[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 247 (Friday, December 23, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 94495-94701]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-29848]



[[Page 94495]]

Vol. 81

Friday,

No. 247

December 23, 2016

Part II

Book 2 of 2 Books

Pages 94495-94908





Regulatory Information Service Center





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



Introduction to the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and 
Deregulatory Actions--Fall 2016

  Federal Register / Vol. 81 , No. 247 / Friday, December 23, 2016 / 
Regulatory Plan  

[[Page 94496]]


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

REGULATORY INFORMATION SERVICE CENTER


Introduction to the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and 
Deregulatory Actions--Fall 2016

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 2016 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 2016 Unified Agenda contains the Regulatory Plans 
of 30 Federal agencies and 60 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 2016 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 Housing and Urban Development
Department of Interior
Department of Justice
Department of Labor
Department of Transportation
Department of 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 Interior
Department of Justice
Department of Labor
Department of Transportation
Department of 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

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

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

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

    The Regulatory Plan serves as a defining statement of the 
Administration's regulatory and deregulatory policies and priorities. 
The Plan is part of the fall edition of the Unified Agenda. Each 
participating agency's regulatory plan contains: (1) A narrative 
statement of the agency's regulatory and deregulatory priorities, and, 
for the most part, (2) a description of the most important significant 
regulatory and deregulatory actions that the agency reasonably expects 
to issue in proposed or final form during the upcoming fiscal year. 
This edition includes the regulatory plans of 30 agencies.
    The Unified Agenda provides information about regulations that the

[[Page 94497]]

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 to 1995. The complete online edition of the Unified Agenda 
includes regulatory agendas from 62 Federal agencies. Agencies of the 
United States Congress are not included.
    The fall 2016 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.

Cabinet Departments

Department of State
Department of Veterans Affairs *

Other Executive Agencies

Agency for International Development
Commission on Civil Rights
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled
Corporation for National and Community ServiceCourt Services and 
Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission *
National Archives and Records Administration *
National Endowment for the Arts
National Endowment for the Humanities
National Science Foundation
Office of Government Ethics
Office of Management and Budget
Office of Personnel Management *
Office of the United States Trade Representative
Peace Corps
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation *
Railroad Retirement Board
Social Security Administration *

Independent Agencies

Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency
Farm Credit Administration
Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Federal Housing Finance Agency
Federal Maritime Commission
Federal Trade Commission *
Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council
National Credit Union Administration
National Indian Gaming Commission *
National Transportation Safety Board
Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction
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.

[[Page 94498]]

Executive Order 13132

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

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

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

Executive Order 13211

    Executive Order 13211, ``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

[[Page 94499]]

intended for reporting developing rulemakings in the Agenda pursuant to 
Executive Order 12866, section 4(b) and 4(c). To further differentiate 
these two stages of rulemaking in the Unified Agenda from active 
rulemakings, Long-Term and Completed Actions are reported separately 
from active rulemakings, which can be any of the first three stages of 
rulemaking listed above. A separate search function is provided on 
http://reginfo.gov to search for Completed and Long-Term Actions apart 
from each other and active RINs.
    A bullet () preceding the title of an entry indicates that 
the entry is appearing in the Unified Agenda for the first time.
    In the printed edition, all entries are numbered sequentially from 
the beginning to the end of the publication. The sequence number 
preceding the title of each entry identifies the location of the entry 
in this edition. The sequence number is used as the reference in the 
printed table of contents. Sequence numbers are not used in the online 
Unified Agenda because the unique Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) is 
able to provide this cross-reference capability.
    Editions of the Unified Agenda prior to fall 2007 contained several 
indexes, which identified entries with various characteristics. These 
included regulatory actions for which agencies believe that the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act may require a Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis, actions selected for periodic review under section 610(c) of 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and actions that may have federalism 
implications as defined in Executive Order 13132 or other effects on 
levels of government. These indexes are no longer compiled, because 
users of the online Unified Agenda have the flexibility to search for 
entries with any combination of desired characteristics. The online 
edition retains the Unified Agenda's subject index based on the Federal 
Register Thesaurus of Indexing Terms. In addition, online users have 
the option of searching Agenda text fields for words or phrases.

