistance.
3046-AB00.................  Federal sector equal   This rulemaking
                             employment             pertains to the
                             opportunity process.   federal sector equal
                                                    employment
                                                    opportunity process
                                                    and thus is not
                                                    expected to affect
                                                    small businesses.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


EEOC

Proposed Rule Stage

120. The Federal Sector's Obligation To Be a Model Employer of 
Individuals With Disabilities

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 29 U.S.C. 791(b)
    CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1614.203(a).
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act, as amended 
(Section 501), prohibits discrimination against individuals with 
disabilities in the Federal Government. The EEOC's regulations 
implementing section 501, as set forth in 29 CFR part 1614, require 
Federal agencies and departments to be ``model employers'' of 
individuals with disabilities.\1\ On May 15, 2014, the Commission 
issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (79 FR 27824) that 
sought public comments on whether and how the existing regulations 
could be improved to provide more detail on what being a ``model 
employer'' means and how Federal agencies and departments should ``give 
full consideration to the hiring, placement and advancement of 
qualified individuals with disabilities.'' \2\ The EEOC's review of the 
comments and potential revisions was informed by the discussion in 
Management Directive 715 of the tools Federal agencies should use to 
establish goals for the employment and advancement of individuals with 
disabilities. The EEOC's review of the comments and potential revisions 
was also informed by, and consistent with, the goals of Executive Order 
13548 to increase the employment of individuals with disabilities and 
the employment of individuals with targeted disabilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 29 CFR 1614.203(a).
    \2\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Statement of Need: Pursuant to section 501 of the Rehabilitation 
Act, the Commission is authorized to issue such regulations as it deems 
necessary to carry out its responsibilities under this Act. Executive 
Order 13548 called for increased efforts by Federal agencies and 
departments to recruit, hire, retain, and return individuals with 
disabilities to the Federal workforce.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 
1973, as amended (section 501), 29 U.S.C. 791, in addition to requiring 
nondiscrimination with respect to Federal employees and applicants for 
Federal employment who are individuals with disabilities, also requires 
Federal agencies to maintain, update annually, and submit to the 
Commission an affirmative action program plan for the hiring, 
placement, and advancement of individuals with disabilities. As part of 
its responsibility for the administration and enforcement of equal 
opportunity in Federal employment, the Commission is authorized under 
29 U.S.C. 794a(a)(1) to issue rules, regulations, orders, and 
instructions pursuant to section 501.
    Alternatives: The EEOC considered all alternatives offered by ANPRM 
public commenters. The EEOC will consider all alternatives offered by 
future public commenters.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Any costs that might result would 
only be borne by the Federal Government. The revisions would contribute 
to increased employment of individuals with disabilities.
    Risks: The proposed changes do not affect risks to public health, 
safety, or the environment.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM...............................   05/15/14  79 FR 27824
ANPRM Comment Period End............   07/14/14  .......................
NPRM................................   11/00/15  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal.
    Agency Contact: Christopher Kuczynski, Assistant Legal Counsel, 
Office of Legal Counsel, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 131 M 
Street NE., Washington, DC 20507, Phone: 202 663-4665, TDD Phone: 202 
663-7026, Fax: 202 653-6034, Email: [email protected].
    Aaron Konopasky, Senior Attorney Advisor, Office of Legal Counsel, 
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 131 M Street NE., Washington, 
DC 20507, Phone: 202 663-4127, Fax: 202 653-6034, Email: 
[email protected].
    Related RIN: Related to 3046-AA73
    RIN: 3046-AA94

EEOC

121. Federal Sector Equal Employment Opportunity Process

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 29 U.S.C. 206(d); 29 U.S.C. 633a; 29 U.S.C. 791; 
29 U.S.C. 794; 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16; E.O. 10577; E.O. 11222; E.O. 11478; 
E.O. 12106; Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1978; 42 U.S.C. 2000ff-6(e)
    CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1614.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: In July 2012, the Commission published a final rule 
containing 15 discrete changes to various parts of the Federal sector 
EEO complaint process, and indicated that the rule was the Commission's 
initial step in a broader review of the Federal sector EEO process. On 
February 6, 2015, the Commission issued an Advance Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (ANPRM) (80 FR 6669), that sought public input on additional 
issues associated with the Federal sector EEO process.
    Statement of Need: Any proposals contained in an NPRM would be 
aimed at making the process more fair and efficient.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 
authorizes EEOC ``to issue such rules, regulations, orders, and 
instructions as it deems necessary and appropriate to carry out its 
responsibilities under . . . section [717].'' 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16(b).
    Alternatives: The EEOC will consider all alternatives offered by 
public commenters.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Based on the information currently 
available, we anticipate that most of the changes will have no cost and 
will benefit users of the process by correcting or clarifying the 
requirements. Any cost that might result would only be borne by the 
Federal Government.
    Risks: Any proposed revisions would not affect risks to the public 
health, safety, or the environment.
    Timetable:

[[Page 77878]]



------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM...............................   02/06/15  80 FR 6669
ANPRM Comment Period End............   04/07/15  .......................
NPRM................................   08/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal.
    Agency Contact: Thomas J. Schlageter, Assistant Legal Counsel, 
Office of Legal Counsel, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 131 M 
Street NE., Washington, DC 20507, Phone: 202 663-4668, Fax: 202 653-
6034, Email: [email protected].
    Gary Hozempa, Senior Attorney Advisor, Office of Legal Counsel, 
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 131 M Street NE., Washington, 
DC 20507, Phone: 202 663-4666, Fax: 202 653-6034, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 3046-AB00

EEOC

122. Amendments to Regulations Under the Genetic Information 
Nondiscrimination Act of 2008

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 2000ff
    CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1635.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This proposed rule would amend the regulations on the 
Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 to address 
inducements to employees' spouses or other family members who respond 
to questions about their current or past medical conditions on health 
risk assessments (HRA). This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking will also 
correct a typographical error in the rule's discussion of wellness 
programs and add references to the Affordable Care Act, where 
appropriate.
    Statement of Need: The revision to 29 CFR 1635.8 is needed to 
address numerous inquiries received by EEOC about whether an employer 
will violate the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) of 
2008 by offering an employee a financial inducement if the employee's 
family member completes an HRA that asks about the family member's 
current health status. Technical amendments are also needed to correct 
a typographical error and to include references to the ACA, where 
appropriate.
    Summary of Legal Basis: GINA, section 211, 42 U.S.C. 2000ff-10, 
requires the EEOC to issue regulations implementing title II of the 
Act. The EEOC issued regulations on November 9, 2010. These proposed 
revisions are based on that statutory requirement.
    Alternatives: The EEOC will consider all alternatives offered by 
public commenters.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Based on the information currently 
available, the Commission does not anticipate that the rule will impose 
additional costs on employers, beyond minimal costs to train human 
resource professionals. The regulation does not impose any new employer 
reporting or recordkeeping obligations. We anticipate that the changes 
will benefit entities covered by title II of GINA by clarifying that 
employers who offer wellness programs are free to adopt a certain type 
of inducement without violating GINA, as well as correcting an internal 
citation, and providing citations to the ACA.
    Risks: The proposed rule imposes no new or additional risks to 
employers. The proposal does not address risks to public safety or the 
environment.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   10/30/15  80 FR 66853
NPRM Comment Period End.............   12/29/15  .......................
Final Action........................   02/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, 
Organizations.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State.
    Agency Contact: Christopher Kuczynski, Assistant Legal Counsel, 
Office of Legal Counsel, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 131 M 
Street NE., Washington, DC 20507, Phone: 202 663-4665, TDD Phone: 202 
663-7026, Fax: 202 653-6034, Email: [email protected].
    Kerry Leibig, Senior Attorney Advisor, Office of Legal Counsel, 
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 131 M Street NE., Washington, 
DC 20507, Phone: 202 663-4516, Fax: 202 653-6034, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 3046-AB02

EEOC

Final Rule Stage

123. Amendments to Regulations Under the Americans with Disabilities 
Act

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.
    CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1630.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This proposed rule would amend the regulations to 
implement the equal employment provisions of the Americans with 
Disabilities Act (ADA) to address the interaction between title I of 
the ADA and financial inducements and/or penalties as part of wellness 
programs offered through health plans. EEOC also plans to address other 
aspects of wellness programs that may be subject to the ADA's 
nondiscrimination provisions in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
    Statement of Need: The revision to 29 CFR 1630.14(d) is needed to 
address numerous inquiries EEOC has received about whether an employer 
that complies with regulations implementing the final Health Insurance 
Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) rules concerning wellness 
program incentives, as amended by the Affordable Care Act (ACA), will 
be in compliance with the ADA.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The ADA requires the EEOC to issue 
regulations implementing title I of the Act. The EEOC initially issued 
regulations in 1991 on the law's requirements and prohibited practices 
with respect to employment and issued amended regulations in 2011 to 
conform to changes to the ADA made by the ADA Amendments Act of 2008. 
These proposed revisions are based on that statutory requirement.
    Alternatives: The EEOC will consider all alternatives offered by 
public commenters.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Based on the information currently 
available, the Commission does not anticipate that the rule will impose 
additional costs on employers, beyond minimal costs to train human 
resource professionals. The regulation does not impose any new employer 
reporting or recordkeeping obligations. We anticipate that the changes 
will benefit entities covered by title I of the ADA by generally 
promoting consistency between the ADA and HIPAA, as amended by the ACA, 
and result in greater predictability and ease of administration.
    Risks:
    The proposed rule imposes no new or additional risks to employers. 
The proposal does not address risks to public safety or the 
environment.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   04/20/15  80 FR 21659
NPRM Comment Period End.............   06/19/15  .......................
Final Action........................   02/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 77879]]

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, 
Organizations.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State.
    Agency Contact: Christopher Kuczynski, Assistant Legal Counsel, 
Office of Legal Counsel, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 131 M 
Street NE., Washington, DC 20507, Phone: 202 663-4665, TDD Phone: 202 
663-7026, Fax: 202 653-6034, Email: [email protected].
    Joyce Walker-Jones, Senior Attorney Advisor, Office of Legal 
Counsel, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 131 M Street NE., 
Washington, DC 20507, Phone: 202 663-7031, Fax: 202 653-6034, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 3046-AB01

BILLING CODE 6570-01-P

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION (GSA)

Regulatory Plan--October 2015

I. Mission and Overview

    GSA oversees the business of the Federal Government by supplying 
Federal purchasers with cost-effective, high-quality products and 
services from commercial vendors providing workplaces for Federal 
employees, overseeing the preservation of historic Federal properties, 
providing tools, equipment, and non-tactical vehicles to the U.S. 
military, and providing State and local governments with law 
enforcement equipment, firefighting and rescue equipment, and disaster 
recovery products and services.
    GSA's work is done through the Federal Acquisition Service (FAS), 
the Public Buildings Service (PBS), and the Office of Government-wide 
Policy (OGP).

Federal Acquisition Service (FAS)

    FAS is the lead organization for procurement of products and 
services (other than real property) for the Federal Government and 
leverages the buying power of the Government by consolidating Federal 
agencies' requirements for common goods and services.

Public Buildings Service (PBS)

    PBS is the largest public real estate organization in the United 
States, providing facilities and workspace solutions to more than 60 
Federal agencies PBS' activities fall into two broad areas. The first 
is space acquisition through both leases and construction. PBS 
translates general needs into specific requirements, marshals the 
necessary resources, and delivers the space necessary to meet the 
respective missions of its Federal clients. The second area is 
management of space. This involves making decisions on maintenance, 
servicing tenants, and ultimately, deciding when and how to dispose of 
a property at the end of its useful life.

Office of Government-Wide Policy (OGP)

    OGP sets Government-wide policy in the areas of personal and real 
property, travel and transportation, information technology, regulatory 
information, and use of Federal advisory committees. OGP also helps 
direct how all Federal supplies and services are acquired as well as 
GSA's own acquisition programs.
    OGP's policy regulations are described below:

Office of Asset and Transportation Management (Federal Travel 
Regulation)

    Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) enumerates the travel and 
relocation policy for all title 5 Executive agency employees. The FTR 
is the regulation contained in 41 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 
chapters 300 through 304, that implements statutory requirements and 
executive branch policies for travel by Federal civilian employees and 
others authorized to travel at Government expense.

Office of Asset and Transportation Management (Federal Management 
Regulation)

    Federal Management Regulation (FMR) establishes policy for 
aircraft, transportation, personal property, real property, and mail 
management. The FMR is the successor regulation to the Federal Property 
Management Regulation (FPMR), and it contains updated regulatory 
policies originally found in the FPMR.

Office of Acquisition Policy (General Services Administration 
Acquisition Manual (GSAM) and the General Services Administration 
Acquisition Regulation (GSAR))

    GSA's internal rules and practices on how it buys goods and 
services from its business partners are covered by the General Services 
Administration Acquisition Manual (GSAM), which implements and 
supplement the Federal Acquisition Regulation at GSA. The GSAM 
comprises both a non-regulatory portion (GSAM), which reflects policies 
with no external impact, and a regulatory portion, the General Services 
Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR). The GSAR establishes 
agency acquisition regulations that affect GSA's business partners 
(e.g. prospective offerors and contractors) and acquisition of 
leasehold interests in real property.

Federal Acquisition Regulation

    On behalf of the General Services Administration (GSA), the Office 
of Government-wide Policy, in conjunction with Department of Defense 
(DOD) and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), write 
and sign the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), the rule book for 
all federal agency procurements that governs the billions of contract 
dollars expended by the Government every year.

II. Statement of Regulatory and Deregulatory Priorities

FTR Regulatory Priorities

    In fiscal year 2016, GSA plans to amend the FTR by:
     Revising Chapter 301, Temporary Duty Travel, ensuring 
accountability and transparency. This revision will ensure agencies' 
travel for missions is efficient and effective, reduces costs, promotes 
sustainability, and incorporates industry best practices at the lowest 
logical travel cost.
     Revising Chapter 302, Relocation Allowances for 
miscellaneous items based on administrative changes, case decisions, 
and agency review.

FMR Regulatory Priorities

    In fiscal year 2016, GSA plans to amend the FMR by:
     Revising rules regarding management of Federal real 
property;
     Revising rules regarding management of Federal personal 
property.
     Revising rules under management of mail and 
transportation.

GSAR Regulatory Priorities

    GSA plans, to update the GSAR to maintain consistency with the 
Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and to implement streamlined and 
innovative acquisition procedures that contractors, offerors, and GSA 
contracting personnel can utilize when entering into and administering 
contractual relationships. Current GSAR initiatives are focused on--
     Providing consistency with the FAR;
     Eliminating coverage that duplicates the FAR or creates 
inconsistencies within the GSAR;

[[Page 77880]]

     Rewriting sections that have become irrelevant because of 
changes in technology or business processes or that place unnecessary 
administrative burdens on contractors and the Government;
     Streamlining or simplifying the regulation;
     Rolling up coverage from the services and regions/zones 
that should be in the GSAR, specifically targeting PBS's construction 
contracting policies and the GSA Schedules Program;
     Streamlining the evaluation process for contracts 
containing commercial supplier agreements; and
     Reviewing pricing practices for the GSA Schedules Program.

Regulations of Concern to Small Businesses

    GSAR rules are relevant to small businesses that do or wish to do 
business with the Federal Government. GSA is reviewing regulations that 
govern the GSA Schedules program; approximately 17,300 businesses, most 
of whom are small, have GSA Schedule contracts.
    GSAR Case 2013-G504, Transactional Data Reporting and GSAR Case 
2013-G502, Federal Supply Schedules Administrative Changes are both of 
interest to GSA proposed a rule to capture transactional data, and in 
return eliminate the requirement for contractors to track prices 
offered to the customer or class of customers designated for purposes 
of the Price Reductions Clause. Among other benefits, GSA anticipates 
this rule to result in a net burden reduction to GSA Schedule 
contractors and reduce the need for costly, duplicative contract 
vehicles, thereby reducing the barrier to entry for small businesses in 
the Federal marketplace. GSAR Case 2013-G502, Federal Supply Schedules 
Administrative Changes updates the GSA Schedules program to implement 
long standing Schedules clauses that had previously never received 
public comment.
    Additionally, GSAR case 2015-G512 Unenforceable Commercial Supplier 
Agreement Terms will propose a way to streamline the evaluation process 
to award contracts containing commercial supplier agreements. By 
streamlining this process, GSA anticipates reducing barriers to entry 
for small businesses.

Regulations Which Promote Open Government and Disclosure

    There are currently no regulations which promote open Government 
and disclosure.

III. Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations

    Pursuant to section 6 of Executive Order 13563 ``Improving 
Regulation and Regulatory Review'' (July, 2015), the GSA retrospective 
review and analysis final and updated regulations plan can be found at 
www.gsa.gov/improvingregulations.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Completed actions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3090-AI79.............................  Federal Management Regulation
                                         (FMR); FMR Case 2008-102-4,
                                         Mail Management, Financial
                                         Requirements for All Agencies.
3090-AI81.............................  General Services Administration
                                         Acquisition Regulation (GSAR);
                                         GSAR Case 2008-G509, Rewrite
                                         GSAR 536, Construction and
                                         Architect-Engineer Contracts
                                         (Withdrawn).
3090-AI82.............................  General Services Administration
                                         Acquisition Regulation (GSAR);
                                         GSAR Case 2006-G506,
                                         Environment, Conservation,
                                         Occupational Safety, and Drug-
                                         Free Workplace.
3090-AI95.............................  Federal Travel Regulation (FTR);
                                         FTR Case 2009-307, Temporary
                                         Duty (TDY) Travel Allowances
                                         (Taxes); Relocation Allowances
                                         (Taxes).
3090-AJ23.............................  Federal Travel Regulation (FTR);
                                         FTR Case 2011-310; Telework
                                         Travel Expenses Test Programs.
3090-AJ26.............................  Federal Management Regulation
                                         (FMR); FMR Case 2012-102-2;
                                         Donation of Surplus Personal
                                         Property.
3090-AJ27.............................  Federal Travel Regulation (FTR);
                                         FTR Case 2012-301; Removal of
                                         Conference Lodging Allowance
                                         Provisions.
3090-AJ31.............................  General Service Administration
                                         Acquisition Regulation (GSAR);
                                         GSAR Case 2012-G503, Industrial
                                         Funding Fee (IFF) and Sales
                                         Reporting.
3090-AJ34.............................  Federal Management Regulation
                                         (FMR); FMR Case 2012-102-5,
                                         Restrictions on International
                                         Transportation of Freight and
                                         Household Goods.
3090-AJ35.............................  Federal Management Regulation
                                         (FMR); FMR Case 2013-102-1;
                                         Obligating Authority.
3090-AJ36.............................  General Services Administration
                                         Acquisition Regulation (GSAR);
                                         GSAR Case 2012-G501, Electronic
                                         Contracting Initiative.
3090-AJ42.............................  General Services Administration
                                         Acquisition Regulation (GSAR);
                                         GSAR Case 2010-G511, Purchasing
                                         by Non-Federal Entities.
3090-AJ46.............................  General Services Administration
                                         Acquisition Regulation (GSAR);
                                         GSAR Case 2013-G501;
                                         Qualifications of Offerors.
3090-AJ47.............................  General Services Administration
                                         Acquisition Regulation (GSAR);
                                         GSAR Case 2014-G501;
                                         Progressive Awards and Monthly
                                         Quantity Allocations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Dated: September 18, 2015.

Christine Harada,

Associate Administrator, Office of Government-wide Policy.

BILLING CODE 6820-34-P

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION (NASA)

Statement of Regulatory Priorities

    The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) aim is to 
increase human understanding of the solar system and the universe that 
contains it, and to improve American aeronautics ability. NASA's basic 
organization consists of the Headquarters, nine field Centers, the Jet 
Propulsion Laboratory (a Federally Funded Research and Development 
Center), and several component installations which report to Center 
Directors. Responsibility for overall planning, coordination, and 
control of NASA programs is vested in NASA Headquarters located in 
Washington, DC.
    NASA continues to implement programs according to its 2014 
Strategic Plan. The Agency's mission is to ``Drive advances in science, 
technology, aeronautics, and space exploration to enhance knowledge, 
education, innovation, economic vitality, and stewardship of the 
Earth.'' The FY 2014 Strategic Plan, (available at http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/2014 NASA Strategic Plan.pdf), guides NASA's 
program activities through a framework of the following three strategic 
goals:
     Strategic Goal 1: Expand the frontiers of knowledge, 
capability, and opportunity in space.
     Strategic Goal 2: Advance understanding of Earth and 
develop

[[Page 77881]]

technologies to improve the quality of life on our home planet.
     Strategic Goal 3: Serve the American public and accomplish 
our mission by effectively managing our people, technical capabilities, 
and infrastructure.
    In the decades since Congress enacted the National Aeronautics and 
Space Act of 1958, NASA has challenged its scientific and engineering 
capabilities in pursuing its mission, generating tremendous results and 
benefits for humankind. NASA will continue to push scientific and 
technical boundaries in pursuit of these goals.

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.
    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 by focusing efforts on controlling the 
most critical products and technologies and by enhancing the 
competitiveness of U.S. manufacturing and technology sectors. While 
NASA does not have any regulations implementing this initiative, the 
Agency does serve on the interagency review team in a consultative and 
supportive role for this process, along with the Department of Defense, 
the Department of State and the Department of Commerce.
    In addition, NASA serves as one of the signatories to the Federal 
Acquisition Regulation (FAR). The FAR at 48 CFR chapter 1, contains 
procurement regulations that apply to NASA and other Federal agencies. 
Pursuant to 41 U.S.C. section 1302 and FAR 1.103(b), the FAR is jointly 
prepared, issued, and maintained by the Secretary of Defense, the 
Administrator of General Services, and the Administrator, National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration, under their several statutory 
authorities. NASA implements and supplements FAR requirements through 
the NASA FAR Supplement (NFS), 48 CFR chapter 18. NASA finalized the 
entire NFS rewrite initiative this year to eliminate unnecessary and 
burdensome regulations, clarify regulatory language, and simplify 
processes. More than 1.9 million hours of information collection 
requirements (ICRs) were identified as no longer required and 
duplicative of active FAR-level ICRs. Specifically, OMB control numbers 
2700-0085, 2700-0086, and 2700-0087 were discontinued as part of the 
NFS rewrite initiative. The Agency will continue to analyze the NFS to 
implement procurement-related statutes, Executive orders, NASA 
initiatives, and Federal procurement policy that streamline current 
processes and procedures.

Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations

    Pursuant to section 6 of Executive Order 13579 ``Regulation and 
Independent Regulatory Agencies'' (Jul. 11, 2011), NASA regulations 
associated with its retrospective review and analysis are described in 
the Agency's final retrospective plan of existing regulations. NASA's 
final plan and updates can be found at http://www.nasa.gov/open, under 
the Open Government News. Below describes the rulemakings that were 
recently completed or are near completion.

Rulemakings That Were Streamlined and Reduced Unjustified Burdens

    1. Discrimination on Basis of Handicap [14 CFR 1251]--NASA is 
finalizing its section 504 regulations to incorporate changes to the 
definition of disability required by the Americans with Disabilities 
Act (ADA) Amendments Act of 2008, include an affirmative statement of 
the longstanding requirement for reasonable accommodations in programs, 
services, and activities, include a definition of direct threat and a 
provision describing the parameters of the existing direct threat 
defense to a claim of discrimination, clarify the existing obligation 
to provide auxiliary aids and services to qualified individuals with 
disabilities, update the methods of communication that recipients may 
use to inform program beneficiaries of their obligation to comply with 
section 504 to reflect changes in technology, adopt updated 
accessibility standards applicable to the design, construction, and 
alteration of buildings and facilities, establish time periods for 
compliance with these updated accessibility standards, provide NASA 
with access to recipient data and records to determine compliance with 
section 504, and make administrative updates to correct titles. These 
amendments will reduce administrative burdens imposed on the public.
    2. NASA FAR Supplement: Safety and Health Measures and Mishap 
Reporting [48 CFR 1852.233]--NASA is finalizing its regulations to 
revise a current clause related to safety and health measures and 
mishaps reporting by narrowing the application of the clause, resulting 
in a decrease in the reporting burden on contractors while reinforcing 
the measures contractors at NASA facilities must take to protect the 
safety of their workers, NASA employees, the public, and high value 
assets These amendments will streamline and reduce reporting 
requirements imposed on the public.
    3. NASA FAR Supplement: Drug and Alcohol Free Workplace and Mission 
Critical Systems Personnel Reliability Program [48 CFR 1823, 1846, and 
1852]--NASA amended its regulations to remove requirements related to 
the discontinued Space Flight Mission Critical System Personnel 
Reliability Program (PRP) and to revise requirements related to 
contractor drug and alcohol testing. These amendments eliminated 
contractors' costs and burden for implementing PRP [80 FR 60552].
    4. Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles and Audit 
Requirements for Federal Awards [2 CFR 1800]--NASA amended is 
regulations to incorporate requirements for the use of the Federal 
Awardee Performance & Integrity Information Systems, in accordance with 
OMB's uniform guidance. These amendments are expected to reduce 
duplication and risk associated with administering grants and 
cooperative agreements; the chance of errors, and allows for the timely 
closeout of grants and cooperative agreements [80 FR 54701].
    5. NASA Far Supplement: Denied Access to NASA Facilities [48 CFR 
1852.242-72]--NASA amended its regulations to remove ``Observance of 
Legal Holidays'' and added in its place a new clause entitled, ``Denied 
Access to NASA Facilities,'' because the October 2013 Government 
shutdown revealed a need for NASA to be specific and differentiate 
between conditions when contractor employees may be denied access to 
their work location in a NASA facility. These amendments standardize 
procedures and provide greater clarity to contractors on conditions 
when contractors may be denied access to NASA facilities due to a 
Government shutdown [80 FR 52642].
    6. NASA FAR Supplement #3--NASA amended its regulations to 
eliminate unnecessary regulatory text, streamline overly-burdensome 
regulations, clarify language, and simplify processes where possible 
[80 FR 36719].