IV. What information appears for each entry?

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

(1) Economically Significant

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

(2) Other Significant

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

(3) Substantive, Nonsignificant

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

(4) Routine and Frequent

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

(5) Informational/Administrative/Other

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

[[Page 94500]]

that a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis will not be required.
    Government Levels Affected--whether the action is expected to 
affect levels of government and, if so, whether the governments are 
State, local, tribal, or Federal.
    International Impacts--whether the regulation is expected to have 
international trade and investment effects, or otherwise may be of 
interest to the Nation's international trading partners.
    Federalism--whether the action has ``federalism implications'' as 
defined in Executive Order 13132. This term refers to actions ``that 
have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship 
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution 
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' 
Independent regulatory agencies are not required to supply this 
information.
    Included in the Regulatory Plan--whether the rulemaking was 
included in the agency's current regulatory plan published in fall 
2015.
    Agency Contact--the name and phone number of at least one person in 
the agency who is knowledgeable about the rulemaking action. The agency 
may also provide the title, address, fax number, email address, and TDD 
for each agency contact.
    Some agencies have provided the following optional information:
    RIN Information URL--the Internet address of a site that provides 
more information about the entry.
    Public Comment URL--the Internet address of a site that will accept 
public comments on the entry. Alternatively, timely public comments may 
be submitted at the Governmentwide e-rulemaking site, http://www.regulations.gov.
    Additional Information--any information an agency wishes to include 
that does not have a specific corresponding data element.
    Compliance Cost to the Public--the estimated gross compliance cost 
of the action.
    Affected Sectors--the industrial sectors that the action may most 
affect, either directly or indirectly. Affected sectors are identified 
by North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes.
    Energy Effects--an indication of whether the agency has prepared or 
plans to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for the action, as 
required by Executive Order 13211 ``Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' signed May 
18, 2001 (66 FR 28355).
    Related RINs--one or more past or current RIN(s) associated with 
activity related to this action, such as merged RINs, split RINs, new 
activity for previously completed RINs, or duplicate RINs.
    Statement of Need--a description of the need for the regulatory 
action.
    Summary of the Legal Basis--a description of the legal basis for 
the action, including whether any aspect of the action is required by 
statute or court order.
    Alternatives--a description of the alternatives the agency has 
considered or will consider as required by section 4(c)(1)(B) of 
Executive Order 12866.
    Anticipated Costs and Benefits--a description of preliminary 
estimates of the anticipated costs and benefits of the action.
    Risks--a description of the magnitude of the risk the action 
addresses, the amount by which the agency expects the action to reduce 
this risk, and the relation of the risk and this risk reduction effort 
to other risks and risk reduction efforts within the agency's 
jurisdiction.

V. Abbreviations

    The following abbreviations appear throughout this publication:
    ANPRM--An Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is a preliminary 
notice, published in the Federal Register, announcing that an agency is 
considering a regulatory action. An agency may issue an ANPRM before it 
develops a detailed proposed rule. An ANPRM describes the general area 
that may be subject to regulation and usually asks for public comment 
on the issues and options being discussed. An ANPRM is issued only when 
an agency believes it needs to gather more information before 
proceeding to a notice of proposed rulemaking.
    CFR--The Code of Federal Regulations is an annual codification of 
the general and permanent regulations published in the Federal Register 
by the agencies of the Federal Government. The Code is divided into 50 
titles, each title covering a broad area subject to Federal regulation. 
The CFR is keyed to and kept up to date by the daily issues of the 
Federal Register.
    EO--An Executive order is a directive from the President to 
Executive agencies, issued under constitutional or statutory authority. 
Executive orders are published in the Federal Register and in title 3 
of the Code of Federal Regulations.
    FR--The Federal Register is a daily Federal Government publication 
that provides a uniform system for publishing Presidential documents, 
all proposed and final regulations, notices of meetings, and other 
official documents issued by Federal agencies.
    FY--The Federal fiscal year runs from October 1 to September 30.
     NPRM--A Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is the document an 
agency issues and publishes in the Federal Register that describes and 
solicits public comments on a proposed regulatory action. Under the 
Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553), an NPRM must include, at a 
minimum: A statement of the time, place, and nature of the public 
rulemaking proceeding;
     A reference to the legal authority under which the rule is 
proposed; and
     Either the terms or substance of the proposed rule or a 
description of the subjects and issues involved.
    PL (or Pub. L.)-- A public law is a law passed by Congress and 
signed by the President or enacted over his veto. It has general 
applicability, unlike a private law that applies only to those persons 
or entities specifically designated. Public laws are numbered in 
sequence throughout the 2-year life of each Congress; for example, PL 
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

[[Page 94501]]

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

VI. How can users get copies of the Plan and the Agenda?

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

    Dated: November 17, 2016.
 John C. Thomas,
Executive Director.