[[Page 77882]]

Rulemakings That Was Modified, Streamlined, Expanded, or Repealed

    7. Space Flight [14 CFR 1214]--NASA is proposing to amend its 
regulations to remove language that refers to the retired Space Shuttle 
Program and to clarify language for other ongoing programs that 
requires some of this rule to remain in place.
    8. NASA Protective Services [14 CFR 1204]--NASA is amending its 
traffic enforcement regulation to correct citations, and to clarify the 
regulation's scope, policy, responsibilities, procedures, and violation 
descriptions.
    9. Processing of Monetary Claims [14 CFR 1261]--NASA is amending 
its regulations to change the amount to collect installment payments 
from $20,000 to $1000 to align with Title II, Claims of the United 
States Government, section 3711(a)(2) Collection and Compromise. This 
regulation will also be amended to include the rules for the use of 
contractors for debt collection and new provisions allowing for debts 
to be transferred to the Treasury Department for direct collection, as 
prescribed by Federal Debt Collection Procedures Act of 1990.
    10. Duty Free Entry of Space Articles [14 CFR 1217]--NASA amended 
its regulations to remove language that refers to the Space Shuttle 
Program and to clarify language for other ongoing programs that require 
some of this rule to remain in place [80 FR 45864].
    11. Removal of Obsolete Regulations [14 CFR 1216]--NASA amended its 
regulations to remove regulatory text that is covered in internal NASA 
policies and requirements [80 FR 30352].
    12. Administrative Updates [14 CFR 1207, 1245, 1262, 1263, 1264, & 
1266] NASA amended its regulations to make administrative updates to 
correct spelling citations [80 FR 42028].

Rulemaking That Is of Particular Concerns to Small Business

    13. NASA Capitalization Threshold [48 CFR 1845 and 1852]--NASA 
issued an interim rule amending the NASA FAR Supplement to increase the 
NASA capitalization threshold from $100,000 to $500,000. The Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) recommends that capital asset thresholds 
should be periodically reevaluated to ensure their continuing relevance 
and that they are established at a level that would not omit a 
significant amount of assets from the balance sheet. Accordingly, the 
NASA Office of the Chief Financial Officer conducted a review of the 
current NASA capital asset threshold of $100,000 and determined an 
increase in the capital asset threshold to $500,000 was warranted. NASA 
expects this rule to benefit NASA contractors by reducing some of the 
administrative burden associated with financial reporting of NASA 
property in the custody of contractors. Of the 568 NASA contracts 
awarded in 2014, approximately 114 contracts (20%) that required 
reporting of Government property were awarded to small businesses. [80 
FR 51957].
    Abstracts for other regulations that will be amended or repealed 
between October 2015 and October 2016 are reported in the fall 2015 
edition of Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulation 
actions.

BILLING CODE 7510-13-P

NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION (NARA)

Statement of Regulatory Priorities

Overview

    The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) primarily 
issues regulations directed to other Federal agencies and to the 
public. These regulations include records management, information 
services, access to and use of NARA holdings, and grant programs. For 
example, records management regulations directed to Federal agencies 
concern the proper management and disposition of Federal records. 
Through the Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO), NARA also 
issues Government-wide regulations concerning information security 
classification and declassification programs. NARA regulations directed 
to the public address access to and use of our historically valuable 
holdings, including archives, donated historical materials, Nixon 
Presidential materials, and Presidential records. NARA also issues 
regulations relating to the National Historical Publications and 
Records Commission (NHPRC) grant programs.
    NARA has three regulatory priorities for fiscal year 2016, which 
are included in The Regulatory Plan. The first are revisions to the 
Federal records management regulations found at 36 CFR chapter XII, 
subchapter B (phases I and II). The proposed changes include changes 
resulting from the 2011 Presidential Memorandum on Managing Government 
Records, the 2012 Managing Government Records Directive (M-12-18), and 
Public Law 113-187, The Presidential and Federal Records Acts 
Amendments of 2014. The proposed rules will affect Federal agencies' 
records management programs relating to proper records creation and 
maintenance, adequate documentation, electronic recordkeeping 
requirements, use of the Electronic Records Archive (ERA) for records 
transfer, and records disposition. Phase I (RIN 3095-AB74) includes 
changes to provisions in 36 CFR parts 1223 (Managing Essential 
Records), 1224 (Records Disposition Programs), 1227 (General Records 
Schedules), 1229 (Emergency Authorization to Destroy Records), 1232 
(Transfer of Records to Records Storage Facilities), 1233 (Transfer Use 
and Disposition of Records in a NARA Federal Records Center), 1235 
(Transfer of Records to the National Archives of the United States), 
1236 (Electronic records management), 1237 (Audiovisual Cartographic 
and Related Records Management), and 1239 (Program Assistance and 
Inspections). NARA has substantially revamped these provisions and they 
are out for public comment this fall. Phase II (RIN 3095-AB85) is 
underway, with the remaining parts of subchapter B currently undergoing 
revision.
    The second priority is a new regulation on Controlled Unclassified 
Information (CUI). The Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO), a 
component of NARA, is promulgating this rule pursuant to Executive 
Order 13556. The Order establishes an open and uniform program for 
managing information requiring safeguarding or dissemination controls. 
This rule sets forth guidance to agencies on safeguarding, 
disseminating, marking, and decontrolling CUI, self-inspection and 
oversight requirements, and other facets of the program.
    And the third priority is a new regulation on the Office of 
Government Information Services functions and procedures. The Open 
Government Act of 2007 (Pub. L. 110-175, 121 Stat. 2524), amended the 
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552, as amended), and 
created the Office of Government Information Services (OGIS) within the 
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). OGIS is proposing 
regulations, pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 2104, to clarify, elaborate upon, 
and specify the procedures in place for Federal agencies and public 
requesters who seek OGIS's services within the FOIA system. The 
regulations will specify the means by which OGIS carries out its role 
as the Federal FOIA Ombudsman--by working with Federal agencies to 
provide an alternative to litigation in resolving FOIA disputes, by 
independently reviewing agency FOIA policies,

[[Page 77883]]

procedures, and compliance, and by recommending improvements to FOIA's 
administration.

BILLING CODE 7515-01-P

U.S. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT

Statement of Regulatory and Deregulatory Priorities

Fall 2015 Unified Agenda

I. Mission and Overview

    OPM works in several broad categories to recruit, retain and honor 
a world-class workforce for the American people.
     We manage Federal job announcement postings at 
USAJOBS.gov, and set policy on governmentwide hiring procedures.
     We conduct background investigations for prospective 
employees and security clearances across government, with hundreds of 
thousands of cases each year.
     We uphold and defend the merit systems in Federal civil 
service, making sure that the Federal workforce uses fair practices in 
all aspects of personnel management.
     We manage pension benefits for retired Federal employees 
and their families. We also administer health and other insurance 
programs for Federal employees and retirees.
     We provide training and development programs and other 
management tools for Federal employees and agencies.
     In many cases, we take the lead in developing, testing and 
implementing new governmentwide policies that relate to personnel 
issues.
    Altogether, we work to make the Federal government America's model 
employer for the 21st century.

II. Statement of Regulatory and Deregulatory Priorities

Management Priorities

 Personnel Management in Agencies
3206-AL98
    The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) will reissue a new 
proposed rule that will provide regulatory definitions for various 
documents related to the strategic management of human resources, 
clarify requirements regarding the systems and metrics for managing 
human resources in the Federal Government, streamline/clarify 
procedures agencies are required to follow, eliminate the Human Capital 
Management Report, and reflect the planning and reporting requirements 
of the Government Performance and Results Modernization Act.
 Human Resources Management Reporting Requirements
3206-AM69
    The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is issuing final 
regulations to remove or amend certain provisions relating to reporting 
requirements for Federal agencies that OPM has determined--pursuant to 
Executive Order 13583 of August 18, 2011, ``Establishing a Coordinated 
Government-Wide Initiative to Promote Diversity and Inclusion in the 
Federal Workforce''--are no longer needed. This Executive order 
included a requirement for OPM to: ``review applicable directives to 
agencies related to the development or submission of agency human 
capital and other workforce plans and reports in connection with 
recruitment, hiring, promotion, retention, professional development, 
and training policies and practices, and develop a strategy for 
consolidating such agency plans and reports where appropriate and 
permitted by law . . .''
 Senior Employee Performance Management System Certification
3206-AL20
    The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is proposing changes 
to the senior employee performance management system certification 
regulations which will ultimately replace interim regulations published 
in 2004. Proposed changes reflect lessons learned from several years of 
certifying agency Senior Executive Service (SES) and Senior-Level (SL) 
and Scientific and Professional (ST) performance management systems and 
recommendations from a cross-agency workgroup.

Hiring Priorities

 Veterans' Preference
3206-AM79
    The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) issued interim 
regulations to implement statutory changes pertaining to veterans' 
preference. These changes were in response to the Hubbard Act, which 
broadened the category of individuals eligible for veterans' 
preference; and to implement the VOW (Veterans Opportunity to Work) to 
Hire Heroes Act of 2011, which requires Federal agencies to treat 
certain active duty service members as preference eligibles for 
purposes of competing for a position in the competitive service, even 
though the service members have not been discharged or released from 
active duty and do not have a Department of Defense (DD) form 214, 
Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty. In addition, OPM 
updated its regulations to reference existing requirements for the 
alternative ranking and selection procedure called ``category rating;'' 
and to add a reference to the end date of Operation Iraqi Freedom, 
which affected veteran status and preference eligibility. This action 
will align OPM's regulations with the existing statute.
 Suitability
3206-AN25
    The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) will be proposing 
modifications to its rules to better ensure that applicants from all 
segments of society, including those with prior criminal histories, 
receive a fair opportunity to compete for Federal employment. The 
proposed changes would prohibit the collection of criminal background 
information until the best qualified candidates are referred to a 
hiring manager. These regulations would better ensure that applicants 
are evaluated as to relevant competencies before criminal history 
information is collected. OPM would be providing a mechanism for 
requesting exceptions when there are legitimate, specific job-related, 
reasons why agencies may need to disqualify candidates with certain 
types of adverse history from particular types of positions.

Health Benefit Priorities

 Federal Employees Health Benefits Program: Family Member 
Disenrollments and Process for Removal
3206-AN09
    The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is issuing a proposed 
rule to clarify the process for removing ineligible individuals from 
Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Program Self and Family 
enrollments.

[[Page 77884]]

Pay and Leave Priorites

[cir] Compensatory Time Off for Religious Observances
3206-AL55
    The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) will issue a final 
rule regarding compensatory time off for religious observances. The 
final regulation will address comments to the proposed rule (78 FR 
53695), and will clarify employee and agency responsibilities, provide 
timeframes for earning and using religious compensatory time off, and 
define key terms.
[cir] Family and Medical Leave Act; Definition of Spouse
3206-AM90
    The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is revising the 
definition of ``spouse'' in its regulations on the Family and Medical 
Leave Act (FMLA) as a result of the decision by the United States 
Supreme Court in United States v. Windsor, holding Section 3 of the 
Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional.

III. Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations

    Pursuant to section 6 of Executive Order 13563 ``Improving 
Regulation and Regulatory Review'' (July, 2015), the OPM retrospective 
review and analysis final and updated regulations plan can be found at 
https://www.opm.gov/about-us/open-government/accountability/.

            Office of Personnel Management--Completed Actions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Regulation
                         Title                           Identifier No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Managing Senior Executive Performance.................         3206-AM48
Designation of National Security Positions In the              3206-AM73
 Competitive Service, and Related Matters.............
Prevailing Rate Systems; Redefinition of the                   3206-AN15
 Jacksonville, FL; Savannah, GA; Hagerstown-
 Martinsburg-Chambersburg, MD; Richmond, VA; and
 Roanoke, VA, Appropriated Fund Federal Wage System
 Wage Areas...........................................
Federal Employees' Retirement System; Present Value            3206-AN16
 Conversion Factors for Spouses of Deceased Separated
 Employees............................................
Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance Program:               3206-AN04
 Providing Option C Coverage for Children of Same-Sex
 Domestic Partners....................................
Federal Employees Health Benefits Program; Disputed            3206-AM42
 Claims and External Review Requirements..............
Federal Employees Health Benefits Program; Rate                3206-AN00
 Setting for Community-Rated Plans....................
Federal Employees Health Benefits Program Self Plus            3206-AN08
 One Enrollment Type..................................
Federal Employees Health Benefits Program: FEHB Plan           3206-AN13
 Performance Assessment System........................
Federal Employees Health Benefits Program; Subrogation         3206-AN14
 and Reimbursement Recovery...........................
Prevailing Rate Systems; Special Wage Schedules for            3206-AN17
 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Flood Control Employees
 of the Vicksburg District in Mississippi.............
Overtime Pay for Border Patrol Agents.................         3206-AN19
Federal Long-Term Care Insurance Program Eligibility           3206-AN05
 Changes..............................................
Federal Employees Health Benefits Program: Enrollment          3206-AN07
 Options Following the Termination of a Plan or Plan
 Option...............................................
General Schedule Locality Pay Areas...................         3206-AM88
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Beth F. Cobert,

Acting Director Office of Personnel Management.

BILLING CODE 6325-44-P

PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORPORATION (PBGC)

Statement of Regulatory and Deregulatory Priorities

    The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) protects the 
pensions of more than 40 million people in more than 25,000 private-
sector defined benefit plans. PBGC receives no tax revenues. Operations 
are financed by insurance premiums, investment income, assets from 
pension plans trusteed by PBGC, and recoveries from the companies 
formerly responsible for the trusteed plans.
    To carry out these functions, PBGC issues regulations on such 
matters as termination, payment of premiums, reporting and disclosure, 
and assessment and collection of employer liability. The Corporation is 
committed to issuing simple, understandable, flexible, and timely 
regulations to help affected parties.
    PBGC continues to follow a regulatory approach that does not 
inadvertently discourage the maintenance of existing defined benefit 
plans or the establishment of new plans. Thus, in developing new 
regulations and reviewing existing regulations, the focus, to the 
extent possible, is to avoid placing burdens on plans, employers, and 
participants, and to ease and simplify employer compliance. PBGC 
particularly strives to meet the needs of small businesses that sponsor 
defined benefit plans.
    PBGC develops its regulations in accordance with the principles set 
forth in Executive Order 13563 ``Improving Regulation and Regulatory 
Review'' (Jan. 18, 2011), and PBGC's Plan for Regulatory Review 
(Regulatory Review Plan).\1\ This Statement of Regulatory and 
Deregulatory Priorities reflects PBGC's ongoing implementation of its 
Regulatory Review Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ http://www.pbgc.gov/documents/plan-for-regulatory-review.pdf 
. Progress reports on the plan can be found at http://www.pbgc.gov/res/laws-and-regulations/reducing-regulatory-burden.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

PBGC Insurance Programs

    PBGC administers two insurance programs for privately defined 
benefit plans under title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security 
Act of 1974 (ERISA):
     Single-Employer Program. Under the single-employer 
program, when a plan terminates with insufficient assets to cover all 
plan benefits (distress and involuntary terminations), PBGC pays plan 
benefits that are guaranteed under title IV. PBGC also pays 
nonguaranteed plan benefits to the extent funded by plan assets or 
recoveries from employers.
     Multiemployer Program. The smaller multiemployer program 
covers approximately 1,400 collectively bargained plans involving more 
than one unrelated employer. PBGC provides financial assistance (in the 
form of a loan) to the plan if the plan is unable to pay benefits at 
the guaranteed level. The guarantee is differently structured from and 
generally significantly smaller than the single-employer guarantee.
    At the end of FY 2014, PBGC had a deficit of about $62 billion in 
its

[[Page 77885]]

insurance programs. Current PBGC premiums are insufficient.

Regulatory Objectives and Priorities

    PBGC's regulatory objectives and priorities are developed in the 
context of the Corporation's statutory purposes:
     To encourage voluntary private pension plans.
     To provide for the timely and uninterrupted payment of 
pension benefits.
     To keep premiums at the lowest possible levels.
    Pensions and the statutory framework in which they are maintained 
and terminate are complex. Despite this complexity, PBGC is committed 
to issuing simple, understandable, flexible, and timely regulations and 
other guidance that do not impose undue burdens that could impede 
maintenance or establishment of defined benefit plans.
    Through its regulations and other guidance, PBGC strives to 
minimize burdens on plans, plan sponsors, and plan participants; 
simplify filing; provide relief for small businesses and plans; and 
assist plans in complying with applicable requirements. To enhance 
policy-making through collaboration, PBGC also plans to expand 
opportunities for public participation in rulemaking (see Open 
Government and Public Participation below).
    PBGC's current regulatory objectives and priorities are to simplify 
its regulations and reduce burden, enhance retirement security, and to 
implement statutory changes, particularly the Multiemployer Pension 
Reform Act of 2014 (MPRA) and the Pension Protection Act of 2006 (PPA 
2006).

Rethinking Existing Regulations

    Pursuant to section 6 of Executive Order 13563 ``Improving 
Regulation and Regulatory Review'' (Jan. 18, 2011), the following 
Regulatory Identifier Numbers (RINs) have been identified as associated 
with retrospective review and analysis in the Department's final 
retrospective review of regulations plan. The regulatory actions 
associated with these RINs, as well as other regulatory review 
projects, are described below.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Effect on small
              Title                       RIN              business
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual Financial and Actuarial            1212-AB30  Expected to reduce
 Information Reporting; Changes                       burden on small
 to Waivers.                                          business.
Reportable Events................         1212-AB06  Expected to reduce
                                                      burden on small
                                                      business.
Multiemployer Plans; Electronic           1212-AB28  Expected to reduce
 Filing Requirements.                                 burden on small
                                                      business.
Valuation assumptions and                 1212-AB25  Undetermined.
 methods; interest and mortality.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ERISA section 4010. PBGC reviewed its regulation on Annual 
Financial and Actuarial Information Reporting (part 4010) and the 
related e-filing application to consider ways of reducing reporting 
burden and ensuring that PBGC receives the critical information it 
needs. In July 2015, PBGC published a proposed rule \2\ that would 
modify the existing reporting waiver for companies with aggregate 
underfunding of less than $15 million in all their plans. This change 
would better align the regulation with the original intent of generally 
limiting 4010 reporting relief to smaller plans. The proposal would 
also add two new reporting waivers, codify the guidance provided in 
recent statutory changes and related PBGC guidance on 4010 reporting, 
and make other technical changes. PBGC expects to publish a final rule 
early in FY 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ http://www.pbgc.gov/Documents/2015-18177.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Reportable events. ERISA section 4043 and PBGC's implementing 
regulation requires that pension plans and the companies that sponsor 
them give PBGC notice of various events affecting either the company or 
the plan that may signal financial problems and could potentially put 
pensions at risk. In September 2015, PBGC published a final rule \3\ 
that will provide the majority of sponsors and plans with increased 
flexibility to determine whether a reporting waiver will apply. Under 
the new rules, reporting will be limited to situations that pose the 
greatest risk to the pension insurance system. The final rule was 
developed in response to comments on two earlier proposals, discussion 
at PBGC's first-ever regulatory hearing, and Executive Order 13563.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ http://www.pbgc.gov/documents/2015-14930.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Multiemployer plans filing requirements. In September 2015, PBGC 
published a final rule \4\ that will require electronic filing of 
certain multiemployer plan notices. These changes will make the 
provision of information to PBGC more efficient and effective and 
result in a slight decrease in burden on the public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-17/pdf/2015-23361.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Valuation assumptions and methods; interest and mortality. PBGC has 
established a routine, periodic review of PBGC's regulations and 
policies to ensure that the actuarial and economic content remains 
current. PBGC plans to publish a proposed rule in FY 2016 that would 
amend its benefit valuation and asset allocation regulations by 
improving its valuation assumptions and methods. Chief among the 
modifications PBGC is considering are modifications to mortality rates 
and the format of its interest factors.

Retirement Security

    DC to DB plan rollovers. In November 2015, PBGC published a final 
rule \5\ that clarifies the treatment of benefits resulting from a 
rollover distribution from a defined contribution plan to a defined 
benefit plan, if the defined benefit plan was terminated and trusteed 
by PBGC.\6\ Under the final regulation, a benefit resulting from 
rollover amounts generally will not be subject to PBGC's maximum 
guaranteeable benefit or phase-in limitations and will be in the second 
highest priority category of benefits in the allocation of assets. This 
rulemaking was part of PBGC's efforts to enhance retirement security by 
promoting lifetime income options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-11-25/pdf/2014-27826.pdf.
    \6\ 79 FR 18483 (Apr. 2, 2014), http://www.pbgc.gov/documents/2014-07323.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Statutory Implementation

    MPRA. MPRA established new options for trustees of multiemployer 
plans that will potentially run out of money to apply to PBGC for 
financial assistance. In June 2015, PBGC published an interim final 
rule \7\ prescribing the application process and notice requirements 
for partitions of eligible multiemployer plans under MPRA. PBGC 
received nine comments

[[Page 77886]]

on the interim final rule and expects to issue a new final rule in 
December 2015. PBGC is also developing a proposed rule that would 
prescribe rules for facilitated mergers of multiemployer plans under 
MPRA and conform the existing regulation to changes in the law. PBGC 
expects to publish that proposal in December 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ http://www.pbgc.gov/documents/2015-14930.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Cash balance plans. PPA 2006 changed the rules for determining 
benefits in cash balance plans and other statutory hybrid plans. In 
October 2011, PBGC published a proposed rule implementing the changes 
in both PBGC-trusteed plans and in plans that close out in the private 
sector.\8\ Now that Treasury has issued final regulations on statutory 
hybrid plans, PBGC is developing a final rule, which it expects to 
publish early in FY 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 76 FR 67105 (Oct. 31, 2011), http://www.pbgc.gov/Documents/2011-28124.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Missing participants. A major focus of PBGC's current regulatory 
efforts is the development of a proposal to improve and expand the 
existing missing participants program. As authorized by PPA 2006, the 
expanded program will cover terminating defined contribution plans, 
non-covered defined benefit plans, and multiemployer plans. The 
proposal will take into account comments received from employers, 
plans, and other stakeholders in response to a 2013 Request for 
Information. PBGC is working with IRS and DOL to coordinate government 
requirements for dealing with missing participant issues. PBGC expects 
to publish a proposed regulation early in FY 2016.

Small Businesses

    PBGC takes into account the special needs and concerns of small 
businesses in making policy. A large percentage of the plans insured by 
PBGC are small or maintained by small employers. PBGC has issued or is 
considering several proposed rules that will focus on small businesses: 
Reportable events. The reportable events final rule discussed above 
under Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations would waive many 
reporting requirements for plans with fewer than 100 participants.
    ERISA section 4010. The proposed rule discussed above under 
Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations would preserve the 
existing waiver reporting waiver tied to aggregate underfunding of less 
than $15 million for sponsors of smaller plans.
    Missing participants. The missing participants proposed rule 
discussed above under PPA 2006 Implementation would benefit small 
businesses by simplifying and streamlining current requirements, better 
coordinating with requirements of other agencies, and providing more 
options for sponsors of terminating non-covered plans.

Open Government and Increased Public Participation

    PBGC is doing more to encourage public participation in the 
regulatory process. For example, PBGC's current efforts to reduce 
regulatory burden are in substantial part a response to public 
comments. The regulatory projects discussed above highlight PBGC's 
customer-focused efforts to reduce regulatory burden.
    PBGC's Regulatory Review Plan sets forth ways to expand 
opportunities for public participation in the regulatory process. For 
example, in June 2013, PBGC held its first-ever regulatory hearing on 
the reportable events proposed rule, so that the agency would have a 
better understanding of the needs and concerns of plan administrators 
and plan sponsors. Discussion at that hearing informed PBGC's final 
rule. PBGC's 2015 Request for Information \9\ on partitions and 
facilitated mergers under MPRA is an example of PBGC's efforts to 
solicit public participation in the regulatory process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ http://www.pbgc.gov/documents/2015-03434.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    PBGC plans to provide additional means for public involvement, 
including on-line town hall meetings, social media, and continuing 
opportunity for public comment on PBGC's Web site.
    PBGC also invites comments on the Regulatory Review Plan on an on-
going basis as we engage in the review process. Comments should be sent 
to [email protected].
    PBGC will continue to look for ways to further improve its 
regulations.

BILLING CODE 7709-02-P

U.S. SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION (SBA)

Statement of Regulatory Priorities

Overview

    The mission of the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) is to 
maintain and strengthen the Nation's economy by enabling the 
establishment and viability of small businesses and by assisting in 
economic recovery of communities after disasters. In carrying out this 
mission, SBA strives to improve the economic environment for small 
businesses, including those in areas that have significantly higher 
unemployment and lower income levels than the Nation's averages and 
those in traditionally underserved markets. The Agency serves as a 
guarantor of small business loans, and also provides management and 
technical assistance to existing or potential small business owners 
through various grants, cooperative agreements or contracts. This 
access to capital and other assistance provides a crucial foundation 
for those starting a new business, or growing an existing business and 
ultimately helps to create new jobs. SBA also provides direct financial 
assistance to homeowners, renters, and small business to help in the 
rebuilding of communities in the aftermath of a disaster.

Reducing Burden on Small Businesses

    SBA's regulatory policy reflects a commitment to developing 
regulations that reduce or eliminate the burden on the public, in 
particular the Agency's core constituents--small businesses. SBA's 
regulatory process generally includes an assessment of the costs and 
benefits of the regulations as required by Executive Order 12866, 
``Regulatory Planning and Review;'' Executive Order 13563, ``Improving 
Regulation and Regulatory Review;'' and the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 
SBA's program offices are particularly invested in finding ways to 
reduce the burden imposed by the Agency's core activities in its loan, 
innovation, and procurement programs.

Openness and Transparency

    SBA promotes transparency, collaboration, and public participation 
in its rulemaking process. To that end, SBA routinely solicits comments 
on its regulations. Where appropriate, SBA also conducts hearings, 
webinars, and other public events as part of its regulatory process.

Regulatory Framework

    The SBA's FY 2014 to FY 2018 strategic plan serves as the 
foundation for the regulations that the Agency will develop during the 
next twelve months. This Strategic Plan provides a framework for 
strengthening, streamlining, and simplifying SBA's programs while 
leveraging collaborative relationships with other agencies and the 
private sector to maximize the tools small business owners and 
entrepreneurs need to drive American innovation and strengthen the 
economy. The plan sets out three strategic goals: (1) Growing 
businesses and creating jobs; (2) serving as the voice for small 
business; and (3) building an SBA that meets the needs of today's and 
tomorrow's small businesses. In order to

[[Page 77887]]

achieve these goals SBA will, among other objectives, focus on:
     Expanding access to capital through SBA's extensive 
lending network;
     Ensuring Federal contracting goals are met or exceeded by 
collaborating across the Federal Government to expand opportunities for 
small businesses and strengthen the integrity of the Federal 
contracting data and certification process;
     Strengthening SBA's relevance to high growth entrepreneurs 
and small businesses to more effectively drive innovation and job 
creation; and
     Mitigating risk and improving program oversight.
    The regulations reported in SBA's semi-annual regulatory agenda and 
plan are intended to facilitate achievement of these goals and 
objectives. Over the next twelve months, SBA's highest regulatory 
priorities will be to implement the following regulations and program 
guidance: (1) Affiliation for Business Loan Programs and Surety Bond 
Guarantee Program (RIN: 3245-AG73); (2) Small Business Investment 
Company (SBIC) Program; Impact SBICs (RIN: 3245-AG66); (3) Small 
Business Mentor-Prot[eacute]g[eacute] Programs (RIN: 3245-AG24), (4) 
Small Business Government Contracting and National Defense 
Authorization Act of 2013 Amendments (RIN: 3245-AG58), and (5) Small 
Business Innovation Research Program and Small Business Technology 
Transfer Program Policy Directive (RIN: 3245-AG64).
(1) Affiliation for Business Loan Programs and Surety Bond Guarantee 
Program (RIN: 3245-AG73)
    This rule will propose to amend SBA's regulations to redefine how 
the agency determines affiliation as it relates to eligibility for its 
Surety Bond Guarantee (SBG) Program and the business loan programs, 
consisting of the 7(a) and 504 Loan Programs and the Business Disaster 
Loan Programs. SBA has reviewed the applicable regulations and 
concluded that, in order to expand the reach of these programs and 
increase accessibility to the benefits the programs offer for small 
businesses, one of the Agency's priorities will be to simplify 
guidelines for determining affiliation for program eligibility based on 
size. The proposed amendments would reduce the regulatory burden on 
small businesses and SBA participating lenders, streamline delivery of 
program assistance, and lower the costs related to program 
participation. As part of its process to develop this rule, SBA 
solicited and received public feedback in support of simplifying the 
rules and aligning the requirements with normal commercial industry 
practices.
(2) Small Business Investment Company (SBIC) Program; Impact SBICs 
(RIN: 3245-AG66)
    This rule proposes to establish a regulatory structure for the SBIC 
program's Impact Investment Fund initiative, which is currently 
implemented via policy memorandum. The goal of the Impact Investment 
Fund is to support small business investment strategies that maximize 
financial returns while also yielding enhanced social, environmental, 
or economic impacts as part of the SBIC program's overall effort to 
supplement the flow of private equity and long-term loan funds to small 
businesses in underserved communities and the innovative sectors whose 
capital needs are not being met. The proposed rule supports the 
development of America's growing impact investing industry by making 
available a new type of SBIC license called an Impact SBIC to 
investment funds meeting the SBIC program's licensing qualifications, 
provides application and examination fee considerations to incentivize 
impact investing participation, establishes leverage eligibility 
requirements, and establishes reporting and performance measures for 
licensed funds to maintain Impact SBIC designation. The proposed rule 
would require an Impact SBIC to invest at least 50% of its total 
invested capital in one or both categories of impact investment: (a) 
SBA-identified impact investments, which are investments in small 
businesses located in geographic areas and sectors of national priority 
designated by SBA, such as Low- and Moderate- Income Zones (LMI); and/
or (b) fund-identified impact investments, which are investments that 
meet an SBIC's own definition, subject to SBA's approval, of an 
``Impact Investment,'' such as small businesses operating in the clean 
energy, education or healthcare sectors.
(3) Small Business Mentor-Prot[eacute]g[eacute] Programs (RIN: 3245-
AG24)
    SBA currently has a mentor-prot[eacute]g[eacute] program for the 
8(a) Business Development Program that is intended to enhance the 
capabilities of the prot[eacute]g[eacute] and to improve its ability to 
successfully compete for Federal contracts. The Small Business Jobs Act 
authorized SBA to use this model to establish similar mentor-
prot[eacute]g[eacute] programs for the Service Disabled Veteran Owned, 
HUBZone and Women-Owned Small Business Programs. The National Defense 
Authorization Act for FY 2013 further authorized SBA to extend the 
availability of mentor-prot[eacute]g[eacute] programs to all small 
business concerns. During the next twelve months, one of SBA's 
priorities will be to issue final regulations establishing these 
mentor-prot[eacute]g[eacute] programs. The various types of assistance 
that a mentor will be expected to provide to a prot[eacute]g[eacute] 
include technical and/or management assistance; financial assistance in 
the form of equity investment and/or loans; subcontracts and/or 
assistance in performing prime contracts with the Government in the 
form of joint venture arrangements. The regulatory action would enhance 
the ability of small business concerns to obtain larger prime contracts 
that would be normally out of the reach of these businesses. The small 
business mentor-prot[eacute]g[eacute] programs would allow all small 
businesses to tap into the expertise and capital of larger firms, which 
in turn would help small business concerns become more competitive in 
the Federal procurement arena.
(4) Small Business Government Contracting and National Defense 
Authorization Act of 2013 Amendments (RIN: 3245-AG58)
    SBA proposed amending its regulations to implement provisions of 
the National Defense Authorization Act of 2013, which pertain to 
performance requirements applicable to small business and socioeconomic 
program set aside contracts and small business subcontracting. SBA also 
proposed to amend SBA's regulations concerning the nonmanufacturer rule 
and affiliation rules. Further, SBA proposed to allow a joint venture 
to qualify as small for any government procurement as long as each 
partner to the joint venture qualifies individually as small.
(5) Small Business Innovation Research Program and Small Business 
Technology Transfer Program Policy Directive (RIN: 3245-AG64):
    This proposal seeks to revise the Small Business Innovation 
Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) Policy 
Directives. Specifically, SBA proposes to combine the two directives 
into one integrated Directive, clarify the Phase III preference 
afforded to SBIR and STTR small business awardees, add definitions 
relating to data rights, clarify the benchmarks for progress towards 
commercialization, and update language regarding the calculations of 
extramural Research/Research & Development budgets used to fund the 
SBIR/STTR programs.

[[Page 77888]]

Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations
    Pursuant to section 6 of Executive Order 13563 ``Improving 
Regulation and Regulatory Review'' (Jan. 18, 2011), SBA developed a 
plan for the retrospective review of its regulations. Since that date 
SBA has issued several updates to this plan to reflect the Agency's 
ongoing efforts in carrying out this executive order. The final agency 
plan and review updates, which can be found at http://www.sba.gov/about-sba/sba_performance/open_government/retrospective_review_of_regulations, currently identify the three rules 
and the policy directive discussed above.

SBA

Proposed Rule Stage

124. Small Business Innovation Research Program and Small Business 
Technology Transfer Program Policy Directive

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 15 U.S.C. 638(p); Pub. L. 112-81, sec 5001, et 
seq.
    CFR Citation: 13 CFR Chapter 1.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: SBA reviews its Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) 
and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) program policy directives 
regularly to determine areas that need updating and further 
clarification. On November 7, 2014, SBA issued an advance notice of 
policy directive amendments and request for comments at 77 FR 66342. 
SBA explained that it intended to update the directives on a regular 
basis and to restructure and reorganize the directives, as well as 
address certain policy issues relating to SBIR and STTR data rights and 
Phase III work. In this ANPRM, SBA outlined what it believed were the 
issues concerning data rights and Phase III awards and requested 
feedback on several questions posed. The comments SBA received were 
generally in agreement that the sections of the directives relating to 
data rights and Phase III awards need further clarification.
    SBA is proposing clarification of the issues relating to both 
programs concerning data rights, Phase III awards, and miscellaneous 
issues such as benchmarks to commercialization achievement and the 
calculation of extramural budget. SBA is also proposing to amend both 
the SBIR and STTR policy directives by combining the two directives 
into one because the general structure of both programs is the same.
    Statement of Need: It is necessary to update the data rights, Phase 
III preference, benchmark sections, and clarify how agencies calculate 
extramural budget due to numerous inquiries and requests for 
clarification received from SBIR and STTR Program Managers and small 
businesses regarding these issues. Requests for clarification indicate 
that there is confusion among participating agencies and small business 
concerns regarding these policy issues. It is necessary to combine the 
Policy Directives to increase ease of use and to reduce duplicity, as 
much of the language in the current Directives is identical for both 
programs. The clarifications and consolidation will provide clearer 
guidance and uniformity of these sections of the Policy Directive, and 
are necessary to enhance the efficient implementation of the programs.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Section 9(j) and (p) of the Small Business 
Act, codified at 15 U.S.C. 638(j) & (p) requires SBA to issue 
directives to the SBIR/STTR participating agencies to simplify and 
standardize program proposals, selections, contracting, compliance, and 
audit procedures, while allowing the participating agencies flexibility 
in the operation of their individual programs.
    Alternatives: If SBA does not amend the Policy Directives, the 
participating agencies and small business concerns will continue to 
need additional guidance and clarification regarding the implementation 
of data rights, Phase III awards, and the commercialization benchmarks.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The consolidation and revision of 
the SBIR/STTR Policy Directive is essential to the efficient 
implementation of the respective programs. There may be some costs 
associated with the consolidation and revision of the Policy 
Directives, such as updating current resource materials to reflect the 
clarifications and consolidation to one document; however, SBA 
anticipates such costs are not burdensome.
    Risks: None identified.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM...............................   11/07/14  79 FR 66342
ANPRM Comment Period End............   01/06/15  .......................
NPRM................................   12/00/15  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal.
    Additional Information: Included in SBA's Retrospective Review 
under Executive Orders 13563 and 13610.
    Agency Contact: Edsel M. Brown Jr., Assistant Director, Office of 
Innovation, Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20416, Phone: 202 205-6450, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 3245-AG64

SBA

125. Small Business Investment Company (SBIC) Program; Impact SBICS

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 15 U.S.C. 681
    CFR Citation: 13 CFR 107.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This rule proposes to establish a regulatory structure 
for the SBIC Programs Impact Investment Fund, which is currently being 
implemented through a policy memorandum to interested applicants. The 
rule proposes to establish in the regulations a new type of SBIC 
license called the Impact SBIC license and will include application and 
examination fee considerations to incentivize Impact Investment Fund 
participation. Impact SBICs may also be able to access Early Stage 
leverage on the same terms as Early Stage SBICs without applying 
through the Early Stage call process defined in 107.310. This will 
allow Impact SBICs with early stage strategies to apply for the 
program. The new license will be available to investment funds that 
meet the SBIC Programs licensing qualifications and commit to invest at 
least 50% of their invested capital in impact investments as defined in 
the rule. The rule would also outline reporting and performance 
measures for licensed funds to maintain Impact Investment Fund 
designation. The goal of the Impact Investment Fund is to support small 
business investment strategies that maximize financial returns while 
also yielding enhanced social environmental or economic impacts as part 
of the SBIC Programs overall effort to supplement the flow of private 
equity and long-term loan funds to small businesses whose capital needs 
are not being met.
    Statement of Need: SBA originally announced the launch of the SBIC 
program's Impact Investing Initiative (Initiative) on April 7, 2011, 
with a commitment of $1 billion in debenture leverage over a 5-year 
period to SBICs that committed to deploy at least 50% of their total 
invested capital in small businesses located in low-to-moderate income 
areas, economically-distressed areas and rural areas, as well as small 
businesses active in the education and

[[Page 77889]]

clean energy sectors. Subsequently, SBA made several changes to the 
Initiative in 2014, including renaming the Initiative the Impact 
Investment Fund, and expanding its scope to reflect SBA's commitment 
beyond the initial 5-year term. This proposed rule follows that 
commitment by providing a permanent framework within the SBIC program's 
regulations, highlighting the important role of impact investing by 
supporting the development of America's growing impact investing 
industry, and seeking to expand the pool of investment capital 
available to underserved communities and innovative sectors. The 
proposed rule requires an Impact SBIC to invest at least 50% of its 
total invested capital in one or both categories of impact investment: 
(1) SBA-identified impact investments, which are investments in small 
businesses located in geographic areas and sectors of national priority 
designated by SBA, such as Low and Moderate Income Zones; and (2) fund-
identified impact investments, which are investments that meet an 
SBIC's own definition, subject to SBA's approval, of an Impact 
Investment, such as small businesses operating in the clean energy, 
education and/or healthcare sectors. The proposed rule will encourage 
the creation of Impact SBICs by providing certain application and 
examination fee discounts to these funds.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The policy goal of the Small Business 
Investment Act of 1958, 15 U.S.C. 661 et seq., is to stimulate and 
supplement the flow of private equity capital and long-term loan funds 
to the nation's small businesses for the sound financing of their 
growth, expansion, and modernization. The Small Business Investment Act 
contains several provisions aimed at promoting the flow of capital to 
several special categories of small business, including those located 
in low income geographic areas, those engaged in energy-saving 
activities and smaller businesses, 15 U.S.C. 683(b)(2)(C), 
683(b)(2)(D), 683(d). The proposed rule was crafted to enhance the SBIC 
program's effectiveness in channeling much-needed capital to small 
businesses operating in these and other underserved areas and sectors 
of the U.S. economy.
    Alternatives: SBA considered several alternatives to the proposed 
regulation, including continuing its impact investment objectives 
solely through existing policy initiatives. However, those policy 
initiatives did not provide sufficient incentives to attract Impact 
SBIC fund managers to the program. Moreover, SBA determined that it 
must demonstrate a lasting commitment to the Initiative by promulgating 
regulations. In addition, SBA considered restricting the definition of 
an Impact Investment to financings that meet requirements already 
outlined in federal regulations, such as Energy-Savings Investments, 
LMI Investments or investments in rural areas. These investments are 
aligned with federal policy priorities and are easy to define and 
monitor, but SBA determined a more accommodative approach would be more 
effective. The proposed rule has been drafted to allow Impact SBIC 
applicants to make SBA-identified impact investments, which target 
federal priority areas, or make fund-identified impact investments that 
align with their own definitions of impact. This approach expands the 
reach of SBA's impact investing efforts beyond the limited subset of 
investments that meet existing regulatory criteria and promotes freedom 
of choice for impact fund managers to pursue an impact investing 
strategy based on their own definition of Impact Investment.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The proposed rule will result in an 
approximate 6.1 basis point increase in the annual charge paid by all 
SBICs with outstanding leverage and will include de minimis additional 
oversight costs to SBA in monitoring the additional reporting 
requirements that Impact SBICs must comply with. The proposed rule 
benefits SBA by encouraging SBICs to deploy capital to small businesses 
operating in geographic areas and sectors of national priority 
designated by SBA, and SBA expects that it will result in increased 
financings to small businesses taking innovative approaches in, among 
others, the educational, clean energy and healthcare sectors. As a 
corollary benefit, the proposed rule will support the development of 
the impact investing industry more broadly by incorporating impact 
investing best practices, especially with regard to the measurement and 
assessment of impact.
    Risks: None identified.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   01/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Additional Information: Included in SBA's Retrospective Review 
under Executive Orders 13563 and 13610.
    Agency Contact: Nate T. Yohannes, Senior Advisor, Office of 
Investments, Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20416, Phone: 202-205-6714, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 3245-AG66

SBA

126. Affiliation for Business Loan Programs and Surety Bond Guarantee 
Program

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 15 U.S.C. 634(b)(6)
    CFR Citation: 13 CFR 115; 13 CFR 120; 13 CFR 121.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) has 
determined that changing conditions in the American economy and a 
constantly evolving small business community compel it to seek ways to 
improve program efficiency for its Surety Bond Guarantee (SBG) Program, 
and the business loan programs consisting of the 7(a) Loan Program, the 
Business Disaster Loan Programs (the Economic Injury Disaster Loans, 
Reservist Injury Disaster Loans, Physical Disaster Business Loans, 
Immediate Disaster Assistance Program loans), the Microloan Program, 
and the Development Company Program (the 504 Loan Program). As a 
result, SBA proposes to simplify guidelines for determining affiliation 
for eligibility based on size as it relates to these programs. This 
proposed rule would redefine affiliation for all five Programs, thereby 
simplifying eligibility determinations.
    Statement of Need: The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) has 
determined that changing conditions in the American economy and a 
constantly evolving small business community compel it to seek ways to 
improve program efficiency for its Surety Bond Guarantee (``SBG'') 
Program, and the business loan programs consisting of the 7(a) Loan 
Program, the Economic Injury Disaster Loan (``EIDL'') Program, the 
Microloan Program, and the Development Company Program (the ``504 Loan 
Program'').
    SBA's surety bond and business loan programs are dedicated to 
providing solutions to qualified small businesses unable to secure 
conventional financing or surety bonding through traditional channels. 
Receipt of this form of SBA assistance includes program qualifications 
surrounding the size of a small business applicant. The proposed 
regulations set forth affiliation principles more in keeping with the 
capital structures presented in the surety and business loan programs.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Executive Order 13563, ``Improving 
Regulation

[[Page 77890]]

and Regulatory Review,'' provides that agencies ``must identify and use 
the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving 
regulatory ends.'' (Emphasis added). Executive Order 13563 further 
provides that ``[t]o facilitate the periodic review of existing 
significant regulations, agencies shall consider how best to promote 
retrospective analysis of rules that may be outmoded, ineffective, 
insufficient, or excessively burdensome, and to modify, streamline, 
expand, or repeal them in accordance with what has been learned.'' 
(Emphasis added).
    SBA has reviewed its regulations with regard to the business loan 
programs and Surety Bond Guarantee program and is proposing a number of 
amendments and revisions to accomplish this goal. The loan programs 
authorized by the Small Business Act (Act), 15 U.S.C. 631 et seq., that 
are affected by this proposed rule are: (1) The 7(a) Loan Program 
authorized by section 7(a) of the Act, (2) the Economic Injury Disaster 
Loan (``EIDL'') Program authorized by section 7(b) of the Act, and (3) 
the Microloan Program authorized by section 7(m) of the Act. The 504 
Loan Program, which is authorized by Title V of the Small Business 
Investment Act of 1958 (the ``SBIA''), as amended, 15 U.S.C. 695 et 
seq., is also affected. This rule also proposes revisions to the Surety 
Bond Guarantee (``SBG'') Program, authorized by section 411 of the 
SBIA.
    Alternatives: SBA first considered retaining the existing 
principles used to evaluate the size of a small business. It rejected 
that alternative arguing that a strict interpretation of these existing 
rules extends indiscriminate harm to small business growth and economic 
development. SBA also considered proposing a different regulation on 
size exclusively for the surety and business loan program. It rejected 
this alternative recognizing the merits behind many of the other 
standards in the current regulations.
    In these proposed rules, SBA proffers that the size a of small 
business applicant with diffused ownership or operating under franchise 
or license agreements should be determined eligible without aggregating 
minority ownership interests, common investments or by reference to an 
affiliate's relationship to any franchisor or licensor.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This will ultimately reduce the 
costs of submitting an application for the loan applicant and its 
participating lender. By eliminating or modifying certain affiliation 
principles for the Business Loan Programs, this proposed rule would 
also significantly reduce the burden on loan applicants to provide 
additional documentation evidencing that they are eligible for SBA loan 
assistance.
    Risks: This action introduces a form of regulatory risk associated 
with considering applicants currently unable to receive SBA financial 
assistance. It is, however, inequitable to disregard a small business 
because its distributed ownership or an affiliate's franchise or 
licensing agreement compels SBA to aggregate unrelated entities for 
determining a small concern's size. Making these types of businesses 
eligible for SBA assistance would expand our mission of providing this 
vital source of assistance to small business. This additional 
assistance would serve to reduce reputational risk associated with 
SBA's efficacy as a federal program truly committed to needs of the 
small business community.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   10/02/15  80 FR 59667
NPRM Comment Period End.............   12/01/15  .......................
Final Rule..........................   06/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Additional Information: Included in SBA's Retrospective Review 
under Executive Orders 13563 and 13610.
    Agency Contact: John M. Wade, Acting Director, Office of Financial 
Assistance, Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20416, Phone: 202 205-3647, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 3245-AG73

SBA

Final Rule Stage

127. Small Business Mentor-Prot[eacute]g[eacute] Programs

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: Pub. L. 111-240; sec 1347;15 U.S.C. 657r
    CFR Citation: 13 CFR 121; 13 CFR 124; 13 CFR 125; 13 CFR 126; 13 
CFR 127; 13 CFR 134
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA or Agency) is 
amending its regulations to implement provisions of the Small Business 
Jobs Act of 2010 and the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2013. Based on authorities provided in these two statutes, the 
rule will establish a Government-wide mentor-prot[eacute]g[eacute] 
program for all small business concerns, consistent with SBA's mentor-
prot[eacute]g[eacute] program for Participants in SBA's 8(a) Business 
Development (BD) program. The rule will also make minor changes to the 
mentor-prot[eacute]g[eacute] provisions for the 8(a) Business 
Development program in order to make the mentor-prot[eacute]g[eacute] 
rules for each of the programs as consistent as possible. The rule will 
amend the current joint venture provisions to clarify the conditions 
for creating and operating joint venture partnerships, including the 
effect of such partnerships on any mentor-prot[eacute]g[eacute] 
relationships. Finally, the rule will make several additional changes 
to current size, 8(a) Office of Hearings and Appeals or HUBZone 
regulations, concerning among other things, ownership and control, 
changes in primary industry, standards of review and interested party 
status for some appeals.
    Statement of Need: The Small Business Jobs Act determined that the 
SBA-administered mentor-prot[eacute]g[eacute] program currently 
available to 8(a) BD participants is a valuable tool for all small 
business concerns and authorized SBA to establish mentor 
prot[eacute]g[eacute] programs for the HUBZone SBC, Service Disabled 
Veteran-Owned SBCs, and Women-Owned Small Business programs. This 
authority is consistent with recommendations issued by an interagency 
task force created by President Obama on Federal Contracting 
Opportunities for Small Businesses. Among other things, the task force 
recommended that mentor-prot[eacute]g[eacute] programs should be 
promoted through a new Government-wide framework to give small 
businesses the opportunity to develop under the wing of experienced 
large businesses in an expanded Federal procurement arena.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, Public 
Law No. 111-240, section 1347(b)(3), authorizes SBA to establish 
mentor-prot[eacute]g[eacute] programs for HUBZone SBC, Service Disabled 
Veteran-Owned SBCs, and Women-Owned Small Business programs SBCs. The 
National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2013; Public Law 112-239, 
section 1641, authorizes SBA to establish programs for all SBCs.
    Alternatives: At this point, SBA believes that the best option for 
implementing the authority is to create a regulatory scheme that is 
similar to the existing mentor-prot[eacute]g[eacute] program.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: SBA has not yet quantified the costs 
associated with this rule. However, program participants, particularly 
the prot[eacute]g[eacute]s, would be able to leverage the

[[Page 77891]]

mentoring opportunities as a form of business development assistance 
that could enhance their capabilities to successfully compete for 
contracts in and out of the Federal contracting arena. This assistance 
may include technical and/or management assistance; financial 
assistance in the form of equity investments and/or loans; 
subcontracts; and/or assistance in performing prime contracts with the 
Government in the form of joint venture arrangements.
    Risks: None identified.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   02/05/15  80 FR 6618
NPRM Comment Period End.............   04/06/15  .......................
NPRM Comment Period Extension.......   04/07/15  80 FR 18556
NPRM Comment Period End.............   05/06/15  .......................
Final Rule..........................   04/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Brenda J. Fernandez, Procurement Analyst, Small 
Business Administration, 409 Third Street SW., Washington, DC 20416, 
Phone: 202-205-7337, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 3245-AG24

SBA

128. Small Business Government Contracting and National Defense 
Authorization Act of 2013 Amendments

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 15 U.S.C. 631; Public Law 112-239
    CFR Citation: 13 CFR 121; 13 CFR 124; 13 CFR 125; 13 CFR 126; 13 
CFR 127.
    Legal Deadline: NPRM, Statutory, July 2, 2013, National Defense 
Authorization Act for FY2013, Public Law 112-239, section 1696.
    Section 1696 requires guidance on the statutory limitations on 
subcontracting to be issued, pursuant to notice and comment rulemaking 
within 180 days (July 2, 2013) after enactment of the NDAA.
    Abstract: The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA or Agency) is 
amending its regulations to implement provisions of the National 
Defense Authorization Act of 2013, which pertain to performance 
requirements applicable to small business and socioeconomic program set 
aside contracts and small business subcontracting. SBA is also 
proposing to make changes to its regulations concerning the 
nonmanufacturer rule and affiliation rules. Further, SBA is proposing 
to allow a joint venture to qualify as small for any government 
procurement as long as each partner to the joint venture qualifies 
individually as small under the size standard corresponding to the 
NAICS code assigned in the solicitation.
    Statement of Need: The National Defense Authorization Act of 2013 
(NDAA), Public Law 112-239, 126 Stat. 1632 (Jan. 2013), made several 
amendments to SBA's contracting programs as authorized by the Small 
Business Act. This rule is necessary in order to implement these 
amendments to the Small Business Act and ensure consistency between 
SBA's contracting regulations and the statute. The rule also contains 
other changes not specifically resulting from the NDAA but which are 
either necessary to create conformance with the NDAA amendments, or are 
necessary to clarify existing ambiguities and simplify certain 
regulations governing SBA's size and government contracting programs, 
including the exception to affiliation for certain joint ventures and 
the non-manufacturer regulations.
    Summary of Legal Basis: This proposed rule implements Sections 
1621, 1651, 1652, and 1653 of the NDAA. As a result of changes in 
section 1621 of the NDAA, as codified at 15 U.S.C. 644(l), the rule 
amends the regulations regarding the responsibilities of Procurement 
Center Representatives as set forth in 13 CFR 125. Section 1651 of the 
NDAA, codified at 15 U.S.C. 657s, amendments regarding the limitations 
on subcontracting for full or partial small business set-aside 
contracts, 8(a) Business Development contracts, Service Disabled 
Veteran-Owned contracts, HUBZone contracts, and Women Owned Small 
Business (WOSB) and Economically Disadvantaged WOSB contracts, 
authorizes the changes to the applicable regulations governing each of 
these types of contracts as set forth in 13 CFR parts 124, 125, 126, 
and 127. Section 1652 of the NDAA, codified at 15 U.S.C. 645, 
prescribes penalties for concerns that violate the limitations on 
subcontracting. Changes will be made to 13 CFR 125 to implement this 
statutory authority. Section 1653 of the NDAA, as codified at 15 U.S.C. 
637(d), amends the requirements for subcontracting plans, including 
corrective action plans. This rule amends 13 CFR 125 to incorporate 
implementing regulations.
    Alternatives: The National Defense Authorization Act of 2013 
(NDAA), Public Law 112-239, 126 Stat. 1632 (Jan. 2013), made several 
amendments to SBA's contracting programs as authorized by the Small 
Business Act. This rule is necessary in order to implement these 
amendments to the Small Business Act and ensure consistency between 
SBA's contracting regulations and the statute. SBA must implement the 
statutory provisions in the NDAA. There is no alternative to 
implementing those provisions. There is also no viable alternative to 
not implementing the non-statutory based changes; to retain the status 
quo would mean continued confusion, litigation and controversy 
particularly with respect to the joint venture and nonmanufacturer 
regulations.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: These final regulations should 
benefit small business concerns by allowing small business concern 
prime contractors to use similarly situated small business concern 
subcontractors in the performance of a set aside contract, thereby 
expanding the capacity of the small business prime contractor and 
potentially enabling the firm to compete for and obtain larger 
contracts. It also strengthens the small business subcontracting 
provisions, which may result in more subcontract awards to small 
business concerns. The final rule also seeks to address or clarify 
issues that are ambiguous or subject to dispute, thereby providing 
clarity to contracting officers as well as small business concerns. 
Clarifying the confusion and uncertainty concerning the applicability 
of SBA contracting regulations will reduce the time burden on the small 
business contracting community and therefore make it easier for them to 
contract with the Federal Government. This rule does not impose any 
significant new compliance or other costs on small business concerns. 
Under current law, firms must adhere to certain requirements when 
performing set aside contracts; the rule does not change those 
requirements. Further, SBA expects that costs now incurred by small 
business concerns as a result of ambiguous or indefinite regulations 
will be eliminated or reduced.
    Risks: None identified.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   12/29/14  79 FR 77955
NPRM Comment Period End.............   02/27/15  .......................
NPRM Comment Period Reopened........   03/09/15  80 FR 12353
Second NPRM Comment Period End......   04/06/15  .......................