[[Page 94502]]

INTRODUCTION TO THE 2016 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 2016 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 Plan 
provides a list of important regulatory actions that agencies are 
considering for issuance in proposed or final form during the 2017 
fiscal year. In contrast, the Agenda is a more inclusive list that 
includes 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. Changed 
circumstances, public comment, or applicable legal authorities could 
affect an agency's decision about whether to go forward with a listed 
regulatory action.
    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 
agencies can issue them. No regulatory action can become effective 
until it has gone through the legally required processes, which 
normally include public notice and comment. Any proposed or final 
action must also satisfy the requirements of relevant statutes, 
Executive Orders, and Presidential Memoranda.
    Among other information, the Agenda provides an initial 
classification of whether a rulemaking is ``significant'' or 
``economically significant'' under the terms of Executive Orders 12866 
and 13563. The Agenda might list a rule as ``economically significant'' 
within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 (generally, having an 
annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more) because it 
imposes costs, confers large benefits, affects significant budget 
resources, or removes costly 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 agencies to reconsider regulatory 
requirements. The retrospective review process 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 $37 billion in savings for the American public over the 
next five years. Reflecting that focus, the current Agenda lists 
numerous actions that retroactively review existing regulatory 
programs. Since President Obama issued Executive Order 13610, this 
Administration has worked to institutionalize retrospective review in 
the federal agencies. In July 2016, 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 2017. OIRA has asked agencies to continue to emphasize 
retrospective reviews in their latest Regulatory Plans.
    As agencies advance the regulations detailed in this 2016 
Regulatory Plan, OIRA will continue its efforts to ensure that our 
regulatory system emphasizes, public participation, scientific 
evidence, innovation, flexible regulatory approaches, and careful 
consideration of costs and benefits. These considerations are meant to 
produce a regulatory system that is driven by the best available 
knowledge and evidence, attentive to real-world impacts, and is suited 
to the evolving circumstances of the 21st Century.

                                            Department of Agriculture
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Regulation
         Sequence No.                     Title             Identifier No.             Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.............................  National Organic Program--        0581-AD34  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Organic Aquaculture
                                 Standards.
2.............................  NOP; Organic Livestock            0581-AD44  Final Rule Stage.
                                 and Poultry Practices;.
3.............................  Importation, Interstate           0579-AE15  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Movement, and Release
                                 Into the Environment of
                                 Certain Genetically
                                 Engineered Organisms.

[[Page 94503]]

 
4.............................  Horse Protection;                 0579-AE19  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Licensing of Designated
                                 Qualified Persons and
                                 Other Amendments.
5.............................  Tournament Systems and            0580-AB26  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Poultry Growing
                                 Arrangements.
6.............................  Unfair Practices and              0580-AB27  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Unreasonable Preference.
7.............................  Clarification of Scope...         0580-AB25  Final Rule Stage.
8.............................  Eligibility,                      0584-AD87  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Certification, and
                                 Employment and Training
                                 Provisions.
9.............................  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.
10............................  Enhancing Retailer                0584-AE27  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Eligibility Standards in
                                 SNAP.
11............................  Supplemental Nutrition            0584-AE45  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Assistance Program
                                 (SNAP) Photo Electronic
                                 Benefit Transfer (EBT)
                                 Card Implementation
                                 Requirements.
12............................  Revision of the Nutrition         0583-AD56  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Facts Panels for Meat
                                 and Poultry Products and
                                 Updating Certain
                                 Reference Amounts
                                 Customarily Consumed.
13............................  Modernization of Swine            0583-AD62  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Slaughter Inspection.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                             Department of Commerce
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Regulation
         Sequence No.                     Title             Identifier No.             Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14............................  Endangered and Threatened         0648-BG20  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Species; Critical
                                 Habitat for the
                                 Threatened Caribbean
                                 Corals.
15............................  Designation of Critical           0648-BG26  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Habitat for Threatened
                                 Indo-Pacific Reef-
                                 building Corals.
16............................  Magnuson-Stevens                  0648-BF09  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Fisheries Conservation
                                 and Management Act;
                                 Seafood Import
                                 Monitoring Program.
17............................  Designation of Critical           0648-BF28  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Habitat for the Gulf of
                                 Maine, New York Bight,
                                 and Chesapeake Bay
                                 Distinct Population
                                 Segments of Atlantic
                                 Sturgeon.
18............................  Designation of Critical           0648-BF32  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Habitat for the Carolina
                                 and South Atlantic
                                 Distinct Population
                                 Segments of Atlantic
                                 Sturgeon.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                              Department of Defense
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Regulation
         Sequence No.                     Title             Identifier No.             Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
19............................  Sexual Assault Prevention         0790-AI36  Final Rule Stage.
                                 and Response Program
                                 Procedures.
20............................  Identification (ID) Cards         0790-AJ37  Final Rule Stage.
                                 for Members of the
                                 Uniformed Services,
                                 Their Dependents, and
                                 Other Eligible
                                 Individuals (Adding
                                 Subpart D).
21............................  Sexual Assault Prevention         0790-AJ40  Final Rule Stage.
                                 and Response (SAPR)
                                 Program.
22............................  TRICARE; Reimbursement of         0720-AB47  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Long Term Care Hospitals
                                 and Inpatient
                                 Rehabilitation
                                 Facilities.
23............................  TRICARE: Refills of               0720-AB64  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Maintenance Medications
                                 Through Military
                                 Treatment Facility
                                 Pharmacies or National
                                 Mail Order Pharmacy
                                 Program.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                             Department of Education
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Regulation
         Sequence No.                     Title             Identifier No.             Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
24............................  Title I of the Elementary         1810-AB27  Final Rule Stage.
                                 and Secondary Education
                                 Act of 1965--
                                 Accountability and State
                                 Plans.
25............................  Elementary and Secondary          1810-AB33  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Education Act of 1965,
                                 as Amended by the Every
                                 Student Succeeds Act--
                                 Supplement Not Supplant
                                 under Title I, Part A.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                              Department of Energy
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Regulation
         Sequence No.                     Title             Identifier No.            Rulemaking stage.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
26............................  Energy Conservation               1904-AD09  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Standards for General
                                 Service Lamps.
27............................  Energy Conservation               1904-AD20  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Standards for
                                 Residential Non-
                                 Weatherized Gas Furnaces
                                 and Mobile Home Gas
                                 Furnaces.
28............................  Energy Conservation               1904-AD59  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Standards for Walk-In
                                 Coolers and Walk-In
                                 Freezers.
29............................  Energy Conservation               1904-AC11  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Standards for
                                 Manufactured Housing.
30............................  Energy Conservation               1904-AD01  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Standards for Commercial
                                 Packaged Boilers.
31............................  Energy Conservation               1904-AD34  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Standards for Commercial
                                 Water Heating Equipment.