[[Page 77892]]

 
Final Rule..........................   04/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Brenda J. Fernandez, Procurement Analyst, Small 
Business Administration, 409 Third Street SW., Washington, DC 20416, 
Phone: 202-205-7337, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 3245-AG58

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (SSA)

Statement of Regulatory Priorities

    We administer the Retirement, Survivors, and Disability Insurance 
programs under title II of the Social Security Act (Act), the 
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program under title XVI of the Act, 
and the Special Veterans Benefits program under title VIII of the Act. 
As directed by Congress, we also assist in administering portions of 
the Medicare program under title XVIII of the Act. Our regulations 
codify the requirements for eligibility and entitlement to benefits, 
and our procedures for administering these programs. Generally, our 
regulations do not impose burdens on the private sector or on State or 
local governments, except for the States' Disability Determination 
Services. We fully fund the Disability Determination Services in 
advance or by way of reimbursement for necessary costs in making 
disability determinations.
    The ten entries in our regulatory plan (plan) represent issues of 
major importance to the Agency. We describe the individual initiatives 
more fully in the attached plan.

Improving the Disability Process

    Since the continued improvement of the disability program is of 
vital concern to us, we include initiatives in the plan addressing 
disability-related issues. These initiatives include one proposed and 
four final rules that update the medical listings used to determine 
disability. The revisions reflect our adjudicative experience and 
advances in medical knowledge, diagnosis, and treatment.

Enhance Public Service

    There are five proposed rules that will propose to:
     Require claimants to submit or inform us about all 
evidence known to them that relates to their disability claim,
     Clarify our guidelines regarding how we will evaluate work 
experience for persons characterized as ``Illiterate,'' and clarify our 
guidelines on how we evaluate previous work experience for persons who 
are ``Illiterate'',
     Remove the expiration date from our rule authorizing State 
agency disability examiners to make fully favorable determinations 
without the approval of a State agency medical or psychological 
consultant in claims we consider under our quick disability 
determinations and compassionate allowances processes,
     Revise our rules regarding returning evidence at the 
Appeals Council level to give the Appeals Council discretion in 
returning additional evidence that it receives when it determines the 
additional evidence does not relate to the period on or before the date 
of the Administrative Law Judge's decision, and
     Create a new system of records that exempts certain 
records from disclosure. This new system tracks anti-harassment claims 
made by our employees.

Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations

    Pursuant to section 6 of Executive Order 13563, ``Improving 
Regulation and Regulatory Review'' (January 18, 2011), the following 
Regulatory Identifier Numbers (RINs) have been identified as associated 
with retrospective review and analysis in our final retrospective 
review of regulations plan. Some of the entries on this list may be 
completed actions, which do not appear in The Regulatory Plan. You can 
find more information about these completed rulemakings in past 
publications of the Unified Agenda at: www.Reginfo.gov in the Completed 
Actions section for the Social Security Administration. You can also 
find these rulemakings at www.Regulations.gov. The agency final plans 
are located at http://mwww.ba.ssa.gov/open/regsreview/EO-13563-Final-Plan-Progress-Update.html.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Expected to  significantly
          RIN                  Title          reduce  burdens on  small
                                                     businesses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0960-AF35..............  Revised Medical    No.
                          Criteria for
                          Evaluating
                          Neurological
                          Impairments.
0960-AF58..............  Revised Medical    No.
                          Criteria for
                          Evaluating
                          Respiratory
                          System Disorders.
0960-AF69..............  Revised Medical    No.
                          Criteria for
                          Evaluating
                          Mental Disorders.
0960-AF88..............  Revised Medical    No.
                          Criteria for
                          Evaluating
                          Hematological
                          Disorders.
0960-AG21..............  New Medical        No.
                          Criteria for
                          Evaluating
                          Language and
                          Speech Disorders.
0960-AG28..............  Revised Medical    No.
                          Criteria for
                          Evaluating
                          Growth
                          Impairments.
0960-AG38..............  Revised Medical    No.
                          Criteria for
                          Evaluating
                          Musculoskeletal
                          Disorders.
0960-AG65..............  Revised Medical    No.
                          Criteria for
                          Evaluating
                          Digestive
                          Disorders.
0960-AG71..............  Revised Medical    No.
                          Criteria for
                          Evaluating Human
                          Immunodeficiency
                          Virus (HIV)
                          Infection and
                          for Evaluating
                          Functional
                          Limitations in
                          Immune System
                          Disorders.
0960-AG74..............  Revised Medical    No.
                          Criteria for
                          Evaluating
                          Cardiovascular
                          Disorders.
0960-AH43..............  Revised Medical    No.
                          Criteria for
                          Evaluating
                          Cancer
                          (Malignant
                          Neoplastic
                          Diseases).
0960-AH54..............  Revised Medical    No.
                          Criteria for
                          Evaluating
                          Hearing Loss and
                          Disturbances of
                          Labyrinthine-
                          Vestibular
                          Function.
------------------------------------------------------------------------



[[Page 77893]]

SSA

Prerule Stage

129. Vocational Factors of Age, Education, and Work Experience in the 
Adult Disability Determination Process

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 423(d)(2)(A); 42 U.S.C. 1382(a)(3)(B)
    CFR Citation: 20 CFR 404.1562; 20 CFR 404.1565; 20 CFR 416.962; 20 
CFR 416.965.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: We are soliciting public input about how we should 
consider the vocational factors of age, education, and work experience 
in adult disability claims under titles II and XVI of the Social 
Security Act (Act). There have been significant changes in technology 
use and workforce demographics since we first adopted our vocational 
factor regulations in 1978 (43 FR 55349). We are requesting public 
comments, along with any supporting data, to assist in our efforts to 
streamline, simplify, and ensure the ongoing relevance of our 
disability determination programs.
    Statement of Need: There have been significant changes in 
technology use and workforce demographics since we first adopted our 
vocational factor regulations in 1978. We are requesting public 
comments, along with any supporting data, to assist in our efforts to 
streamline, simplify, and ensure the ongoing relevance of our 
disability determination programs.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Section 205(a) of the Act and, by reference 
to section 205(a), section 1631(d)(1). Our solicitation of information 
from the public is part of our effort to ensure that we are evaluating 
all relevant information as we determine what, if any, updates to our 
vocational factors are necessary.
    Alternatives: Alternatives are undetermined, since this is an 
advanced notice of proposed rulemaking, and is specifically in an 
information gathering stage.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Undetermined at this time.
    Risks: Undetermined at this time.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM...............................   09/14/15  80 FR 55050
ANPRM Comment Period Extended.......   10/30/15  80 FR 66843
ANPRM Comment Period End............   11/13/15  .......................
ANPRM Comment Period Extended End...   12/14/15  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Elaine Tocco, Vocational Policy Specialist, Social 
Security Administration, Office of Disability Programs, 6401 Security 
Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235, Phone: 410 966-6356.
    William P. Gibson, Social Insurance Specialist, Regulations Writer, 
Social Security Administration, Office of Regulations and Reports 
Clearance, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, Phone: 
410 966-9039.
    RIN: 0960-AH74

SSA

Proposed Rule Stage

130. Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating Musculoskeletal Disorders 
(3318P)

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 402; 42 U.S.C. 405(a); 42 U.S.C. 405(b); 
42 U.S.C. 405(d) to 405(h); 42 U.S.C. 416(i); 42 U.S.C. 421(a); 42 
U.S.C. 421(i); 42 U.S.C. 423; 42 U.S.C. 902(a)(5); 42 U.S.C. 1381a; 42 
U.S.C. 1382c; 42 U.S.C. 1383; 42 U.S.C. 1383b
    CFR Citation: 20 CFR 404.1500, app 1.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: Sections 1.00 and 101.00, Musculoskeletal System, of 
appendix 1 to subpart P of part 404 of our regulations describe those 
musculoskeletal system disorders that we consider severe enough to 
prevent a person from doing any gainful activity, or that cause marked 
and severe functional limitations for a child claiming Supplemental 
Security Income payments under title XVI. We are proposing to revise 
the criteria in these sections to ensure that the medical evaluation 
criteria are up-to-date and consistent with the latest advances in 
medical knowledge and treatment.
    Statement of Need: We propose to revise the criteria in the Listing 
of Impairments (listings) that we use to evaluate claims involving 
musculoskeletal disorders in adults and children under titles II and 
XVI of the Social Security Act (Act). These proposed revisions reflect 
our adjudicative experience, advances in medical knowledge and 
treatment of musculoskeletal disorders, recommendations from medical 
experts, and comments we received in response to a final rule with 
request for public comments that we published in November 2001.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Administrative--not required by statute or 
court order.
    Alternatives: We considered continuing to use our current criteria. 
However, we believe these proposed revisions are necessary because of 
medical advances since we last comprehensively revised the 
musculoskeletal listings in 2001, our program experience, information 
we received from medical experts we consulted, and comments we received 
in response to a final rule with request for public comments that we 
published in November 2001.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Currently being determined.
    Risks: We expect the public and adjudicators to support the removal 
and clarification of ambiguous terms and phrases, and the addition of 
specific, demonstrable functional criteria for determining listing-
level severity of all musculoskeletal disorders.
    We expect adjudicators to support the change in the framework of 
the text because it makes the guidance in the introductory text and 
listings easier to access and understand.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   08/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Additional Information: Includes Retrospective Review under E.O. 
13563.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Cheryl A. Williams, Director, Social Security 
Administration, Office of Medical Listings Improvement, 6401 Security 
Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, Phone: 410 965-1020.
    Nancy Miller, Social Insurance Specialist, Social Security 
Administration, Office of Medical Listings Improvement, 6401 Security 
Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, Phone: 410 966-1573.
    Brian J. Rudick, Social Insurance Specialist. Regulations Writer, 
Social Security Administration, Office of Regulations and Reports 
Clearance, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, Phone: 
410 965-7102, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 0960-AG38


[[Page 77894]]



SSA

131. Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating Digestive Disorders 
(3441P)

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 402; 42 U.S.C. 405(a); 42 U.S.C. 405(b); 
42 U.S.C. 405(d) to 405(h); 42 U.S.C. 416(i); 42 U.S.C. 421(a); 42 
U.S.C. 421(i); 42 U.S.C. 423; 42 U.S.C. 902(a)(5); 42 U.S.C. 1381a; 42 
U.S.C. 1382c; 42 U.S.C. 1383; 42 U.S.C. 1383b
    CFR Citation: 20 CFR 404.1500, app 1.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: Sections 5.00 and 105.00, Digestive Systems, of appendix 
1 to subpart P of part 404 of our regulations describe those digestive 
disorders that we consider severe enough to prevent a person from doing 
any gainful activity, or that cause marked and severe functional 
limitations for a child claiming Supplemental Security Income payments 
under title XVI. We are proposing to revise the criteria in these 
sections to ensure that the medical evaluation criteria are up-to-date 
and consistent with the latest advances in medical knowledge and 
treatment.
    Statement of Need: These proposed rules will update, simplify, and 
clarify our rules.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Administrative--not required by statute or 
court order.
    Alternatives: We could continue to use our current criteria. 
However, we believe these proposed revisions are necessary because of 
our program experience, information we received from medical experts we 
consulted, and comments we received at the Listings Symposium and in 
response to the ANPRM.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Presently under review.
    Risks: None.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM...............................   12/12/07  72 FR 70527
ANPRM Comment Period End............   02/11/08  .......................
NPRM................................   08/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Additional Information: Includes Retrospective Review under E.O. 
13563.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Cheryl A. Williams, Director, Social Security 
Administration, Office of Medical Listings Improvement, 6401 Security 
Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, Phone: 410 965-1020.
    Shawnette Ashburne, Social Insurance Specialist, Social Security 
Administration, Office of Medical Listings Improvement, 6401 Security 
Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, Phone: 410 966-5788.
    Brian J. Rudick, Social Insurance Specialist, Regulations Writer, 
Social Security Administration, Office of Regulations and Reports 
Clearance, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, Phone: 
410 965-7102.
    RIN: 0960-AG65

SSA

132. Acceptable Medical Sources, Evaluating Evidence, and Treating 
Sources (3787P)

    Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 
undetermined.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 405(a); 42 U.S.C. 423(d)(5)(A); 42 
U.S.C. 902(a)(5); 42 U.S.C. 1010(a); 42 U.S.C. 1382c(a)(3)(H)(i); 42 
U.S.C. 1382c(a)(3)(H)(i)
    CFR Citation: 20 CFR 404.1502; 20 CFR 404.1512; 20 CFR 404.1520b; 
20 CFR 404.1521 to 404.1523; 20 CFR 404.1526 and 404.1527; 20 CFR 
404.1530; 20 CFR 404.1546; 20 CFR 416.902; 20 CFR 416.912; 20 CFR 
416.920b; 20 CFR 416.921 to 416.923; 20 CFR 416.926 and 416.927; 20 CFR 
416.930; 20 CFR 416.946.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: We are proposing several revisions to our evidence rules. 
The proposals include: Redefining several key terms related to 
evidence; explaining what is and is not evidence; revising how we 
consider and articulate our consideration of medical opinions and 
administrative findings of fact; and reorganizing our evidence 
regulations for each of use. These revisions would simplify and 
reorganize our rules to make them easier to understand and apply, allow 
us to make more accurate and consistent decisions, and emphasize the 
need for objective medical evidence in disability and blindness claims 
under titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act.
    Statement of Need: These revisions would simplify and reorganize 
our rules to make them easier to understand and apply, allow us to make 
more accurate and consistent decisions, and emphasize the need for 
objective medical evidence in disability and blindness claims under 
titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Administrative--not required by statute or 
court order.
    Alternatives: Undetermined at this time.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Undetermined at this time.
    Risks: Undetermined at this time.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   05/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Joshua Silverman, Social Insurance Specialist, 
Social Security Administration, Office of Vocational, Evaluation, and 
Process Policy, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, 
Phone: 410 594-2128.
    Dan O'Brien, Social Insurance Specialist, Social Security 
Administration, Office of Employment Support Programs, 6401 Security 
Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, Phone: 410 965-1632.
    Helen Droddy, Social Insurance Specialist, Regulations Writer, 
Social Security Administration, Office of Regulations and Reports 
Clearance, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, Phone: 
410 965-1483, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 0960-AH51

SSA

133. Returning Evidence at the Appeals Council Level (3844F)

    Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 
undetermined.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 401(j); 42 U.S.C. 404(f); 42 U.S.C. 
405(a); 42 U.S.C. 405(b); 42 U.S.C. 405(d) to (h); 42 U.S.C. 405(j); 42 
U.S.C. 405 note; 42 U.S.C. 421; 42 U.S.C. 421 note; 42 U.S.C. 423(i); 
42 U.S.C. 425; 42 U.S.C. 902(a)(5); 42 U.S.C. 902 note; 42 U.S.C. 1383; 
42 U.S.C. 1383b
    CFR Citation: 20 CFR 404.976; 20 CFR 416.1476.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: We propose to revise our rules regarding returning 
evidence at the Appeals Council level. Our current regulations require 
the Appeals Council to return to the claimant additional evidence when 
the Appeals Council finds that the evidence does not relate to the 
period on or before the date of the administrative law judge (ALJ) 
hearing decision. With the availability and use of our electronic 
services, and because

[[Page 77895]]

the current procedures are not administratively efficient or cost 
effective, these rules would no longer require us to return any 
additional evidence when the Appeals Council determines the additional 
evidence does not relate to the period on or before the date of the ALJ 
decision, except in rare circumstances. We are not proposing any 
changes to how the Appeals Council considers additional evidence or 
when the Appeals Council gives protective filing based on the receipt 
of additional evidence.
    Statement of Need: We propose to amend our regulations by revising 
our rules regarding returning evidence at the Appeals Council (AC) 
level. Our current rules state that the AC will return to the claimant 
additional evidence it receives when the AC finds the evidence does not 
relate to the period on or before the date of the administrative law 
judge (ALJ) hearing decision. We are proposing these revisions to 
provide the AC discretion in returning additional evidence that it 
receives when the AC determines the additional evidence does not relate 
to the period on or before the date of the ALJ decision.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Administrative--not required by statute or 
court order.
    Alternatives: We could have chosen not to amend our regulations, 
but we believe that with the increasing use of the Electronic Records 
Express system, the practice of returning evidence is unnecessary. In 
addition, the practice of returning documents submitted to us 
electronically is not administratively efficient or cost-effective.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: These proposed rules should have no 
effect on Old-Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance or Supplemental 
Security Income benefits.
    The administrative effect of this regulation is negligible (i.e., 
less than 25 workyears or $2 million annually).
    Risks: None.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   10/21/15  80 FR 63717
NPRM Comment Period End.............   11/20/15  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Maren Weight, Appeals Officer, Social Security 
Administration, Office of Appellate Operations, 5107 Leesburg Pike, 
Falls Church, VA 22041, Phone: 703 605-7100.
    Brian J. Rudick, Social Insurance Specialist, Regulations Writer, 
Social Security Administration, Office of Regulations and Reports 
Clearance, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, Phone: 
410 965-7102.
    RIN: 0960-AH64

SSA

134. Removal of the Expiration Date for State Disability Examiner 
Authority To Make Fully Favorable Quick Disability Determinations and 
Compassionate Allowances

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 405(a); 42 U.S.C. 421; 42 U.S.C. 
902(a)(5)
    CFR Citation: 20 CFR 404.1615; 20 CFR 416.1015.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: We propose removing the expiration date from our rule 
authorizing State agency disability examiners to make fully favorable 
determinations without the approval of a State agency medical or 
psychological consultant in claims that we consider under our quick 
disability determinations (QDD) and compassionate allowances (CAL) 
processes. The disability examiner authority expires on November 11, 
2016. In this proposed rule, we remove the expiration date from the 
disability examiner authority, so that the authority continues 
indefinitely. Removing the expiration date will allow us to continue to 
make some favorable disability determinations more quickly. We are 
making no other substantive changes.
    Statement of Need: Our review of cases that qualify for 
adjudication under this test program decreases the time for issuing 
disability decisions to claimants; we are therefore making the program 
permanent.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The Social Security Act authorizes the 
testing of innovative adjudicative procedures [Secs. 205(a), 221, and 
702(a)(5) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 405(a), 421, and 
902(a)(5))], and we are now proposing to make this test program a 
permanent process.
    Alternatives: We could continue to extend this successful program 
each year, or we could discontinue the process altogether.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Costs are presently undetermined. 
This process decreases the overall time some claimants wait for a 
disability determination.
    Risks: There is no determined risk to making this program 
permanent, at this time.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   04/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Kenneth Williams, Social Insurance Specialist, 
Social Security Administration, Office of Disability Policy, 6401 
Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, Phone: 410 965-0608.
    William P. Gibson, Social Insurance Specialist, Regulations Writer, 
Social Security Administration, Office of Regulations and Reports 
Clearance, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, Phone: 
410 966-9039.
    RIN: 0960-AH70

SSA

135. Anti-Harassment and Hostile Work Environment Case Tracking and 
Records System Revised

    Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 
undetermined.
    Legal Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2)
    CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: We are adding an exemption to the listed SSA System of 
Records for a Harassment Allegation Case Tracking and Management 
Information System.
    Statement of Need: We are required to amend our Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR) when a new system of records is instituted within the 
agency that exempts certain records from disclosure. Here, we are 
creating a new system of records and an exemption to disclosure of some 
of those records, necessitating a new system of records disclosure in 
our CFR.
    Summary of Legal Basis: In accordance with the Privacy Act (5 
U.S.C. 552a) we are issuing public notice of our intent to establish a 
new system of records.
    Alternatives: There is no alternative. Failure to amend our CFR, 
while using a new system of records, would be contrary to the statutory 
authority and intent of 5 U.S.C. 552.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Undetermined at this time. We stand 
to benefit by tracking anti-harassment claims by our employees, and 
through

[[Page 77896]]

this tracking system accurately determine the outcomes for these 
claims.
    Risks: Failure to implement the new system of records and 
correlated exemption in our CFR would prevent the institution of the 
new system, thereby causing the agency to be out of compliance with 
EEOC guidelines.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   11/00/15  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Pamela J. Carcirieri, Division Director, Social 
Security Administration, Office of the General Counsel, Office of 
Privacy and Disclosure, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-
6401, Phone: 410 965-0355.
    William P. Gibson, Social Insurance Specialist, Regulations Writer, 
Social Security Administration, Office of Regulations and Reports 
Clearance, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, Phone: 
410 966-9039.
    RIN: 0960-AH82

SSA

136.  Amendment to the Education Category, ``Illiterate or 
Unable To Communicate in English'' and Clarification of Previous Work 
Experience Criterion for Persons Who Are ``Illiterate''

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 402; 42 U.S.C. 405(a)(b); 42 U.S.C. 
405(d)(h); 42 U.S.C. 416(i); 42 U.S.C. 421(a); 42 U.S.C. 421(i); 42 
U.S.C. 421(j); 42 U.S.C. 421(m); 42 U.S.C. 421 note; 42 U.S.C. 422(c); 
42 U.S.C. 423; 42 U.S.C. 423 note; 42 U.S.C. 425; 42 U.S.C. 902(a)(5); 
42 U.S.C. 902 note; 42 U.S.C. 1382; 42 U.S.C. 1382c; 42 U.S.C. 1382h; 
42 U.S.C. 1383(a); 42 U.S.C. 1383(c); 42 U.S.C. 1383(d)(1); 42 U.S.C. 
1383(p); 42 U.S.C. 1383b; 42 U.S.C. 1382h note
    CFR Citation: 20 CFR 404.1564; 20 CFR 416.964.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: We propose amending our education category Illiterate or 
unable to communicate in English to Illiterate, and we propose to 
clarify our guidelines regarding how we will evaluate work experience 
for persons characterized as Illiterate when we determine whether that 
person is disabled.
    We use the education category in our medical-vocational guidelines 
in appendix 2 to subpart P of part 404 of our regulations (Appendix 2). 
The medical-vocational guidelines direct or provide a framework for 
disability determinations and decisions at the final step in our 
sequential evaluation process. We propose clarifying that we consider a 
person Illiterate when he or she is unable to read or write in any 
language.
    Under this revised definition of Illiterate, we propose clarifying 
our guidelines on how we evaluate previous work experience for persons 
who are Illiterate when we decide whether a person is disabled. These 
proposed clarifications ensure our guidelines clearly reflect our 
longstanding policy in 404.1565(a) and 416.965(a). If a person has 
skilled or semiskilled work experience, but cannot use those skills in 
other work (i.e., the skills are not transferable to other work), the 
person's ability to adjust to other work is no greater than if he or 
she had only unskilled work experience. The proposed revisions will 
clarify how we evaluate a person's ability to adjust to other work if 
his or her education category is Illiterate by identifying which 
medical-vocational guidelines apply given these case facts.
    Statement of Need: When we promulgated the existing vocational 
framework, we judged that illiteracy or inability to communicate in 
English was a vocational adversity in adjusting to other work. We 
proposed amending our education category ``Illiterate or unable to 
communicate in English'' to ``Illiterate'' and clarifying that what we 
mean by ``Illiterate'' is inability to read and write in any language. 
This would eliminate the false equivalence between ``inability to 
communicate in English'' and illiteracy, while retaining ``Illiterate'' 
in any language as a vocational disadvantage.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Section 205(a) of the Act and, by reference 
to section 205(a), section 1631(d)(1) provide that ``. . . [t]he 
Commissioner of Social Security shall have full power and authority to 
make rules and regulations and to establish procedures, not 
inconsistent with the provisions of this title, which are necessary or 
appropriate to carry out such provisions, and shall adopt reasonable 
and proper rules and regulations to regulate and provide for the nature 
and extent of the proofs and evidence and the method of taking and 
furnishing the same in order to establish the right to benefits 
hereunder.''
    Alternatives: Undetermined at this time.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Undetermined at this time.
    Risks: For disability determinations and decisions for people 
living in countries who do not have English as their official language, 
we are currently required to use guidelines for people who are 
``illiterate or unable to communicate in English,'' even when English 
is not the official language of the country in which the person lives.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   04/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Elaine Tocco, Vocational Policy Specialist, Social 
Security Administration, Office of Disability Programs, 6401 Security 
Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235, Phone: 410 966-6356.
    William P. Gibson, Social Insurance Specialist, Regulations Writer, 
Social Security Administration, Office of Regulations and Reports 
Clearance, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, Phone: 
410 966-9039.
    RIN: 0960-AH86

SSA

Final Rule Stage

137. Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating Neurological Impairments 
(806F)

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 402; 42 U.S.C. 405(a); 42 U.S.C. 405(b); 
42 U.S.C. 405(d) to 405(h); 42 U.S.C. 416(i); 42 U.S.C. 421(a); 42 
U.S.C. 421(i); 42 U.S.C. 423; 42 U.S.C. 902(a)(5); 42 U.S.C. 1381a; 42 
U.S.C. 1382c; 42 U.S.C. 1383; 42 U.S.C. 1383b
    CFR Citation: 20 CFR 404.1500, app 1.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: Sections 11.00 and 111.00, Neurological Impairments, of 
appendix 1 to subpart P of part 404 of our regulations describe 
neurological impairments that we consider severe enough to prevent a 
person from doing any gainful activity, or that cause marked and severe 
functional limitations for a child claiming Supplemental Security 
Income payments under title XVI. We will revise these sections to 
ensure that the medical evaluation criteria are up-to-date and 
consistent with the latest advances in medical knowledge and treatment.

[[Page 77897]]

    Statement of Need: These final rules are necessary to update the 
listings for evaluating neurological impairments to reflect advances in 
medical knowledge, treatment, and methods of evaluating these 
impairments. The changes will ensure that determinations of disability 
have a sound medical basis, that claimants receive equal treatment 
through the use of specific criteria, and that people who are disabled 
can be readily identified and awarded benefits if all other factors of 
entitlement or eligibility are met.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Administrative--not required by statute or 
court order.
    Alternatives: We considered not revising the listings and 
continuing to use our current criteria. However, we believe that these 
revisions are preferable because of the medical advances that have been 
made in treating and evaluating these types of impairments.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Estimated Savings--low.
    Risks: None.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM...............................   04/13/05  70 FR 19356
ANPRM Comment Period End............   06/13/05  .......................
NPRM................................   02/25/14  79 FR 10636
NPRM Comment Period End.............   04/28/14  .......................
NPRM Comment Period Reopened........   05/01/14  79 FR 24634
NPRM Comment Period Reopened End....   06/02/14  .......................
Final Action........................   09/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Additional Information: Includes Retrospective Review under E.O. 
13563.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Cheryl A Williams, Director, Social Security 
Administration, Office of Medical Listings Improvement, 6401 Security 
Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, Phone: 410 965-1020.
    Shawnette Ashburne, Social Insurance Specialist, Social Security 
Administration, Office of Medical Listings Improvement, 6401 Security 
Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, Phone: 410 966-5788.
    William P. Gibson, Social Insurance Specialist, Regulations Writer, 
Social Security Administration, Office of Regulations and Reports 
Clearance, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, Phone: 
410 966-9039.
    RIN: 0960-AF35

SSA

138. Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating Respiratory System 
Disorders (859F)

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 402; 42 U.S.C. 405(a); 42 U.S.C. 405(b); 
42 U.S.C. 405(d) to 405(h); 42 U.S.C. 416(i); 42 U.S.C. 421(a); 42 
U.S.C. 421(i); 42 U.S.C. 423; 42 U.S.C. 902(a)(5); 42 U.S.C. 1381a; 42 
U.S.C. 1382c; 42 U.S.C. 1383; 42 U.S.C. 1383b
    CFR Citation: 20 CFR 404.1500, app 1.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: Sections 3.00 and 103.00, Respiratory System, of appendix 
1 to subpart P of part 404 of our regulations describe respiratory 
system disorders that we consider severe enough to prevent an 
individual from doing any gainful activity or that cause marked and 
severe functional limitations for a child claiming SSI payments under 
title XVI. We will revise these sections to ensure that the medical 
evaluation criteria are up-to-date and consistent with the latest 
advances in medical knowledge and treatment.
    Statement of Need: These final regulations are necessary to update 
the Respiratory System listings to reflect advances in medical 
knowledge, treatment, and methods of evaluating respiratory disorders. 
The changes will ensure that determinations of disability have a sound 
medical basis, that claimants receive equal treatment through the use 
of specific criteria, and that people who are disabled can be readily 
identified and awarded benefits if all other factors of entitlement or 
eligibility are met.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Administrative--not required by statute or 
court order.
    Alternatives: We considered not revising the listings and 
continuing to use our current criteria. However, we believe that these 
revisions are preferable because of the medical advances that have been 
made in treating and evaluating respiratory diseases and because of our 
adjudicative experience.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Estimated costs--low.
    Risks: None.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM...............................   04/13/05  70 FR 19358
ANPRM Comment Period End............   06/13/05  .......................
NPRM................................   02/04/13  78 FR 7968
NPRM Comment Period End.............   04/05/13  .......................
Final Action........................   04/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Additional Information: Includes Retrospective Review under E.O. 
13563.
    URL for Public Comments:
    www.regulations.gov
    Agency Contact: Cheryl A Williams, Director, Social Security 
Administration, Office of Medical Listings Improvement, 6401 Security 
Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, Phone: 410 965-1020.
    Joanna Firmin, Social Insurance Specialist, Social Security 
Administration, Office of Medical Listings Improvement, 6401 Security 
Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, Phone: 410 965-7782.
    Helen Droddy, Social Insurance Specialist, Regulations Writer, 
Social Security Administration, Office of Regulations and Reports 
Clearance, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, Phone: 
410 965-1483, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 0960-AF58

SSA

139. Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating Mental Disorders (886F)

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 402; 42 U.S.C. 405(a); 42 U.S.C. 405(b); 
42 U.S.C. 405(d) to 42 U.S.C. 405(h); 42 U.S.C. 416(i); 42 U.S.C. 
421(a); 42 U.S.C. 421(h); 42 U.S.C. 421(i); 42 U.S.C. 423; 42 U.S.C. 
902(a)(5); 42 U.S.C. 1381a; 42 U.S.C. 1382c; 42 U.S.C. 1383; 42 U.S.C. 
1383b
    CFR Citation: 20 CFR 404.1500, app 1; 20 CFR 404.1520a; 20 CFR 
416.920a; 20 CFR 416.934.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: Sections 12.00 and 112.00, Mental Disorders, of appendix 
1 to subpart P of part 404 of our regulations describe those mental 
impairments that we consider severe enough to prevent a person from 
doing any gainful activity, or that cause marked and severe functional 
limitations for a child claiming Supplemental Security Income payments 
under title XVI. We will revise the criteria in these sections to 
ensure that the medical evaluation criteria are up-to-date and 
consistent

[[Page 77898]]

with the latest advances in medical knowledge and treatment.
    Statement of Need: These regulations are necessary to update the 
listings for evaluating mental disorders to reflect advances in medical 
knowledge, treatment, and methods of evaluating these disorders. The 
changes will ensure that determinations of disability have a sound 
medical basis, that claimants receive equal treatment through the use 
of specific criteria, and that people who are disabled can be readily 
identified and awarded benefits if all other factors of entitlement or 
eligibility are met.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Administrative--not required by statute or 
court order.
    Alternatives: We considered not revising the listings or making 
only minor technical changes. However, we believe that these revisions 
are preferable because of the medical advances that have been made in 
treating and evaluating these types of disorders. We have not 
comprehensively revised the current listings in over 15 years. Medical 
advances in disability evaluation and treatment and our program 
experience make clear that the current listings do not reflect state-
of-the-art medical knowledge and technology.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Savings estimates for fiscal years 
2010 to 2018: (in millions of dollars) OASDI-315, SSI-370.
    Risks: None.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM...............................   03/17/03  68 FR 12639
ANPRM Comment Period End............   06/16/03  .......................
NPRM................................   08/19/10  75 FR 51336
NPRM Comment Period End.............   11/17/10  .......................
NPRM................................   11/24/10  75 FR 71632
NPRM Comment Period End.............   12/09/10  .......................
Final Action........................   04/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Additional Information: Includes Retrospective Review under E.O. 
13563.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Cheryl A Williams, Director, Social Security 
Administration, Office of Medical Listings Improvement, 6401 Security 
Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, Phone: 410 965-1020.
    Janet Bendann, Social Insurance Specialist, Social Security 
Administration, Office of Medical Listings Improvement, 6401 Security 
Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, Phone: 410 965-9118.
    William P. Gibson, Social Insurance Specialist, Regulations Writer, 
Social Security Administration, Office of Regulations and Reports 
Clearance, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, Phone: 
410 966-9039.
    RIN: 0960-AF69

BILLING CODE 4191-02-P

FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION (FAR)

I. Mission and Overview

    The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) was established to codify 
uniform policies for acquisition of supplies and services by executive 
agencies. It is issued and maintained jointly, pursuant to the Office 
of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) Reauthorization Act, under the 
statutory authorities granted to the Secretary of Defense, 
Administrator of General Services, and the Administrator, National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration. Statutory authorities to issue 
and revise the FAR have been delegated to the procurement executives in 
Department of Defense (DoD), GSA, and National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration (NASA).

II. Statement of Regulatory and Deregulatory Priorities

Federal Acquisition Regulation Priorities

    Specific FAR cases that the FAR Council plans to address in Fiscal 
Year 2016 include:

Regulations To Improve Small Business Opportunities in Government 
Contracting

    Contracts under the Small Business Administration 8(a) Program--
This case clarifies FAR subpart 19.8, ``Contracting with the Small 
Business Administration (The 8(a) Program).'' (FAR Case 2012-022)
    Clarification of Requirement for Justifications for 8(a) Sole-
Source Contracts--This case clarifies the requirement for a 
justification for 8(a) sole-source contracts, in response to GAO Report 
to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Contracting Oversight, Committee on 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate, entitled 
Federal Contracting: Slow Start to Implementation of Justifications for 
8(a) Sole-Source Contracts (GAO-13-118 dated December 2012). (FAR Case 
2013-018)
    Set-Asides under Multiple Award Contracts--This case implements 
statutory requirements from the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 and is 
aimed at providing agencies with clarifying guidance on how to use 
multiple-award contracts as a tool to increase Federal contracting 
opportunities for small businesses. (FAR Case 2014-002)
    Small Business Subcontracting Improvements--This case implements 
statutory requirements from the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 aimed 
at protecting small business subcontractors and increasing 
subcontracting opportunities for small businesses. (FAR Case 2014-003)
    Payment of Subcontractors--This case implements section 1334 of the 
Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 and the Small Business Administration's 
(SBA) Final Rule 78 FR 42391, Small Business Subcontracting. The rule 
requires prime contractors of contracts requiring a subcontracting plan 
to notify the contracting officer in writing if the prime contractor 
pays a reduced price to a subcontractor or if payment is more than 90 
days past due. A contracting officer will then use his or her best 
judgment in determining whether the late or reduced payment was 
justified and if not the contracting officer will record the identity 
of a prime contractor with a history of unjustified untimely payments 
to subcontractors in the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity 
Information System (FAPIIS) or any successor system. (FAR Case 2014-
004)
    Consolidation and Bundling of Contract Requirements--This case 
implements statutory requirements from the Small Business Jobs Act of 
2010, which created a definition for contract consolidation and limited 
its use by agencies until certain steps are taken to identify and 
minimize the negative impact to small businesses. (FAR Case 2014-015)
    Sole Source Contracts to Women-Owned Small Businesses--This case 
implements statutory requirements from the NDAA for FY 2015, which 
provides for sole source authority under the Women-Owned Small Business 
(WOSB) Program. The new authority is expected to increase WOSB 
participation in the Federal marketplace. (FAR Case 2015-032)

Labor--Regulations Which Promote Fair Pay and Safe Workplace Practices

    Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces--This rule implements Executive Order 
13673, Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces, seeks to increase efficiency in 
the work performed by Federal contractors by ensuring that they 
understand and comply with labor laws designed to

[[Page 77899]]

promote safe, healthy, fair and effective workplaces. (FAR Case 2014-
025)
    Establishing a Minimum wage for Contractors--This rule implements 
Executive Order 13658, Establishing a Minimum Wage for Contractors, 
which requires agencies, to the extent permitted by law, to include a 
clause in new solicitations and resultant contracts, specifying, as a 
condition of payment, that the minimum wage to be paid to workers, in 
the performance of the contract or any subcontract there under, shall 
be at least $10.10 per hour beginning January 1, 2015. (FAR Case 2015-
003)
    Further Amendments to Equal Employment Opportunity--This rule 
implements Executive Order 13672, dated July 21, 2014, and Department 
of Labor (DOL) regulations at 41 CFR 60, published December 9, 2014. 
The Executive Order and the DOL regulations provide for a uniform 
policy in Federal Government procurement by prohibiting discrimination 
based on sexual orientation and gender identity. (FAR case 2015-013)
    Combating Trafficking in Persons--Definition of ``Recruitment 
Fees''--This case considers a new definition for the term ``recruitment 
fees'' at the request of the Senior Policy Operating Group (SPOG) for 
Combating Trafficking in Persons. (FAR Case 2015-017)

Environmental Rules--Regulations That Promote Environmental Goals

    High Global Warming Potential Hydrofluorocarbons--This case 
facilitates implementation of the President's Climate Action Plan with 
regard to high global warming potential hydrofluorocarbons. (FAR Case 
2014-026)
    Public Disclosure of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Reduction Goals--
Representation--This case creates an annual representation within the 
System for Award Management (SAM) for contractors to indicate if and 
where they publicly disclose GHG emissions and GHG reduction goals or 
targets. This information will help the Government assess supplier GHG 
management practices and assist agencies in developing strategies to 
engage with contractors to reduce supply chain emissions as directed in 
section 15 of Executive Order 13693, Planning for Federal 
Sustainability in the Next Decade, dated March 19, 2015. (FAR Case 
2015-024)
    Sustainable Acquisition--This case implements E.O. 13693, Planning 
for Federal Sustainability in the Next Decade, which supersedes E.O.s 
13423 and 13514. (FAR Case 2015-033)

Regulations That Promote Protection of Government Information and 
Systems

    Privacy Training--This case creates a FAR clause to require 
contractors that (1) need access to a system of records, (2) handle 
personally identifiable information, or (3) design, develop, maintain, 
or operate a system of records on behalf of the Government, have their 
personnel complete privacy training. This addition complies with 
subsections (e) (agency requirements) and (m) (Government contractors) 
of the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a). (FAR Case 2010-013)
    Organizational Conflicts of Interest and Unequal Access to 
Information--This case implements section 841 of the NDAA for FY 2009 
(Pub. L. 110-147). Section 841 requires consideration of how to address 
the current needs of the acquisition community with regard to 
Organizational Conflicts of Interest. Separately addresses issues 
regarding unequal access to information. (FAR Case 2011-001)
    Basic Safeguarding of Contractor Information Systems--This case 
amends the FAR to implement procedures for safeguarding contractor 
information systems that contain information provided by or generated 
for the Government. The purpose of these safeguards is to provide the 
Government with the necessary assurance that contractors are taking 
basic security measures on their information systems containing 
Government information. (FAR Case 2011-020)
    Contractor Use of Information--This case addresses contractor 
access to controlled unclassified information. (FAR Case 2014-021)

Regulations Which Promote Ethics and Integrity in Contractor 
Performance

    Information on Corporate Contractor Performance and Integrity--This 
case implements section 852 of the NDAA for FY 2013 (Pub. L. 112-239). 
Section 852 requires that FAPIIS include, to the extent practicable, 
information on any parent, subsidiary, or successor entities to the 
corporation. (FAR Case 2013-020)
    Prohibition on Contracting with Corporations with Delinquent Taxes 
or a Felony Conviction.--This case implements multiple sections of the 
Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015. (Pub. L. 
113-235) to prohibit using any of the funds appropriated by the Act to 
enter into a contract with any corporation with a delinquent Federal 
tax liability or a felony conviction. (FAR case 2015-011)
    Prohibition on Providing Funds to the Enemy--This case implements 
sections 841-843, subtitle E (Never Contract with the Enemy), title 
VIII, of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2015 (Pub. L. 
113-291), enacted 12/19/2014. Section 841 prohibits providing funds to 
the enemy. Section 842 provides additional access to records. Section 
843 provides definitions. (FAR Case 2015-014)

Regulations That Streamline and Reduce Unjustified Burdens

    Provisions and Clauses for Acquisitions of Commercial Items and 
Acquisitions That Do Not Exceed the Simplified Acquisition Threshold--
This case implements a new approach to the prescription and flowdown 
for provisions and clauses applicable to the acquisition of commercial 
items or acquisitions that do not exceed the simplified acquisition 
threshold. Each clause prescription and each clause flowdown for 
commercial items is specified within the prescription/clause itself, 
without having to cross-check another clause or list. The rule supports 
the use of automated contract writing systems and reduced necessary FAR 
maintenance when clauses are updated. (FAR Case 2015-004)
    Retention Period--This case updates the file retention periods 
identified at FAR subpart 4.805, Government Contract Files, to conform 
with the retention periods in the National Archives and Records 
Administration (NARA) General Records Schedule 1.1, Financial 
Management and Reporting Records, published on September 12, 2014. (FAR 
Case 2015-009)
    Simplified Acquisition Threshold for Contracts in Support of 
Humanitarian or Peacekeeping Operation--This case implements 41 U.S.C. 
153 by increasing the simplified acquisition threshold for contracts to 
be awarded and performed, or purchases to be made, outside the United 
States in support of a humanitarian or peacekeeping operation. (FAR 
Case 2015-020)
    Removal of Regulations Relating to Telegraphic Communication--This 
case removes the terms ``telegraph,'' ``telegram,'' and related 
regulations from the FAR, in accordance with OFPP Memorandum dated 
December 4, 2014, which directed removal or revision of outdated 
regulations. (FAR Case 2015-035)
    Reverse Auction Guidance--This case Implements OFPP memorandum, 
``Effective Use of Reverse Auctions.''The memorandum provides guidance 
on the usage of reverse auctions, and was issued in response to 
recommendations within GAO report (Reverse Auctions: Guidance is Needed 
to Maximize Competition and Achieve Cost Savings, GAO-14-108). (FAR 
Case 2015-038)

[[Page 77900]]

Regulations Which Promote Fiscal Responsibility (Accountability and 
Transparency)

    Applicability of the Senior Executive Compensation Benchmark. 
Proposes retroactive implementation of section 803 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
    Year 2012 (Pub. L. 112-81), which extends the limitation on 
allowability of compensation for certain contractor personnel from 
senior executives to all DoD, NASA, and Coast Guard contractor 
employees. (FAR Case 2012-025)
    Limitation on Allowable Government Contractor Compensation Costs--
This case implements Public Law 113-67, which limits costs of 
compensation of contractor and subcontractor employees. (FAR Case 2014-
012)
    Strategic Sourcing Documentation--This case implements section 836 
of the FY15 NDAA. Section 836 requires that when purchasing services 
and supplies that are offered under the Federal Strategic Sourcing 
Initiative but the Initiative in not used, the contract file shall 
include an analysis of comparative value, including price and nonprice 
factors, between the services and supplies offered under such 
Initiative and services and supplies offered under the source or 
sources used for the purchase. (FAR Case 2015-015)
    Prohibition on Reimbursement for Congressional Investigations and 
Inquiries--This case implements section 857 of the NDAA for FY15, which 
amends 10 U.S.C. 2324(e)(1). Section 857 disallows costs incurred by a 
contractor in connection with a congressional investigation or inquiry 
into an issue that is the subject 10 U.S.C. 2324(k)(2). (FAR Case 2015-
016)
    Determination of Fair and Reasonable Prices on Orders under 
Multiple-Award Contracts--This case clarifies the responsibilities for 
ordering activity contracting officers to determine fair and reasonable 
prices when using Federal Supply Schedules. (FAR Case 2015-021)
    Federal Supply Schedule Order Level Materials--This case provides 
clarification of the authority to acquire order-level materials when 
placing a task order or establishing a blanket purchase agreement 
against a Federal Supply Schedule contract. (FAR Case 2015-023)

Regulations Which Promote Accountability and Transparency

    Uniform Use of Line Items--This case establishes a requirement for 
use of a standardized uniform line item numbering structure in Federal 
procurement. (FAR Case 2013-014)
    Past Performance Evaluation Requirements--This case updates FAR 
subpart 42.15 to identify ``regulatory compliance'' as a separate 
evaluation factor in the Contractor Past Performance Assessment System 
(CPARS) and require agencies use past performance information in the 
Past Performance Information three years for construction and 
architect-engineer contracts. (FAR Case 2015-027)


    Dated: October 7, 2015.
William Clark,
Director, Office of Government-wide Acquisition Policy, Office of 
Acquisition Policy, Office of Government-wide Policy.

BILLING CODE 6820-EP-P

FALL 2015 STATEMENT OF REGULATORY PRIORITIES

CFPB Purposes and Functions

    The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (CFPB or Bureau) was 
established in 2010 as an independent bureau of the Federal Reserve 
System by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act 
(Public Law 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376) (Dodd-Frank Act). Pursuant to the 
Dodd-Frank Act, the CFPB has rulemaking, supervisory, enforcement, and 
other authorities relating to consumer financial products and services. 
Among these are the consumer financial protection authorities that 
transferred to the CFPB from seven Federal agencies on the designated 
transfer date, July 21, 2011. These authorities include the ability to 
issue regulations under more than a dozen Federal consumer financial 
laws.
    As provided in section 1021 of the Dodd-Frank Act, the purpose of 
the CFPB is to implement and enforce Federal consumer financial laws 
consistently for the purpose of ensuring that all consumers have access 
to markets for consumer financial products and services and that such 
markets are fair, transparent, and competitive. The CFPB is authorized 
to exercise its authorities for the purpose of ensuring that, with 
respect to consumer financial products and services:
    (1) Consumers are provided with timely and understandable 
information to make responsible decisions about financial transactions;
    (2) Consumers are protected from unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts 
and practices and from discrimination;
    (3) Outdated, unnecessary, or unduly burdensome regulations are 
regularly identified and addressed in order to reduce unwarranted 
regulatory burdens;
    (4) Federal consumer financial law is enforced consistently, 
without regard to status of a person as a depository institution, in 
order to promote fair competition; and
    (5) Markets for consumer financial products and services operate 
transparently and efficiently to facilitate access and innovation.

CFPB Regulatory Priorities

    The CFPB's regulatory priorities for the period from November 1, 
2015, to October 31, 2016, include continuing rulemaking activities to 
address critical issues in various markets for consumer financial 
products and services and implementing Dodd-Frank Act mortgage 
protections. The Bureau has also made changes to its long-term agenda, 
which are discussed below.

Bureau Regulatory Efforts in Various Consumer Markets

    The Bureau is working on a number of rulemakings to address 
important consumer protection issues in a wide variety of markets for 
consumer financial products and services.
    For example, the Bureau is beginning a rulemaking process to follow 
up on a report it issued to Congress in March 2015, concerning the use 
of agreements providing for arbitration of any future dispute between 
covered persons and consumers in connection with the offering or 
providing of consumer financial products or services. The report, which 
was required by the Dodd-Frank Act, expanded on preliminary results of 
arbitration research that had been released by the Bureau in December 
2013. Following release of the report, the CFPB analyzed whether rules 
governing pre-dispute arbitration agreements are warranted, and, if so, 
what types of rules would be appropriate. The Bureau has preliminarily 
determined that it should proceed with a rulemaking regarding pre-
dispute arbitration agreements. To begin the rulemaking process, the 
Bureau intends to convene a panel in fall 2015, under the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act and in conjunction with 
the Office of Management and Budget and the Small Business 
Administration's Chief Counsel for Advocacy, to consult with small 
businesses that may be affected by the policy proposals under 
consideration.
    The Bureau is also analyzing consumer protection concerns 
associated with the use of payday, auto title, and similar lending 
products in anticipation of the release of a notice of proposed 
rulemaking to address acts or practices in connection with these

[[Page 77901]]

products. In March 2015, as part of the Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act process, the Bureau released an outline of 
proposals under consideration concerning the failure to determine 
whether consumers have the ability to repay without default or re-
borrowing and certain payment collection practices. The Bureau 
completed the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
process in June 2015. The Bureau had previously released substantial 
research on certain of these products, issuing a white paper in April 
2013, and a data point in March 2014, and is continuing to conduct 
additional research that it expects to release in conjunction with the 
rulemaking proposal.
    Building on Bureau research and other sources, the Bureau is also 
engaged in policy analysis and further research initiatives in 
preparation for a rulemaking on overdraft programs on checking 
accounts. The CFPB issued a white paper in June 2013, and a report in 
July 2014, based on supervisory data from several large banks that 
highlighted a number of possible consumer protection concerns, 
including how consumers opt in to overdraft coverage for ATM and one-
time debit card transactions, overdraft coverage limits, transaction 
posting order practices, overdraft and insufficient funds fee 
structures, and involuntary account closures. The CFPB is continuing to 
engage in additional research and has begun consumer testing 
initiatives relating to the opt-in process.
    In addition, the Bureau also engaged in policy analysis and 
research initiatives in preparation for a rulemaking on debt collection 
activities, which are the single largest source of complaints to the 
federal government of any industry. Building on the Bureau's November 
2013, Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the CFPB is in the process 
of analyzing the results of a survey to obtain information from 
consumers about their experiences with debt collection. The Bureau is 
also undertaking consumer testing initiatives to determine what 
information would be useful for consumers to have about debt collection 
and their debts and how that information should be provided to them.
    The Bureau is also working on a final rule to create a 
comprehensive set of protections for general purpose reloadable cards 
and other similar products, which are increasingly being used by 
consumers in place of traditional checking accounts or credit cards. 
The Bureau issued a proposed rule in November 2014, seeking to 
expressly bring prepaid products within the ambit of Regulation E 
(which implements the Electronic Fund Transfer Act) as prepaid accounts 
and to create new provisions specific to such accounts. The proposal 
would also amend Regulation E and Regulation Z (which implements the 
Truth in Lending Act) to regulate prepaid accounts with overdraft 
services or credit features.
    The Bureau is also continuing rulemaking activities that will 
further establish the Bureau's nonbank supervisory authority by 
defining larger participants of certain markets for consumer financial 
products and services. Larger participants of such markets, as the 
Bureau defines by rule, are subject to the Bureau's supervisory 
authority. The Bureau expects that its next larger participant 
rulemaking will focus on the markets for consumer installment loans and 
vehicle title loans for purposes of supervision. The Bureau is also 
considering whether rules to require registration of these or other 
non-depository lenders would facilitate supervision, as has been 
suggested to the Bureau by both consumer advocates and industry groups.
    The Bureau is also continuing to develop research on other critical 
markets to help implement statutory directives and to assess whether 
regulation of other consumer financial products and services may be 
warranted. For example, the Bureau is starting its work to implement 
section 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Act, which amends the Equal Credit 
Opportunity Act to require financial institutions to report information 
concerning credit applications made by women-owned, minority-owned, and 
small businesses. The Bureau will focus on outreach and research to 
develop its understanding of the players, products, and practices in 
the small business lending market and of the potential ways to 
implement section 1071. The CFPB then expects to begin developing 
proposed regulations concerning the data to be collected and 
appropriate procedures, information safeguards, and privacy protections 
for information-gathering under this section.

Implementing Dodd-Frank Act Mortgage Protections

    The Bureau is also continuing its efforts to implement critical 
consumer protections under the Dodd-Frank Act to guard against mortgage 
market practices that contributed to the nation's most significant 
financial crisis in several decades. The Bureau has already issued 
regulations implementing Dodd-Frank Act protections for mortgage 
originations and servicing and integrating various federal mortgage 
disclosures as discussed further below.
    The Bureau is also working to implement Dodd-Frank amendments to 
the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA), which augment existing data 
reporting requirements regarding housing-related loans and applications 
for such loans. In addition to obtaining data that is critical to the 
purposes of HMDA--which include providing the public and public 
officials with information that can be used to help determine whether 
financial institutions are serving the housing needs of their 
communities, assisting public officials in the distribution of public 
sector investments, and assisting in identifying possible 
discriminatory lending patterns and enforcing antidiscrimination 
statutes--the Bureau views this rulemaking as an opportunity to 
streamline and modernize HMDA data collection and reporting, in 
furtherance of its mission under the Dodd-Frank Act to reduce 
unwarranted regulatory burden. The Bureau published a proposed HMDA 
rule in the Federal Register in August 2014, to add several new 
reporting requirements and to clarify several existing requirements. 
Publication of the proposal followed initial outreach efforts and the 
convening of a panel under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act in conjunction with the Office of Management and Budget 
and the Small Business Administration's Chief Counsel for Advocacy, to 
consult with small lenders who may be affected by the rulemaking. As 
part of the process for developing the HMDA final rule, the Bureau is 
reviewing and considering public comments on the proposed rule, 
consulting and coordinating with other agencies, conducting additional 
outreach to build and refine operational capacity, and preparing to 
assist financial institutions in their compliance efforts. The Bureau 
expects to issue a final rule in fall 2015.
    Another major effort of the Bureau is the implementation of its 
final rule combining several federal mortgage disclosures that 
consumers receive in connection with applying for and closing on a 
mortgage loan under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and the Real Estate 
Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA). The integrated forms are the 
cornerstone of the Bureau's broader ``Know Before You Owe'' mortgage 
initiative. The rule, in most cases, requires that two forms, the Loan 
Estimate and the Closing Disclosure, replace four different federal 
disclosures. These new forms will help consumers better understand 
their

[[Page 77902]]

options, choose the deal that is best for them, and avoid costly 
surprises at the closing table. The Bureau conducted extensive 
qualitative testing of the new forms prior to issuing a proposal, and 
also conducted a post-proposal quantitative study to validate the 
results of the new forms. The results of the quantitative testing 
showed that consumers of all different experience levels, with loans of 
different characteristics--whether focused on buying a home or 
refinancing--were able to understand the Bureau's new forms better than 
the current forms.
    The final rule combining the federal mortgage disclosures under 
TILA and RESPA was issued in November 2013, and takes effect October 3, 
2015. The Bureau has worked intensively to support implementation 
efforts, including consumer education initiatives. To facilitate 
implementation, the Bureau has released a small entity compliance 
guide, a guide to forms, a readiness guide, sample forms, and 
additional materials. The Bureau has conducted six free, publicly 
available webinars to answer common questions and hosted an additional 
webinar targeted at housing counselors. In January 2015, after 
extensive outreach to stakeholders, the Bureau adopted two minor 
modifications and technical amendments to the rule to smooth compliance 
for industry.\1\ After discovering an administrative error in June 
2015, the Bureau issued a proposal to extend the effective date from 
August 1, 2015 to October 3, 2015, and finalized the extension of the 
effective date on July 24, 2015. The Bureau expects to continue working 
to support implementation of the rule, monitor the market, and make 
clarifications and adjustments to the rule where warranted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 80 FR 8767 (Feb. 19, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Bureau also continues to work in support of the full 
implementation of, and to facilitate compliance with, various mortgage-
related final rules issued by the Bureau in January 2013, to strengthen 
consumer protections involving the origination and servicing of 
mortgages. These rules, implementing requirements under the Dodd-Frank 
Act, were all effective by January 2014. The Bureau is working 
diligently to monitor the market and continues to make clarifications 
and adjustments to the rules where warranted. For example, in order to 
promote access to credit, the Bureau engaged in further research to 
assess the impact of certain provisions implemented under the Dodd-
Frank Act that modify general requirements for small creditors that 
operate predominantly in ``rural or underserved'' areas and published a 
notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register in February 2015. 
The Bureau anticipates issuing a final rule in September 2015.
    The Bureau also published a proposal in the Federal Register in 
December 2014, to amend various provisions of its mortgage servicing 
rules in both Regulation X, which implements RESPA, and Regulation Z. 
The proposal included further clarification of the applicability of 
certain provisions when the borrower is in bankruptcy, possible 
additional enhancements to loss mitigation requirements, proposed 
applicability of certain provisions to successors in interest, and 
other topics. As the Bureau develops a final rule, it is reviewing and 
considering public comments on the proposed rule, consulting with other 
agencies, conducting consumer testing of certain disclosures, and 
preparing to support implementation and consumer education efforts. The 
Bureau expects to issue a final rule in late spring 2016.
    Further, the Bureau continues to participate in a series of 
interagency rulemakings to implement various Dodd-Frank Act amendments 
to TILA and the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement 
Act of 1989 (FIRREA) relating to mortgage appraisals. In April 2015, in 
conjunction with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the 
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Federal Deposit 
Insurance Corporation, the National Credit Union Administration Board, 
and the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the Bureau issued a final rule 
adopting certain minimum requirements for appraisal management 
companies. These joint agency efforts are continuing with further 
efforts to implement amendments to FIRREA concerning required quality 
control standards for the use of automated valuation models.

Bureau Long-Term Planning Efforts

    The Bureau has also updated its long-term agenda to reflect its 
expectations beyond fiscal year 2016. As noted in these items, the 
Bureau intends to explore potential rulemakings to address important 
issues related to consumer reporting and student loan servicing. The 
Bureau has also eliminated a listing for certain mortgage-related 
rulemakings inherited from other agencies pursuant to the transfer of 
rulemaking authority under the Dodd-Frank Act in 2011. The Bureau 
remains interested in the subjects of these rulemakings but anticipates 
that it would develop new proposals rather than finalizing notices that 
are at least five years old.
    With regard to consumer reporting, the Bureau continues to monitor 
the credit reporting market through its supervisory, enforcement, and 
research efforts, and to consider prior research, including a white 
paper the Bureau published on the largest consumer reporting agencies 
in December 2012, and reports on credit report accuracy produced by the 
Federal Trade Commission pursuant to the Fair and Accurate Credit 
Transactions Act. As this work continues, the Bureau will evaluate 
possible policy responses to issues identified, including potential 
additional rules or amendments to existing rules governing consumer 
reporting. Potential topics for consideration might include the 
accuracy of credit reports, including the processes for resolving 
consumer disputes, or other issues.
    Further, in May 2015, the CFPB issued a request for information 
seeking comment from the public regarding student loan servicing 
practices, including those related to payment processing, servicing 
transfers, complaint resolution, co-signer release, and procedures 
regarding alternative repayment and refinancing options. In September 
2015, the CFPB released a report regarding student loan servicing 
practices, based, in part, on comments submitted in response to the 
request for information. The CFPB will also continue to monitor the 
student loan servicing market for trends and developments. As this work 
continues, the Bureau will evaluate possible policy responses, 
including potential rulemaking. Possible topics for consideration might 
include specific acts or practices and consumer disclosures.
    The Bureau has continued work to consider opportunities to 
modernize and streamline regulations that it inherited from other 
agencies pursuant to a transfer of rulemaking authority under the Dodd-
Frank Act. This work includes implementing the consolidation and 
streamlining of federal mortgage disclosure forms discussed earlier, 
and exploring opportunities to reduce unwarranted regulatory burden as 
part of the HMDA rulemaking. While the Bureau considers the modernizing 
and streamlining effort to be important, it has determined that aspects 
of the inherited proposals to amend Regulation Z have become stale with 
the passage of several years since their issuance. At this point, the 
Bureau believes that any rulemaking it may undertake in the areas the 
proposals addressed would be best achieved

[[Page 77903]]

through fresh initiatives that would begin with new proposals based on 
new reviews of the relevant markets and other appropriate outreach and 
fact gathering, followed by fresh analyses of any policy and legal 
issues or concerns presented. The CFPB has been evaluating further 
action regarding these pending proposals and, at this time, has 
determined that it will take no further action. The Bureau is 
continuing to assess the mortgage market on an ongoing basis and will 
revisit the need to initiate new proposals at a later date.
    The Bureau also has begun planning to conduct assessments of 
significant rules it has adopted, pursuant to section 1022(d) of the 
Dodd-Frank Act. That section requires the Bureau to conduct such 
assessments to address, among other relevant factors, the effectiveness 
of the rules in meeting the purposes and objectives of Title X of the 
Dodd-Frank Act and the specific goals of the rules assessed, to publish 
a report of each assessment not later than five years after the 
effective date of the subject rule, and to invite public comment on 
recommendations for modifying, expanding, or eliminating the subject 
rule before publishing each report. The Bureau will provide further 
information about its expectations for the lookback process as its 
planning continues.

BILLING CODE 4810-AM-P

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION (CPSC)

Statement of Regulatory Priorities

    The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission is charged with 
protecting the public from unreasonable risks of death and injury 
associated with consumer products. To achieve this goal, among other 
things, the CPSC:
     Develops mandatory product safety standards or bans when 
other efforts are inadequate to address a safety hazard, or where 
required by statute;
     obtains repair, replacement, or refunds for defective 
products that present a substantial product hazard;
     develops information and education campaigns about the 
safety of consumer products;
     participates in the development or revision of voluntary 
product safety standards; and
     follows statutory mandates.
    Unless directed otherwise by congressional mandate, when deciding 
which of these approaches to take in any specific case, the CPSC 
gathers and analyzes data about the nature and extent of the risk 
presented by the product. The Commission's rules at 16 CFR 1009.8 
require the Commission to consider, among other factors, the following 
criteria when deciding the level of priority for any particular 
project:
     Frequency and severity of injury;
     causality of injury;
     chronic illness and future injuries;
     costs and benefits of Commission action;
     unforeseen nature of the risk;
     vulnerability of the population at risk;
     probability of exposure to the hazard; and
     additional criteria that warrant Commission attention.
    Significant Regulatory Actions:
    Currently, the Commission is considering one rule that would 
constitute a ``significant regulatory action'' under the definition of 
that term in Executive Order 12866:

1. Flammability Standard for Upholstered Furniture

    Under section 4 of the Flammable Fabrics Act (``FFA''), the 
Commission may issue a flammability standard or other regulation for a 
product of interior furnishing if the Commission determines that such a 
standard is needed to adequately protect the public against 
unreasonable risk of the occurrence of fire leading to death or 
personal injury, or significant property damage. The Commission's 
regulatory proceeding could result in several actions, one of which 
could be the development of a mandatory standard requiring that 
upholstered furniture meet mandatory requirements specified in the 
standard.

BILLING CODE 6355-01-P

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION (FTC)

Statement of Regulatory and Deregulatory Priorities

I. Regulatory and Deregulatory Priorities

Background

    The Federal Trade Commission (FTC or Commission) is an independent 
agency charged by its enabling statute, the Federal Trade Commission 
Act (FTC Act), with protecting American consumers from ``unfair methods 
of competition'' and ``unfair or deceptive acts or practices'' in the 
marketplace. The Commission strives to ensure that consumers benefit 
from a vigorously competitive marketplace. The Commission's work is 
rooted in a belief that competition, based on truthful and non-
misleading information about products and services, provides consumers 
the best choice of products and services at the lowest prices.
    The Commission pursues its goal of promoting competition in the 
marketplace through two different but complementary approaches. Unfair 
or deceptive acts or practices injure both consumers and honest 
competitors alike and undermine competitive markets. Through its 
consumer protection activities, the Commission seeks to ensure that 
consumers receive accurate, truthful, and non-misleading information in 
the marketplace. At the same time, for consumers to have a choice of 
products and services at competitive prices and quality, the 
marketplace must be free from anticompetitive business practices. Thus, 
the second part of the Commission's basic mission--antitrust 
enforcement--is to prohibit anticompetitive mergers or other 
anticompetitive business practices without unduly interfering with the 
legitimate activities of businesses. These two complementary missions 
make the Commission unique insofar as it is the Nation's only Federal 
agency to be given this combination of statutory authority to protect 
consumers.
    The Commission is, first and foremost, a law enforcement agency. It 
pursues its mandate primarily through case-by-case enforcement of the 
FTC Act and other statutes. In addition, the Commission is also charged 
with the responsibility of issuing and enforcing regulations under a 
number of statutes. The Commission is responsible for enforcing 16 
trade regulation rules promulgated pursuant to the FTC Act. Other 
examples include the regulations enforced pursuant to credit, financial 
and marketing practice statutes \1\ and to energy laws.\2\ The 
Commission also has adopted a number of voluntary industry guides. Most 
of the regulations and guides pertain to consumer protection matters 
and are intended to ensure that consumers receive the information 
necessary to evaluate competing products and make informed purchasing 
decisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For example, the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited 
Pornography and Marketing Act of 2003 (CAN-SPAM Act) (15 U.S.C. 
7701-7713) and the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse 
Prevention Act (15 U.S.C. 6101-6108).
    \2\ For example, the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 2776, 
codified in scattered sections of the U.S. Code, particularly 42 
U.S.C. 6201 et seq. and the Energy Independence and Security Act of 
2007 (EISA)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commission Initiatives

    The Commission protects consumers through a variety of tools, 
including both regulatory and non-regulatory

[[Page 77904]]

approaches. It has encouraged industry self-regulation, developed a 
corporate leniency policy for certain rule violations, and established 
compliance partnerships where appropriate.
    As detailed below, protecting consumer privacy, preventing and 
mitigating identity theft, containing the rising costs of health care 
and prescription drugs, fostering competition and innovation in 
cutting-edge, high-tech industries, challenging deceptive advertising 
and marketing, and safeguarding the interests of potentially vulnerable 
consumers, such as children and the financially distressed, continue to 
be at the forefront of the Commission's consumer protection and 
competition programs. By subject area, the FTC discusses some of the 
major workshops, reports,\3\ and initiatives it has pursued since the 
2014 Regulatory Plan was published.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The FTC also prepares a number of annual and periodic 
reports on the statutes it administers. These are not discussed in 
this plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (a) Protecting Consumer Privacy. As the nation's top enforcer on 
the consumer privacy beat, the FTC works to ensure that consumers can 
take advantage of the benefits of a dynamic and ever-changing digital 
marketplace without compromising their privacy. The FTC achieves that 
goal through civil law enforcement, policy initiatives, and consumer 
and business education. For example, the FTC's unparalleled experience 
in consumer privacy enforcement has addressed practices offline, 
online, and in the mobile environment by large, well-known companies 
and lesser-known players alike.
    Data security is an important focus of the Commission's privacy 
work. Since 2002, the FTC has brought 53 cases against companies that 
have engaged in unfair or deceptive practices that the Commission 
alleged put consumers' personal data at unreasonable risk. The agency 
has been actively monitoring the mobile marketplace to safeguard data 
privacy and security. For instance, Credit Karma, Inc., and Fandango, 
LLC, settled charges that they misrepresented the security of their 
mobile apps and put the sensitive personal information of millions of 
people at risk.\4\ Despite their security promises, these companies 
allegedly failed to take reasonable steps to secure their mobile apps, 
leaving people's sensitive personal information vulnerable to attackers 
who could intercept any of the information the apps sent or received. 
In addition, Snapchat, Inc., settled charges that it deceived its users 
when it touted an app's ability to send ``snaps'' that would 
``disappear forever'' after a set time.\5\ Moreover, the company's 
alleged failure to secure its Find Friends feature led to a breach that 
enabled attackers to access usernames and phone numbers for millions of 
users. The settlement prohibits future misrepresentations and requires 
the implementation of a comprehensive privacy program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ In the Matter of Credit Karma, Docket No. C-4480, Decision 
and Order, August 13, 2014; In the Matter of Fandango, Docket No. C-
4481, Decision and Order, August 13, 2014.
    \5\ In the Matter of Snapchat, Docket No. C-4501, Decision and 
Order, December 23, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ``Start With Security'' initiative helps businesses protect 
consumers' information through new guidance for businesses that draw on 
the lessons learned in the more than 50 data security cases brought by 
the FTC through the years, as well as a series of conferences to be 
held across the country aimed at small- and medium-sized businesses in 
various industries, with the first event held on September 9, 2015, in 
San Francisco, CA, and the second one to be held in Austin, TX, on 
November 5, 2015. Aimed at start-ups and developers, the September 
event brought together experts to provide information on security by 
design, common security vulnerabilities, strategies for secure 
development, and vulnerability response. The Austin event will provide 
similar practical tips and guidance for the Austin start-up community.
    The business guidance, titled ``Start with Security A Guide for 
Business,'' was published mid-2015 and lays out ten key steps to 
effective data security, drawn from the alleged facts in the FTC's data 
security cases.\6\ The document is designed to provide an easy way for 
companies to understand the lessons learned from those previous cases. 
It includes references to the cases, as well as plain-language 
explanations of the security principles at play. In addition to the new 
guidance, the FTC has also introduced a one-stop Web site that 
consolidates the Commission's data security information for businesses. 
It can be found at www.ftc.gov/datasecurity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The publication can be found at https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/plain-language/pdf0205-startwithsecurity.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 27, 2015, the staff of the Commission released a report 
titled ``Internet of Things Privacy & Security in a Connected World'' 
\7\ that recommended a series of concrete steps that businesses can 
take to enhance and protect consumers' privacy and security, as 
Americans start to reap the benefits from a growing world of Internet-
connected devices. The Internet of Things universe is expanding 
quickly, and there are now over 25 billion connected devices in use 
worldwide, with that number set to rise significantly as consumer goods 
companies, auto manufacturers, healthcare providers, and other 
businesses continue to invest in connected devices, according to data 
cited in the report. In addition to the report, the FTC also released a 
new publication for businesses containing advice about how to build 
security into products connected to the Internet of Things. ``Careful 
Connections: Building Security in the Internet of Things'' encourages 
companies to implement a risk-based approach and take advantage of best 
practices developed by security experts, such as using strong 
encryption and proper authentication.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See ``Internet of Things Privacy & Security in a Connected 
World FTC Staff Report (January 2015)'' at https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/reports/federal-trade-commission-staff-report-november-2013-workshop-entitled-internet-things-privacy/150127iotrpt.pdf.
    \8\ See ``Careful Connections: Building Security in the Internet 
of Things'' at https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/plain-language/pdf0199-carefulconnections-buildingsecurityinternetofthings.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) Protecting Children. Children increasingly use the Internet for 
entertainment, information and schoolwork. The FTC enforces the 
Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) and the COPPA Rule to 
protect children's privacy when they are online by putting their 
parents in charge of who gets to collect personal information about 
their preteen kids. For example, the FTC charged online review site 
Yelp Inc., and mobile app developer TinyCo, Inc., with improperly 
collecting children's information in violation of the COPPA Rule.\9\ 
The FTC alleged that Yelp failed to implement a functional age-screen 
in its apps, which allowed children under 13 to register for the 
service, despite having an age-screen mechanism on its Web site. The 
Commission also alleged that many of TinyCo's apps, which used themes 
appealing to children, brightly colored animated characters, and simple 
language, were in fact directed at children under 13; TinyCo therefore 
was required to comply with the COPPA Rule when collecting children's 
information, such as email addresses. To resolve the Commission's 
allegations, Yelp paid $450,000 and TinyCo paid $300,000 in civil 
penalties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ United States of America (on behalf of the FTC), v. Yelp 
Inc., No. 3:14-cv-04163 (N.D. CA.) (Stipulated Order For Permanent 
Injunction And Civil Penalty Judgment) (September 16, 2014); United 
States of America (on behalf of the FTC), v. TinyCo, Inc., No: 3:14-
cv-04164 (N.D. CA.) (Stipulated Order For Permanent Injunction And 
Civil Penalty Judgment) (September 16, 2014).

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

[[Page 77905]]

    The Commission is actively litigating to protect children and their 
parents when children use mobile apps that appeal to children and offer 
virtual goods for sale. On August 1, 2014, the FTC filed a court 
complaint alleging that Amazon.com, Inc. billed parents and other 
account holders for millions of dollars in unauthorized in-app charges 
incurred by children.\10\ Amazon offers many children's apps in its app 
store for download to mobile devices such as the Kindle Fire. The 
lawsuit seeks a court order requiring refunds to consumers for the 
unauthorized charges and permanently banning the company from billing 
parents and other account holders for in-app charges without their 
consent. This is the FTC's third case relating to children's in-app 
purchases; Apple and Google both settled FTC complaints concerning the 
issue in 2014.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ FTC v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-01038 (W.D. Wash.) 
(Complaint For Permanent Injunction And Other Equitable Relief filed 
on July 10, 2014) (Order Adopting Stipulated Protective Order 
entered January 12, 2015).
    \11\ In the Matter of Apple Inc., Docket No. C-4444, Decision 
and Order, March 25, 2014; In the Matter of Google Inc., Docket No. 
122 3237, Proposed Agreement Containing Consent Order, September 4, 
2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (c) Protecting Seniors. The Commission works vigilantly to fight 
telephone scams that harm millions of Americans. The agency has 
aggressively used law enforcement tools \12\ as well as efforts to 
educate consumers about these scams and to find technological solutions 
that will make it more difficult for scammers to operate and hide from 
law enforcement. FTC education and outreach programs reach tens of 
millions of people every year. Among them is the ``Pass It On'' program 
that provides seniors with information, in English and Spanish, on a 
variety of scams targeting the elderly.\13\ The agency also works with 
the Elder Justice Coordinating Council to help protect seniors and with 
the AARP Foundation, whose peer counselors provided fraud-avoidance 
advice last year to more than a thousand seniors who had filed 
complaints with the FTC about certain frauds, including lottery, prize 
promotion, and grandparent scams. The Commission is also promoting 
initiatives to make it harder for scammers to fake or ``spoof'' their 
caller Identification information and the more widespread availability 
of technology that will block calls from fraudsters, essentially 
operating as a spam filter for the telephone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The FTC has brought approximately 180 cases involving 
telemarketing fraud against more than 1100 defendants during the 
past decade.
    \13\ See Pass It On at http://www.consumer.ftc.gov/features/feature-0030-pass-it-on#identity-theft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (d) Protecting Financially Distressed Consumers. Even as the 
economy recovers, some consumers continue to face financial challenges. 
The FTC acts to ensure that consumers are protected from deceptive and 
unfair credit practices and get the information they need to make 
informed financial choices. The Commission has continued its 
enforcement efforts by bringing law enforcement actions to curb 
deceptive and unfair practices in mortgage rescue, debt relief, auto 
financing and debt collection.
    In June 2015, the Commission initiated a series of Debt Collection 
Dialogue hearings, with the first one in Buffalo co-hosted by the New 
York Attorney General's Office. The Buffalo event drew nearly 200 
participants, most of them collection industry members. The second 
hearing was held on September 29, 2015, in Dallas, Texas. On November 
18, 2015, the Commission plans to co-host the Atlanta event with the 
Georgia Attorney General's Office. At each event, the FTC and its state 
and federal law enforcement partners will discuss recent enforcement 
actions, consumer complaints about debt collection practices, and 
compliance issues. The speakers will welcome questions and comments 
from collection industry members and others who attend.
    (e) Fighting Identity Theft. The issue of identity theft has been 
the top consumer complaint reported to the FTC for the past 15 years, 
and in 2014, the Commission received more than 330,000 complaints from 
consumers who were victims of identity theft. On May 14, 2015, the FTC 
launched IdentityTheft.gov, a new resource that makes it easier for 
identity theft victims to report and recover from identity theft. A 
Spanish version of the site is also available at 
www.RobodeIdentidad.gov. The new Web site provides an interactive 
checklist that walks people through the recovery process and helps them 
understand which recovery steps should be taken upon learning their 
identity has been stolen. It also provides sample letters and other 
helpful resources. In addition, the site offers specialized tips for 
specific forms of identity theft, including tax-related and medical 
identity theft. The site also has advice for people who have been 
notified that their personal information was exposed in a data breach.
    Tax identity theft is increasingly a growing share of identity 
theft-related complaints. In January 2015, the FTC sponsored a Tax 
Identity Theft Awareness Week including, hosting a webinar, bilingual 
Twitter chats, and several Tax Identity Theft Awareness Week events 
across the country to raise awareness about tax identity theft and give 
people tips about how to respond to it. The FTC's Tax Identity Theft 
Awareness Week Web site \14\ provided material for regional events held 
in the states with the highest reported rates of identity theft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See http://www.consumer.ftc.gov/features/feature-0029-tax-identity-theft-awareness-week.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (f) Ensuring Consumers Benefit From New Technologies While Also 
Protecting Them.
     Mobile Cramming. The widespread adoption of mobile devices 
has provided many important benefits to consumers, including the 
convenience of paying for goods and services using a mobile phone. The 
Commission continues to prosecute crammers--third parties that place 
unwanted charges on consumers' phone bills--and this past year focused 
its attention on the role played by mobile carriers. AT&T Mobility, LLC 
and T-Mobile USA, Inc. agreed to pay $80 million and at least $90 
million, respectively, to settle claims that they charged customers 
hundreds of millions of dollars for third-party subscriptions (such as 
ringtones and text messages) and pocketed a significant percentage of 
the charges.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Federal Trade Commission v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, No. 1:14-
cv-03227-HLM (N.D. Ga.) (Stipulated Order for Permanent Injunction 
and Monetary Judgment filed October 8, 2014); Federal Trade 
Commission v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-0097-JLR (W.D. Wa.) 
(Stipulated Order for Permanent Injunction and Monetary Judgment 
filed December 22, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Cross Device Tracking. The Commission will host a workshop 
on Nov. 16, 2015, to examine the privacy issues around the tracking of 
consumers' activities across their different information technology 
devices for advertising and marketing purposes, a practice known as 
``cross-device tracking.'' As consumers use an increasingly diverse 
array of devices, from smart phones to tablets to wearable devices, 
they interact with platforms, applications, software and publishers in 
ways that were impossible to conceive even just a few years ago. The 
workshop will explore a number of questions about the potential 
benefits to consumers of effective cross-device tracking and examine 
the potential privacy and security risks.
    (g) Promoting Competition in Health Care. The FTC continues to work 
to eliminate anticompetitive settlements featuring payments by branded 
drug firms to generic competitors to keep generic drugs off the market 
(so-called,

[[Page 77906]]

``pay-for-delay'' agreements). It's a practice where the pharmaceutical 
industry wins, but consumers lose. The brand company protects its drug 
franchise, and the generic competitor shares in the monopoly profits 
preserved by avoiding competition. In a significant victory on June 17, 
2013, the U.S. Supreme Court held that pay-for-delay agreements between 
brand and generic drug companies are subject to antitrust scrutiny 
under an antitrust ``rule of reason'' analysis. FTC v. Actavis, Inc., 
570 U.S. 756 (2013). Then, on June 17, 2015, the U.S. District Court 
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania approved the Federal Trade 
Commission's record-setting $1.2 billion settlement with Cephalon Inc., 
which also prohibits Cephalon and the world's largest generic 
manufacturer, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., which acquired 
Cephalon in 2012, from entering into most kinds of pay-for-delay deals. 
The underlying case against Cephalon involved paying four generic drug 
makers to hold off on launching their own version of the narcolepsy 
treatment drug Provigil.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ FTC v. Cephalon, Inc., No. 2:08-CV-02141 (E.D. Pa.) 
(Stipulated Order for Permanent Injunction and Equitable Monetary 
Relief filed June 17, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FTC now has two active pay-for-delay litigations underway in 
federal courts. Both of them involve the blockbuster male testosterone 
replacement drug Androgel, including the Actavis case on remand to the 
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia and FTC v. 
AbbVie, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of 
Pennsylvania.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ FTC v. AbbVie, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-05151-RK (E.D. Pa.) 
(Complaint for Injunctive and Other Equitable Relief filed on 
September 8, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another key Commission enforcement priority is preventing mergers 
that would give health care providers leverage to raise rates charged 
to commercial health care plans for vital services. The Commission 
obtained a significant victory for consumers when the Ninth Circuit 
Court of Appeals upheld a lower court ruling that the combination of 
the two largest providers of adult primary care physician services in 
the Nampa, Idaho area would substantially reduce competition.\18\ The 
decision upheld a district court decision, following an 18-day trial, 
that the St. Luke's Hospital/Saltzer Group merger violated the 
antitrust laws because it increased St. Luke's ability to demand higher 
reimbursement rates for its affiliated doctors from commercial health 
plans without offering benefits that could not be achieved in ways with 
less of an impact on competition. Moreover, in April 2014, in the first 
appellate decision in a health care provider merger in 15 years, the 
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld the Commission's 
2012 decision finding that ProMedica Health System, Inc.'s acquisition 
of a rival, St. Luke's Hospital in the Toledo, Ohio area, violated the 
antitrust laws. The Commission's order requires ProMedica to divest St. 
Luke's Hospital to an FTC-approved buyer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Saint Alphonsus Medical Center--Nampa, Inc., et al. v. St. 
Luke's Health System, Ltd., No. 1:12-CV-00560-BLW; FTC and State of 
Idaho v. St. Luke's Health System, Ltd. and Saltzer Medical Group, 
P.A., No. 1:13-CV-00116-BLW, aff'd. 778 F.3d 775 (9th Cir. 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (h) Promoting Competition in FoodService Distribution Industry. 
Following a June 23, 2015 ruling by the U.S. District Court for the 
District of Columbia granting the Federal Trade Commission's request 
for a preliminary injunction, Sysco and US Foods abandoned their 
proposed merger, and the Commission dismissed its related 
administrative complaint.\19\ FTC Chairwoman Ramirez commented, ``This 
proposed merger between the country's two largest foodservice 
distributors would have likely increased prices paid by restaurants, 
hotels, cafeterias, and hospitals across the country for food products 
and related services, and ultimately the prices paid by people eating 
at those establishments. The FTC is committed to maintaining vigorous 
competition in markets like this one that directly impact prices 
consumers pay for everyday purchases.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ FTC v. Sysco, USF Holding Corp., and US Foods, Inc., No. 
1:15-cv-00256 (D.D.C.) (Memorandum Opinion of United States District 
Judge Amit P. Mehta Concluding That the Commission Is Likely To 
Prove That the Proposed Acquisition Violates Section 7 of the 
Clayton Act filed June 29, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (i) State Professional Boards. The FTC works to promote competition 
across the economy and advocates on behalf of Americans to help prevent 
occupational licensing requirements, which now govern a significant and 
growing segment of the economy, from unduly suppressing pro-consumer 
competition. On February 25, 2015, the Supreme Court affirmed the 
Commission's position in North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners 
v. Federal Trade Commission, 135 S. Ct. 1101 (2015), by ruling that a 
state may not give private market participants unsupervised authority 
to suppress competition even if they act through a formally designated 
``state agency.'' In this case, the North Carolina dental board's 
members, primarily dentists, were drawn from the very occupation they 
regulate, and they barred non-dentists from offering competing teeth 
whitening services to consumers. The Court's decision makes clear that 
state agencies constituted in this manner are subject to the federal 
antitrust laws unless the state's political processes explicitly 
authorize and supervise market-related activities by the state 
agencies.
    (j) Fostering Innovation & Competition. For more than two decades, 
the Commission has examined difficult issues at the intersection of 
antitrust and intellectual property law--issues related to innovation, 
standard-setting, and patents. The Commission's work in this area is 
grounded in the recognition that intellectual property and competition 
laws share the fundamental goals of promoting innovation and consumer 
welfare. The Commission has authored several seminal reports on 
competition and patent law and conducted workshops to learn more about 
emerging practices and trends.
    For instance, the FTC is currently using its authority under 
Section 6(b) of the Federal Trade Commission Act to explore the impact 
of patent assertion entity (PAE) activities. Last year, the FTC 
received authority from the Office of Management and Budget to issue 
compulsory process orders to PAEs and other industry participants to 
develop a better understanding of PAE business models. The FTC 
currently is analyzing data received from respondents, and plans to 
issue a report summarizing its findings.
    (k) Advertising for Homeopathic Products. The Commission hosted a 
public workshop on September 21, 2015, that examined advertising for 
over-the-counter (OTC) homeopathic products. During the last few 
decades, the homeopathic drug industry in the United States has grown 
considerably from a multimillion-dollar to a multibillion-dollar 
market. In that time, the homeopathic drug market has shifted from one 
based primarily on formulations prescribed for an individual user to 
mass-market formulations widely advertised and sold nationwide in major 
retail stores. Because of rapid growth in the marketing and consumer 
use of homeopathic products, the FTC hosted the workshop to evaluate 
the advertising for such products. The workshop brought together a 
variety of stakeholders, including medical professionals, industry 
representatives, consumer advocates, and government regulators.
    (l) Alcohol Advertising. The Commission continues to support and 
monitor industry self-regulation of

[[Page 77907]]

alcohol marketing to reduce underage targeting. During the Spring of 
2014, the FTC released its fourth and most recent report on self-
regulation in the alcohol industry, which set out recommendations to 
further limit alcohol marketing to minors.\20\ The Commission also 
continues to promote the ``We Don't Serve Teens'' consumer education 
program, supporting the legal drinking age.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Self-Regulation in the Alcohol Industry (March 2014), 
available at http://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/reports/self-regulation-alcohol-industry-report-federal-trade-commission/140320alcoholreport.pdf.
    \21\ More information can be found at http://www.dontserveteens.gov/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (m) Energy Prices. Few issues are more important to consumers and 
businesses than the prices they pay for gasoline to run their vehicles 
and energy to heat and light their homes and businesses. Given the 
impact of energy prices on consumer budgets, the energy sector 
continues to be a major focus of FTC law enforcement and study. 
Accordingly, the FTC works to maintain competition in energy 
industries, invoking all the powers at its disposal--including 
monitoring industry activities, investigating possible antitrust 
violations, prosecuting cases, and conducting studies--to protect 
consumers from anticompetitive conduct in the industry.\22\ For 
example, the Commission recently challenged a proposed acquisition 
involving two energy companies supplying gasoline in Hawaii. In an 
administrative complaint issued with a negotiated settlement of 
charges, the Commission alleged that Par Petroleum's acquisition of Mid 
Pac Petroleum would likely have substantially lessened competition in 
the bulk supply of Hawaii-grade gasoline blendstock--which is gasoline 
before it is blended with ethanol to make finished gasoline.\23\ In 
view of the fundamental importance of oil, natural gas, and other 
energy resources to the overall vitality of the United States and world 
economy, we expect that FTC review and oversight of the oil and natural 
gas industries will remain a centerpiece of our work for years to come.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Information regarding FTC oil and gas industry initiatives 
is available at https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/industry-guidance/oil-and-gas.
    \23\ Par Petroleum Corp., FTC File No. 1410171 (F.T.C. Mar. 18, 
2015) (proposed consent order), available at https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/141-0171/par-petroleum-mid-pac-petroleum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (n) Remedy Study. The FTC is studying the effectiveness of the 
Commission's orders in merger cases where it required a divestiture or 
other remedy. The study will update and expand on the divestiture study 
the FTC issued in 1999. The new study, which was cleared by the Office 
of Management and Budget on August 12, 2015, will focus on 90 merger 
orders issued by the Commission between 2006 and 2012.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ For more information, see the Remedy Study weblink at 
https://www.ftc.gov/policy/studies/remedy-study.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (o) Protecting Consumers from Cross-Border Harm. The FTC continues 
to develop international enforcement cooperation to combat cross-border 
consumer fraud. The agency has used its statutory authority under the 
U.S. SAFE WEB Act and complementary tools to share evidence and provide 
investigative assistance. The agency also continues to participate 
actively in the International Consumer Protection and Enforcement 
Network (ICPEN), acting as the network Secretariat and working with 
foreign counterparts on www.econsumer.gov, a Web site in eight 
languages for filing international consumer complaints. The FTC has 
expanded its international complaints reporting to include worldwide 
data by region, and is working to share more such information with 
foreign law enforcement counterparts. In addition, FTC staff cooperates 
with foreign criminal enforcers through the International Mass 
Marketing Fraud Working Group, and with spam and cybercrime enforcers 
through the ``London Action Plan'' network.
    The FTC also continues to advocate for global interoperability and 
strong privacy enforcement. The agency has brought at least 39 
enforcement actionsto support the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework (``Safe 
Harbor'') for cross-border data transfers. In light of the European 
Court of Justice's October 6, 2015 decision regarding Safe Harbor, the 
Commission will continue to work together with the U.S. Department of 
Commerce and European authorities to develop effective solutions that 
protect consumer privacy with respect to cross-border data transfers. 
The agency also continues to strengthen enforcement ties with foreign 
privacy counterparts. The FTC pursues these relationships both 
bilaterally, this year for example signing a Memorandum of 
Understanding with the Dutch data protection authority, and 
multilaterally, through networks like the Global Privacy Enforcement 
Network (GPEN) and GPEN Alert.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See October 26, 2015 press release titled ``FTC and Seven 
International Partners Launch New Initiative to Boost Cooperation in 
Protecting Consumer Privacy,'' at https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2015/10/ftc-seven-international-partners-launch-new-initiative-boost.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FTC strives to promote sound approaches to common issues by 
building relationships with sister agencies around the world. With over 
130 jurisdictions enforcing competition laws, the FTC continues to lead 
efforts to develop strong mutual enforcement cooperation and sound 
policy internationally. For example, the FTC co-leads the International 
Competition Network's (ICN) Agency Effectiveness Working Group and its 
investigative process initiative. This project resulted in the ICN's 
adoption of Guidance on Investigative Process, which is the most 
comprehensive agency-led effort to date to articulate guidance on 
investigative principles and practices that promote procedural fairness 
and effective enforcement in the areas of transparency, meaningful 
engagement with parties, and confidentiality in antitrust 
investigations, The FTC also was a key drafter of the recently adopted 
Recommendation of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and 
Development (OECD) on international cooperation in competition 
investigations.
    In fiscal year 2014, the Commission coordinated with antitrust 
agencies in 37 investigations, and it is on target to surpass that 
number in 2015. This included transactions such as Medtronic's 
acquisition of Covidien, in which we worked with antitrust agencies in 
multiple jurisdictions, including Canada, China, the European Union, 
Japan, and Mexico, to reach consistent results.\26\ The FTC also 
participated in the U.S.-China Joint Committee on Commerce and Trade 
and Strategic and Economic Dialogue teams that recently negotiated 
commitments with China, including with regard to procedural fairness in 
anti-monopoly law proceedings. The FTC also played an active role in 
the Trans-Pacific Partnership and Transatlantic Trade and Investment 
Partnership agreement that was reached on October 5, 2015 after five 
years of negotiations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See press release ``FTC Puts Conditions on Medtronic's 
Proposed Acquisition of Covidien'' dated November 26, 2014, at 
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2014/11/ftc-puts-conditions-medtronics-proposed-acquisition-covidien.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (p) Self-Regulatory and Compliance Initiatives with Industry. The 
Commission continues to engage industry in compliance partnerships in 
the funeral and franchise industries. Specifically, the Commission's 
Funeral Rule Offender Program, conducted in partnership with the 
National Funeral Directors Association, is designed to educate funeral 
home operators found in violation of the requirements of the

[[Page 77908]]

Funeral Rule, 16 CFR 453, so that they can meet the rule's disclosure 
requirements. More than 485 funeral homes have participated in the 
program since its inception in 1996. In addition, the Commission 
established the Franchise Rule Alternative Law Enforcement Program in 
partnership with the International Franchise Association (IFA), a 
nonprofit organization that represents both franchisors and 
franchisees. This program is designed to assist franchisors found to 
have a minor or technical violation of the Franchise Rule, 16 CFR 436, 
in complying with the rule. Violations involving fraud or other section 
5 violations are not candidates for referral to the program. The IFA 
teaches the franchisor how to comply with the rule and monitors its 
business for a period of years. Where appropriate, the program offers 
franchisees the opportunity to mediate claims arising from the law 
violations. Since December 1998, 21 companies have agreed to 
participate in the program.

Rulemakings and Studies Required by Statute

    Congress has enacted laws requiring the Commission to undertake 
rulemakings and studies. This section discusses required rules and 
studies. The final actions section below describes actions taken on the 
required rulemakings and studies since the 2014 Regulatory Plan was 
published.
    FACTA Rules. The Commission has issued all of the rules required by 
FACTA (Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act). These rules are 
codified in several parts of 16 CFR 602 et seq., amending or 
supplementing regulations relating to the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
    FACTA Section 215 Study on Homeowners Insurance and Credit Scores. 
On March 27, 2009, the Commission issued 6(b) compulsory information 
requests to the nine largest private providers of homeowner insurance 
in the nation. The purpose was to help the FTC collect data for its 
study on the effects of credit-based scores in the homeowner insurance 
market, a study mandated by section 215 of FACTA. During the summer and 
fall of 2009, these nine insurers submitted responses to the 
Commission's requests. FTC staff examined the large policy-level and 
quote-level data files included in these submissions (containing 
millions of policies and quotes) and selected a sample for the study. 
The insurance companies then worked with their vendor to ensure the 
security of delivering the sample's personally identifiable information 
(PII) data set to the FTC's own and separate vendor of credit history 
information. That data was sent to the FTC's vendor, which then sent 
the credit history data for the sample, stripped of any PII, to the 
FTC. The FTC's vendor also sent PII data to the Social Security 
Administration, which in November 2014 provided the FTC with race and 
ethnicity data for the sample, which is essential for the Report. FTC 
Bureau of Economics staff expects to have a final draft of the Report 
ready to circulate to the Commission by the end of the 2015 calendar 
year. This study is not affected by the Consumer Financial Protection 
Act.
    FACTA Section 319 Study on Improving Accuracy of Consumer Credit 
Reports. Section 319 of FACTA requires the FTC to study the accuracy 
and completeness of information in consumers' credit reports and to 
consider methods for improving the accuracy and completeness of such 
information. Section 319 of the Act also requires the Commission to 
issue a series of biennial reports to Congress over a period of 11 
years. In January 2015, the Commission issued the sixth and final 
report; a follow-up study of the credit report accuracy study issued by 
the FTC in 2012 that examined how many consumers had errors on at least 
one of three nationwide credit reports. The follow-up study issued in 
2015 found that 37 percent of the follow-up study participants who 
originally disputed errors now accepted the disputed information as 
correct. The remaining participants believed the disputed information 
was still incorrect and half of those consumers planned to continue 
their dispute with the appropriate credit reporting agency. The final 
study recommends that credit reporting agencies (CRAs) review and 
improve the process they use to notify consumers about the results of 
dispute investigations, and that CRAs continue to explore efforts to 
educate consumers regarding their rights to review their credit reports 
and dispute inaccurate information.

Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations

    In 1992, the Commission implemented a program to review its rules 
and guides regularly. The Commission's review program is patterned 
after provisions in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612. 
Under the Commission's program, rules are reviewed on a 10-year 
schedule. For many rules, this has resulted in more frequent reviews 
than are generally required by section 610 of the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act. This program is also broader than the review 
contemplated under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, in that it provides 
the Commission with an ongoing systematic approach for seeking 
information about the costs and benefits of its rules and guides and 
whether there are changes that could minimize any adverse economic 
effects, not just a ``significant economic impact upon a substantial 
number of small entities.'' 5 U.S.C. 610.
    As part of its continuing 10-year review plan, the Commission 
examines the effect of rules and guides on small businesses and on the 
marketplace in general. These reviews may lead to the revision or 
rescission of rules and guides to ensure that the Commission's consumer 
protection and competition goals are achieved efficiently and at the 
least cost to business. In a number of instances, the Commission has 
determined that existing rules and guides were no longer necessary or 
in the public interest. Most of the matters currently under review 
pertain to consumer protection and are intended to ensure that 
consumers receive the information necessary to evaluate competing 
products and make informed purchasing decisions. Pursuant to this 
program, the Commission has rescinded 37 rules and guides promulgated 
under the FTC's general authority and updated dozens of others since 
the early 1990s.
    In light of Executive Orders 13563 and 13579, the FTC continues to 
take a fresh look at its long-standing regulatory review process. The 
Commission is taking a number of steps to ease burdens on business and 
promote transparency in its regulatory review program:
     The Commission recently issued a revised 10-year review 
schedule (see next paragraph below) and is accelerating the review of a 
number of rules and guides in response to recent changes in technology 
and the marketplace. The Commission is currently reviewing more than 15 
of the 65 rules and guides within its jurisdiction.
     The Commission continues to request and review public 
comments on the effectiveness of its regulatory review program and 
suggestions for its improvement.
     The FTC maintains a Web page at http://www.ftc.gov/regreview that serves as a one-stop shop for the public to obtain 
information and provide comments on individual rules and guides under 
review as well as the Commission's regulatory review program generally.
    In addition, the Commission's 10-year periodic review schedule 
includes initiating reviews for the following rules

[[Page 77909]]

and guides (80 FR 5713, Feb. 3, 2015) during 2015:
    (1) Contact Lens Rule, 16 CFR 315,
    (2) Ophthalmic Practice Rules, 16 CFR 456, and
    (3) Preservation of Consumers' Claims and Defenses Rule (Holder in 
Due Course Rule) 16 CFR 433, and during 2016:
    (4) Standards for Safeguarding Customer Information, 16 CFR 314,
    (5) CAN-SPAM Rule, 16 CFR 316,
    (6) Labeling and Advertising of Home Insulation, 16 CFR 460, and
    (7) Disposal of Consumer Report Information and Records, 16 CFR 
682.
    As set out below under Ongoing Rule and Guide Reviews, the 
Commission recently initiated reviews of the Hobby Rules, 16 CFR 304, 
the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR), 16 CFR 308, the Contact Lens Rule, 
16 CFR 315, and the Eyeglass Rule, 16 CFR 456.

Ongoing Rule and Guide Reviews

    The Commission is continuing review of a number of rules and 
guides, which are discussed below.
    (a) Rules
    Premerger Notification Rules and Report Form (or HSR Rules), 16 CFR 
801-803. The Premerger Office is considering amendments to the 
Instructions to the HSR Form to update information related to NAICS 
(North American Industry Classification System) codes and recent rule 
changes and to allow the submission of filings on electronic media. The 
proposed amendments may be issued during the fourth quarter of 2015. 
The Premerger Office is also considering amendments to the HSR Rules 
regarding standards for the valuation of potentially reportable 
transactions. The proposed amendments may be issued during the second 
quarter of 2016.
    Fuel Rating Rule, 16 CFR 306. First issued in 1979, the Fuel Rating 
Rule (or Automotive Fuel Ratings, Certification and Posting Rule) 
enables consumers to buy gasoline with an appropriate octane rating for 
their vehicle and establishes standard procedures for determining, 
certifying, and posting octane ratings. On March 27, 2014, the 
Commission proposed amendments to the Rule that would adopt and revise 
rating, certification, and labeling requirements for blends of gasoline 
with more than 10 percent ethanol and would allow an alternative octane 
rating method that would lower compliance costs. 79 FR 18850. The 
comment period closed on July 2, 2014. In the middle of November 2015, 
the Commission announced final rule amendments that require entities 
rate and certify all ethanol fuels to provide useful information to 
consumers about ethanol concentration and suitability for their cars 
and engines. Responding to the comments, the final amendments provide 
greater flexibility for businesses to comply with the ethanol labeling 
requirements, and do not adopt the alternative octane rating method 
proposed in the 2014 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Federal Register 
publication is expected by December 2015.
    Energy Labeling Rule, 16 CFR 305. The Energy Labeling Rule is 
officially known as the Rule Concerning Disclosures Regarding Energy 
Consumption and Water Use of Certain Home Appliances and Other Products 
Required Under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. On November 2, 
2015, the Commission issued proposed amendments to the Rule to create 
requirements related to a new label database on the Department of 
Energy's Web site, redesign ceiling fan labels, improve and update the 
comparability ranges for refrigerator labels, revise central air 
conditioner labels in response to new Department of Energy enforcement 
requirements, improve water heater labels, and update current plumbing 
disclosures. 80 FR 67351. The comment period will close on January 11, 
2016.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See Final Actions below for information about a separate 
completed rulemaking proceeding for the Energy Labeling Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR), 16 CFR 308. Anti-Fraud Provisions--
On May 21, 2013, the Commission proposed ``Anti-Fraud'' amendments to 
the TSR concerning, among other things, the misuse of novel payment 
methods by telemarketers and sellers. 78 FR 41200 (July 9, 2013). After 
a short extension, the comment period closed on August 8, 2013. In the 
middle of November 2015, the Commission announced a final rule action 
containing ``Anti-Fraud'' amendments. Federal Register publication is 
anticipated by December 2015.
    Periodic Rule Review--On August 11, 2014, the Commission initiated 
periodic review of the TSR as set out on the 10-year review schedule. 
79 FR 46732. The comment period as extended closed on November 13, 
2014. 79 FR 61267 (Oct. 10, 2014). Staff anticipates making a 
recommendation to the Commission by the end of 2015.
    Privacy Rule, 16 CFR 313. The Privacy Rule or Privacy of Consumer 
Financial Information Rule requires among other things that certain 
motor vehicle dealers provide an annual disclosure of their privacy 
policies to their customers by hand delivery, mail, electronic 
delivery, or through a Web site, but only with the consent of the 
consumer. On June 24, 2015, the Commission proposed amending the Rule 
to allow motor vehicle dealers instead to notify their customers that a 
privacy policy is available on their Web site, under certain 
circumstances. 80 FR 36267. The proposed amendment would also revise 
the scope and definitions in the Rule in light of the transfer of part 
of the Commission's rulemaking authority to the Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer 
Protection Act. The comment period closed on August 31, 2015. Staff 
anticipates that the Commission will issue a final rule amendment by 
early 2016.
    Hobby Rules, 16 CFR 304. As part of the systematic rule review 
process, on July 14, 2014, the Commission requested public comments on, 
among other things, the economic impact and benefits of the Hobby Rules 
(Rules and Regulations under the Hobby Protection Act); possible 
conflict between the Rules and State, local, or other Federal laws or 
regulations; and the effect on the Rules of any technological, 
economic, or other industry changes. 79 FR 40691. The comment period 
closed on September 22, 2014. The Hobby Protection Act, 16 U.S.C. 2101-
2106, prohibits manufacturing or importing imitation numismatic and 
collectible political items unless they are marked in accordance with 
regulations prescribed by the Federal Trade Commission. The 
implementing Rules prescribe that imitation political items--such as 
buttons, posters or coffee mugs--must be marked with the calendar year 
in which they were manufactured, and imitation numismatic items--
including coins, tokens and paper money--must be marked with the word 
``copy.'' Staff anticipates sending a recommendation to the Commission 
by early 2016.
    Care Labeling Rule, 16 CFR 423. Promulgated in 1971, the Rule on 
Care Labeling of Textile Apparel and Certain Piece Goods as Amended 
(the Care Labeling Rule) makes it an unfair or deceptive act or 
practice for manufacturers and importers of textile wearing apparel and 
certain piece goods to sell these items without attaching care labels 
stating ``what regular care is needed for the ordinary use of the 
product.'' The Rule also requires that the manufacturer or importer 
possess, prior to sale, a reasonable basis for the care instructions 
and allows the use of approved care symbols in lieu of words to 
disclose care instructions. After reviewing the comments from a 
periodic rule review (76 FR. 41148; July 13, 2011), the Commission 
concluded on

[[Page 77910]]

September 20, 2012, that the Rule continued to benefit consumers and 
would be retained, and sought comments on potential updates to the 
Rule, including changes that would: Allow garment manufacturers and 
marketers to include instructions for professional wetcleaning on 
labels; permit the use of ASTM Standard D5489-07, ``Standard Guide for 
Care Symbols for Care Instructions on Textile Products,'' or ISO 
3758:2005(E), ``Textiles--Care labeling code using symbols,'' in lieu 
of terms; clarify what can constitute a reasonable basis for care 
instructions; and update the definition of ``dryclean.'' 77 FR 58338. 
On March 28, 2014, the Commission hosted a public roundtable in 
Washington, DC, that analyzed proposed changes to the Rule. Staff 
anticipates forwarding a recommendation to the Commission by fall 2015.
    Used Car Rule, 16 CFR 455. The Used Motor Vehicle Trade Regulation 
Rule (``Used Car Rule''), 16 CFR 455, sets out the general duties of a 
used vehicle dealer; requires that a completed Buyers Guide be posted 
at all times on the side window of each used car a dealer offers for 
sale; and mandates disclosure of whether the vehicle is covered by a 
dealer warranty and, if so, the type and duration of the warranty 
coverage, or whether the vehicle is being sold ``as is-no warranty.'' 
The Commission published a notice seeking public comments on the 
effectiveness and impact of the rule. See 73 FR 42285 (July 21, 2008). 
The comment period, as extended and then reopened, ended on June 15, 
2009. In response to comments, the Commission published a Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking on December 17, 2012 (See 77 FR 74746) and a final 
rule revising the Spanish translation of the window form on December 
12, 2012. See 77 FR 73912. The extended comment period on the NPRM 
ended on March 13, 2012. The Commission issued a Supplemental NPRM on 
November 28, 2014. 79 FR 70804. Staff anticipates forwarding a 
recommendation to the Commission by the end of 2015.
    Contact Lens Rule, 16 CFR 315, and Eyeglass Rule, 16 CFR 456: As 
part of the systematic rule review process, on September 3, 2015, the 
Commission issued Federal Register notices seeking public comments 
about the Contact Lens Rule and the Eyeglass Rule (or Trade Regulation 
Rule on Ophthalmic Practice Rules). 80 FR 53272 (Contact Lens Rule) and 
80 FR 53274 (Eyeglass Rule). The comment period extended until October 
26, 2015. The Contact Lens Rule requires contact lens prescribers to 
provide prescriptions to their patients upon the completion of a 
contact lens fitting, and verify contact lens prescriptions to contact 
lens sellers authorized by consumers to seek such verification. Sellers 
may provide contact lenses only in accordance with a valid prescription 
that is directly presented to the seller or verified with the 
prescriber. The Eyeglass Rule requires that an optometrist or 
ophthalmologist must give the patient, at no extra cost, a copy of the 
eyeglass prescription immediately after the examination is completed. 
The Rule also prohibits optometrists and ophthalmologists from 
conditioning the availability of an eye examination, as defined by the 
Rule, on a requirement that the patient agrees to purchase ophthalmic 
goods from the optometrist or ophthalmologist.
    Safeguards Rule (or Standards for Safeguarding Customer 
Information), 16 CFR 314: In 2016, the Commission plans to initiate 
periodic review of the Safeguards Rule as part of its ongoing 
systematic review of all rules and guides. The Safeguards Rule, as 
directed by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLB), requires each financial 
institution to develop a written information security program that is 
appropriate to its size and complexity, the nature and scope of its 
activities, and the sensitivity of the customer information at issue.
    (b) Guides
    Jewelry Guides, 16 CFR 23. The Commission sought public comments on 
its Guides for the Jewelry, Precious Metals, and Pewter Industries, 
which are commonly known as the Jewelry Guides. 77 FR 39202 (July 2, 
2012). Since completing its last review of the Jewelry Guides in 1996, 
the Commission revised sections of the Guides and addressed other 
issues raised in petitions from jewelry trade associations. The Guides 
explain to businesses how to avoid making deceptive claims about 
precious metal, pewter, diamond, gemstone, and pearl products and when 
they should make disclosures to avoid unfair or deceptive trade 
practices. The comment period initially set to close on August 27, 
2012, was subsequently extended until September 28, 2012. Staff also 
conducted a public roundtable to examine possible modifications to the 
Guides in June 2013. The Commission is currently considering a staff 
recommendation and expects to take further action by early 2016.

Final Actions

    Since the publication of the 2014 Regulatory Plan, the Commission 
has issued the following final rules or taken other actions to close 
other rulemaking proceedings.
    The Fair Packaging and Labeling Act (FPLA) Rules, 16 CFR 500-502. 
In November 2015, the Commission concluded its periodic review of the 
FLPA Rules and issued final rule amendments that modernized the place-
of-business listing requirement to incorporate online resources, 
eliminated obsolete references to commodities advertised using the 
terms ``cents off,'' ``introductory offer'' and ``economy size,'' and 
incorporated a more comprehensive metric chart. [Rule Review and 
Request for Comments. 79 FR 15272 (Mar. 19, 2014)] [NPRM, 80 FR 5491 
(Feb. 2, 2015)]. The changes are effective 30 days after the date of 
publication in the Federal Register. The FPLA requires consumer 
commodities to be marked with statements of: (1) Identity; (2) net 
quantity of contents; and (3) name and place of the business of 
manufacturer, packer, or distributor. These requirements serve FPLA's 
stated purpose of ``enabling consumers to obtain accurate information 
as to the quantity of the contents and . . . to facilitate value 
comparisons.''
    Consumer Warranty Rules, 16 CFR 701-703. On July 20, 2015, the 
Commission concluded its review of the Interpretations, Rules, and 
Guides under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and announced it would keep 
the Rules and Guides in their present form (Rules at 16 CFR 701-703; 
Guides at 16 CFR 239) while modifying the Interpretations in 16 CFR 
700.10 and 700.11(a). See 80 FR 42710 (Final Rule) (July 20, 2015); 76 
FR 52596 (Rule Review; Request for Comments) (Aug. 23, 2011). The 
Commission revised Part 700.10 of the Interpretations to clarify that 
implied tying--warranty language that implies to a consumer that 
warranty coverage is conditioned on the use of select parts or 
service--is deceptive. It also revised Part 700.10 to state that, to 
the extent that the Warranty Act's service contract provisions apply to 
the insurance business, they are effective if they do not interfere 
with state laws regulating the business of insurance. For more 
background, the Rule Governing the Disclosure of Written Consumer 
Product Warranty Terms and Conditions, 16 CFR 701 (Rule 701) 
establishes requirements for warrantors for disclosing the terms and 
conditions of written warranties on consumer products actually costing 
the consumer more than $15.00. The Rule Governing the Pre-Sale 
Availability of Written Warranty Terms, 16 CFR 702 (Rule 702), requires 
sellers and warrantors to make the terms of a written warranty 
available to the consumer prior to sale. The Rule Governing Informal 
Dispute Settlement

[[Page 77911]]

Procedures (IDSM), 16 CFR 703 (Rule 703), establishes minimum 
requirements for those informal dispute settlement mechanisms that are 
incorporated by the warrantor into its consumer product warranty. By 
incorporating the IDSM into the warranty, the warrantor requires the 
consumer to use the IDSM before pursuing any legal remedies in court. 
The review also included the related Guides for the Advertising of 
Warranties and Guarantees, 16 CFR 239, and the Interpretations of 
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 16 CFR 700.
    Cooling Off Rule, 16 CFR 429: On January 9, 2015, the Commission 
amended the Cooling-Off Rule (or Trade Regulation Rule Concerning 
Cooling Off Period for Sales Made at Homes or at Certain Other 
Locations), by increasing the exclusionary limit for all door-to-door 
sales at locations other than a buyer's residence from $25 up to $130. 
Under the final rule, the revised definition of door-to-door sale 
distinguishes between sales at a buyer's residence and those at other 
locations. The revised definition retains coverage for sales made at a 
buyer's residence that have a purchase price of $25 or more. 80 FR 1329 
(Jan. 9, 2015). The final rule amendment was effective on March 13, 
2015.
    The Unavailability Rule, 16 CFR 424: On November 19, 2014, the 
Commission announced the completion of its review of the Unavailability 
Rule (or Rule on Retail Food Store Advertising and Marketing Practices) 
and the retention of the Rule in its current form. [Final Rule, 79 FR 
70053 (Nov. 25, 2014); ANPRM, 76 FR 51308 (Aug. 12, 2011)]. The 
Unavailability Rule states that it is a violation of Section 5 of the 
Federal Trade Commission Act for retail stores of food, groceries, or 
other merchandise to advertise products for sale at a stated price if 
those stores do not have the advertised products in stock and readily 
available to customers during the effective period of the 
advertisement, unless the advertisement clearly discloses that supplies 
of the advertised products are limited or are available only at some 
outlets.
    Energy Labeling Rule, 16 CFR 305: On December 29, 2014, the 
Commission issued a final rule updating label requirements for heating 
and cooling equipment and removed information from furnace labels about 
regional conservation standards. 79 FR 77868. The amendments were 
effective on April 6, 2015.\28\ On November 2, 2015, the Commission 
issued final rule amendments to expand coverage of the Lighting Facts 
label, require room air conditioner labels on packaging instead of the 
units themselves, enhance the durability of appliance labels, and 
improve plumbing disclosure requirements. 80 FR 67285. This action 
completed the Commission's recent regulatory review of the Energy 
Labeling Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See Ongoing Rule and Guide Reviews for information about a 
separate ongoing rulemaking proceeding for the Energy Labeling Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Summary

    In both content and process, the FTC's ongoing and proposed 
regulatory actions are consistent with the President's priorities. The 
actions under consideration inform and protect consumers, while 
minimizing the regulatory burdens on businesses. The Commission will 
continue working toward these goals. The Commission's 10-year review 
program is patterned after provisions in the Regulatory Flexibility Act 
and complies with the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness 
Act of 1996. The Commission's 10-year program also is consistent with 
section 5(a) of Executive Order 12866, which directs executive branch 
agencies to develop a plan to reevaluate periodically all of their 
significant existing regulations. 58 FR 51735 (Sept. 30, 1993). In 
addition, the final rules issued by the Commission continue to be 
consistent with the President's Statement of Regulatory Philosophy and 
Principles, Executive Order 12866, section 1(a), which directs agencies 
to promulgate only such regulations as are, inter alia, required by law 
or are made necessary by compelling public need, such as material 
failures of private markets to protect or improve the health and safety 
of the public.
    The Commission continues to identify and weigh the costs and 
benefits of proposed actions and possible alternative actions and to 
receive the broadest practicable array of comment from affected 
consumers, businesses, and the public at large. In sum, the 
Commission's regulatory actions are aimed at efficiently and fairly 
promoting the ability of ``private markets to protect or improve the 
health and safety of the public, the environment, or the well-being of 
the American people.'' Executive Order 12866, section 1.

II. Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions

    The Commission has no proposed rules that would be a ``significant 
regulatory action'' under the definition in Executive Order 12866.\29\ 
The Commission has no proposed rules that would have significant 
international impacts under the definition in Executive Order 13609. 
Also, there are no international regulatory cooperation activities that 
are reasonably anticipated to lead to significant regulations under 
Executive Order 13609.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a regulatory 
action to be ``significant'' if it is likely to result in a rule 
that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more 
or adversely affect in a material way the economy; a sector of the 
economy; productivity; competition; jobs; the environment; public 
health or safety; or State, local, or tribal governments or 
communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with 
an action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, 
grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations 
of recipients thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
this Executive order.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
BILLING CODE 6750-01-P

NATIONAL INDIAN GAMING COMMISSION (NIGC)

Statement of Regulatory Priorities

    In 1988, Congress adopted the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) 
(Pub. L. 100-497, 102 Stat. 2475) with a primary purpose of providing 
``a statutory basis for the operation of gaming by Indian tribes as a 
means of promoting tribal economic development, self-sufficiency, and 
strong tribal governments.'' IGRA established the National Indian 
Gaming Commission (NIGC or the Commission) to protect such gaming, 
amongst other things, as a means of generating tribal revenue.
    At its core, Indian gaming is a function of sovereignty exercised 
by tribal governments. In addition, the Federal government maintains a 
government-to-government relationship with the tribes--a responsibility 
of the NIGC. Thus, while the Agency is committed to strong regulation 
of Indian gaming, the Commission is equally committed to strengthening 
government-to-government relations by engaging in meaningful 
consultation with tribes to fulfill IGRA's intent. The NIGC's vision is 
to adhere to principles of good government, including transparency to 
promote agency accountability and fiscal responsibility, to operate 
consistently to ensure fairness and clarity in the administration of 
IGRA, and to respect the responsibilities of each sovereign in order to 
fully promote tribal economic development, self-sufficiency, and strong 
tribal governments. The NIGC is fully committed to working with tribes 
to ensure the integrity of the industry by exercising its regulatory 
responsibilities

[[Page 77912]]

through technical assistance, compliance, and enforcement activities.

Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations

    As an independent regulatory agency, the NIGC has been performing a 
retrospective review of its existing regulations well before Executive 
Order 13579 was issued on July 11, 2011. The NIGC, however, recognizes 
the importance of Executive Order 13579 and its regulatory review is 
being conducted in the spirit of Executive Order 13579, to identify 
those regulations that may be outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or 
excessively burdensome and to modify, streamline, expand, or repeal 
them in accordance with input from the public. In addition, as required 
by Executive Order 13175, the Commission has been conducting 
government-to-government consultations with tribes regarding each 
regulation's relevancy, consistency in application, and limitations or 
barriers to implementation, based on the tribes' experiences. The 
consultation process is also intended to result in the identification 
of areas for improvement and needed amendments, if any, new 
regulations, and the possible repeal of outdated regulations.
    The following Regulatory Identifier Numbers (RINs) have been 
identified as associated with the review:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                RIN                                 Title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3141-AA32..........................  Amendment of Definitions.
3141-AA55..........................  Minimum Internal Control Standards.
3141-AA58..........................  Amendment of Approval of Management
                                      Contracts.
3141-AA60..........................  Class II Minimum Internal Control
                                      Standards.
3141-AA61..........................  Self-Regulation of Class II Gaming.
3141-AA62..........................  Buy Indian Goods and Services
                                      (BIGS) Rule.
3141-AA63..........................  Tribal Background Investigations
                                      and Licensing.
3141-AA64..........................  Class II Minimum Technical
                                      Standards.
3141-AA65..........................  Privacy Act Procedures.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    More specifically, the NIGC is currently considering promulgating 
new regulations in the following areas: (i) Amendments to its 
regulatory definitions to conform to the newly promulgated rules; (ii) 
the removal, revision, or suspension of the existing minimum internal 
control standards (MICS) in part 542; (iii) updates or revisions to its 
management contract regulations to address the current state of the 
industry; (iv) the review and revision of the minimum internal control 
standards for Class II gaming updates; (v) updates and revisions to its 
Self-Regulation of Class II Gaming regulations; (vi) regulation that 
would provide a preference to qualified Indian-owned businesses when 
purchasing goods or services for the Commission at a fair market price; 
(vii) finalized revisions to the background investigation and licensing 
regulations in order to streamline the process for submitting 
information and to distinguish the requirements for temporary and 
permanent licenses (viii) revisions to the minimum technical standards 
for gaming equipment used with the play of Class II games and, (ix) 
revisions to the existing Privacy Act Procedures in part 515 as a means 
to streamline internal processes.
    The NIGC anticipates that the ongoing consultations with tribes 
will continue to play an important role in the development of the 
NIGC's rulemaking efforts.

BILLING CODE 7565-01-P

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'S FISCAL YEAR 2015 REGULATORY PLAN

A. Statement of Regulatory Priorities

    Under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 
and the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, the U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulates the possession and use of source, 
byproduct, and special nuclear material. The NRC's regulatory mission 
is to license and regulate the Nation's civilian use of byproduct, 
source, and special nuclear materials to ensure adequate protection of 
public health and safety, promote the common defense and security, and 
protect the environment. As part of its mission, the NRC regulates the 
operation of nuclear power plants and fuel-cycle plants; the 
safeguarding of nuclear materials from theft and sabotage; the safe 
transport, storage, and disposal of radioactive materials and wastes; 
the decommissioning and safe release for other uses of licensed 
facilities that are no longer in operation; and the medical, 
industrial, and research applications of nuclear material. In addition, 
the NRC licenses the import and export of radioactive materials. As 
part of its regulatory process, the NRC routinely conducts 
comprehensive regulatory analyses that examine the costs and benefits 
of contemplated regulations. The NRC has developed internal procedures 
and programs to ensure that it imposes only necessary requirements on 
its licensees and to review existing regulations to determine whether 
the requirements imposed are still necessary.
    The NRC's Regulatory Plan contains a statement of: (1) The major 
rules that the NRC expects to publish in final form in fiscal year (FY) 
2015 and FY 2016; (2) the other significant rulemakings that the NRC 
expects to publish in final form in FY 2015; and (3) the other 
significant rulemakings that the NRC expects to publish in final form 
in FY 2016 and beyond. Major rules include rules that are likely to 
result in (1) an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; 
(2) a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual 
industries, Federal, state, or local government agencies, or geographic 
regions; or (3) significant adverse effects on competition, employment, 
investment, productivity, or innovation, or on the ability of United 
States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in 
domestic and export markets. Other significant rulemakings include 
rules that are not economically significant but are considered 
important by the agency. For each major rule and other significant 
rulemaking, the NRC is including a citation, if available, to an 
applicable Federal Register (FR) notice that provides further 
information, a summary of the legal basis, an explanation of why the 
NRC is pursuing the major rule or other significant rulemaking, the 
schedule, and contact information.
B.1. Major Rules (FY 2015)
    The NRC will have published one major rule in final form by the end 
of FY 2015.
    Revision of Fee Schedules; Fee Recovery for Fiscal Year 2015 
(Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) 3150-AJ44)--Through this rule, the 
NRC will amend the licensing, inspection, and annual fees charged to 
its applicants and licensees. The proposed amendments are necessary to 
implement the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, as amended, 
which requires the NRC to recover through fees approximately 90 percent 
of its budget authority in FY 2015, not including amounts appropriated 
for Waste Incidental to Reprocessing, the Nuclear Waste Fund, generic 
homeland security activities, and Inspector General services for the 
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. These fees represent the cost 
of NRC services provided to applicants and licensees. The proposed rule 
was published in the FR on March 23, 2015 (80 FR 15475), and the 
comment period ended on April 22, 2015.

[[Page 77913]]

B.2. Major Rules (FY 2016)
    The NRC anticipates publishing one major rule in final form in FY 
2016.
    Revision of Fee Schedules; Fee Recovery for Fiscal Year 2016--The 
NRC will update its requirement to recover approximately 90 percent of 
its budget authority in FY 2016.
C.1. Other Significant Rulemakings (FY 2015)
    The NRC will have published nine other significant rulemakings in 
final form in FY 2015.
    Economic Simplified Boiling-Water Reactor Design Certification (RIN 
3150-AI85), was published on October 15, 2014 (79 FR 61943), and 
effective November 14, 2014.
    Definition of a Utilization Facility (RIN 3150-AJ48), was published 
on October 17, 2014 (79 FR 62329), and effective on December 31, 2014.
    Approval of American Society of Mechanical Engineers' Code Cases 
(RIN 3150-AI72), was published on November 5, 2014 (79 FR 65775), and 
effective on December 5, 2014.
    Holtec International HI--STORM FLOOD/WIND System (RIN 3150-AJ40), 
was published on October 3, 2014 (79 FR 59623), and effective on 
December 17, 2014.
    NAC International MAGNASTOR[supreg] System (RIN 3150-AJ39), was 
published on January 29, 2015 (80 FR 4757), and effective on April 14, 
2015.
    Holtec International HI--STORM 100 Cask System (RIN 3150-AJ47), was 
published on February 5, 2015 (80 FR 6430). Because the NRC received at 
least one significant adverse comment in response to the companion 
proposed rule (80 FR 6466), the agency withdrew the direct final rule 
on April 20, 2015 (80 FR 21639). The NRC will address the adverse 
comments received on the companion proposed rule in a pending final 
rule.
    Holtec International HI--STORM FLOOD/WIND System (RIN 3150-AJ52), 
was published on March 19, 2015 (80 FR 14291). The final rule is 
scheduled to become effective on June 2, 2015, unless significant 
adverse comments are received.
    NAC International MAGNASTOR[supreg] System (RIN 3150-AJ50), was 
published on April 15, 2015 (80 FR 20149). The final rule will be 
effective on June 29, 2015, unless significant adverse comments are 
received by May 15, 2015.
    One Certificate of Compliance Rulemaking (RIN 3150-AJ58)--This 
rulemaking will allow power reactor licensees to store spent fuel in an 
approved cask design under a general license.
    The NRC has proposed one other significant rulemaking in FY 2015.
    Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal (RIN 3150-AI92), was published 
on March 26, 2015 (80 FR 16082). This proposed rule amends the NRC's 
regulations governing low-level radioactive waste (LLRW) disposal 
facilities to require new and revised site-specific technical analyses, 
to permit the development of site-specific criteria for LLRW acceptance 
based on the results of these analyses, to facilitate implementation, 
and to better align the requirements with current health and safety 
standards. The related guidance document, NUREG-2175, ``Guidance for 
Conducting Technical Analyses for 10 CFR part 61,'' was published for 
comment in the same issue of the FR (80 FR 15930). The proposed rule 
would affect licensees, license applicants, and the Agreement States. 
Comments on the proposed rule and draft NUREG are due by July 24, 2015.
C.2. Other Significant Rulemakings (FY 2016 and Beyond)
    The other significant rulemakings that the NRC anticipates 
publishing in FY 2016 and beyond are listed below. Some of these 
regulatory priorities are a result of recommendations from the 
Fukushima Dai-ichi Near-Term Task Force. In 2011, the NRC established 
this task force to examine regulatory requirements, programs, 
processes, and implementation based on information from the Fukushima 
Dai-ichi site in Japan, following the March 11, 2011, earthquake and 
tsunami (see ``Recommendations for Enhancing Reactor Safety in the 21st 
Century: The Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima 
Dai-ichi Accident,'' dated July 12, 2011 (the NRC's Agencywide 
Documents Access and Management System Accession No. ML111861807)).
    Mitigation Strategies for Beyond Design Basis Events (RIN 3150-
AJ49)--This proposed rule combines two activities for which documents 
have been published in the FR: Onsite Emergency Response Capabilities 
(RIN 3150-AJ11; NRC-2012-0031) and Station Blackout Mitigation 
Strategies (RIN 3150-AJ08; NRC-2011-0299). The rule would amend the 
NRC's regulations applicable to power reactors to provide requirements 
for the mitigation of beyond-design-basis events that includes station 
blackout mitigation strategies and enhanced onsite emergency response 
capabilities.
    Performance-Based Emergency Core Cooling System Acceptance Criteria 
(RIN 3150-AH42; 79 FR 16105)--This proposed rule would replace 
prescriptive requirements with performance-based requirements, 
incorporate recent research findings, and expand applicability to all 
fuel designs and cladding materials. Further, the proposed rule would 
allow licensees to use an alternative risk-informed approach to 
evaluate the effects of debris on long-term cooling.
    Containment Protection and Release Reduction for Mark I and Mark II 
Boiling Water Reactors (RIN 3150-AJ26)--This proposed rule would amend 
the NRC's regulations to provide a performance-based option for 
filtering strategies with drywell filtration and severe accident 
management of boiling-water reactor Mark I and Mark II containments. 
The proposed rule would also define performance-based requirements to 
prevent the release of significant amounts of radioactive material from 
containment following the dominant severe accident sequences at 
boiling-water reactors with Mark I and Mark II containments and would 
establish acceptance criteria for confinement strategies.
    Enhanced Weapons, Firearms Background Checks, and Security Event 
Notifications (RIN 3150-AI49)--This proposed rule would implement the 
NRC's authority under Section 161a of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 
amended, and revise existing regulations governing security event 
notifications.
    Medical Use of Byproduct Material--Medical Event Definitions, 
Training and Experience, and Clarifying Amendments (RIN 3150-AI63; 79 
FR 42409)--The proposed rule would amend medical use regulations 
related to medical event definitions for permanent implant 
brachytherapy; training and experience requirements for authorized 
users, medical physicists, Radiation Safety Officers, and nuclear 
pharmacists; and requirements for the testing and reporting of failed 
molybdenum/technetium and rubidium generators. The proposed rule would 
also make changes that would allow Associate Radiation Safety Officers 
to be named on a medical license and make other clarifications. 
Further, this rulemaking would consider a request filed in a petition 
for rulemaking (PRM), PRM-35-20, to ``grandfather'' certain board-
certified individuals, and per Commission direction in the Staff 
Requirements Memorandum dated August 13, 2012, to SECY-12-0053, subsume 
a proposed rule previously published under RIN 3150-AI26, ``Medical Use 
of Byproduct Material-Amendments/Medical Event Definition'' [NRC-2008-
0071].

[[Page 77914]]

    Physical Protection for Category I, II, and III Special Nuclear 
Material (RIN 3150-AJ41)--This proposed rule would incorporate numerous 
post-September 11, 2001, security orders in regulations, develop a 
revised material attractiveness approach for special nuclear material, 
and update transportation security regulations.

[FR Doc. 2015-30690 Filed 12-14-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P