[[Page 94504]]

 
32............................  Energy Conservation               1904-AD52  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Standards for Dedicated-
                                 Purpose Pool Pumps.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                     Department of Health and Human Services
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Regulation
         Sequence No.                     Title             Identifier No.            Rulemaking stage.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
33............................  Confidentiality of                0930-AA21  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Substance Use Disorder
                                 Patient Records.
34............................  Control of Communicable           0920-AA63  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Diseases.
35............................  Mammography Quality               0910-AH04  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Standards Act;
                                 Regulatory Amendments.
36............................  Patient Medication                0910-AH33  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Information.
37............................  340(B) Civil Monetary             0906-AA89  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Penalties for
                                 Manufacturers and
                                 Ceiling Price
                                 Regulations.
38............................  Definition of Human Organ         0906-AB02  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Under Section 301 of the
                                 National Organ
                                 Transplant Act of 1984.
39............................  340B Program Omnibus              0906-AB08  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Guidelines.
40............................  Federal Policy for the            0937-AA02  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Protection of Human
                                 Subjects; Final Rules.
41............................  Eligibility Notices, Fair         0938-AS55  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Hearing and Appeal
                                 Processes for Medicaid,
                                 and Other Provisions
                                 Related to Eligibility
                                 and Enrollment for
                                 Medicaid and CHIP (CMS-
                                 2334-P2).
42............................  FY 2018 Prospective               0938-AS96  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Payment System and
                                 Consolidated Billing for
                                 Skilled Nursing
                                 Facilities (SNFs) (CMS-
                                 1679-P).
43............................  FY 2018 Inpatient                 0938-AS97  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Psychiatric Facilities
                                 Prospective Payment
                                 System--Rate Update (CMS-
                                 1673-P).
44............................  FY 2018 Inpatient                 0938-AS99  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Rehabilitation Facility
                                 (IRF) Prospective
                                 Payment System (CMS-1671-
                                 P).
45............................  FY 2018 Hospice Rate              0938-AT00  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Update (CMS-1675-P).
46............................  CY 2018 Hospital                  0938-AT03  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Outpatient PPS Policy
                                 Changes and Payment
                                 Rates and Ambulatory
                                 Surgical Center Payment
                                 System Policy Changes
                                 and Payment Rates (CMS-
                                 1678-P).
47............................  CY 2018 Changes to the            0938-AT04  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 End- Stage. Renal
                                 Disease (ESRD)
                                 Prospective Payment
                                 System, Quality
                                 Incentive Program, and
                                 Durable Medical
                                 Equipment, Prosthetics,
                                 Orthotics, and Supplies
                                 (DMEPOS) (CMS-1674-P).
48............................  Eligibility Notices, Fair         0938-AS27  Final Rule Stage..
                                 Hearing and Appeal
                                 Processes for Medicaid,
                                 and Other Provisions
                                 Related to Eligibility
                                 and Enrollment for
                                 Medicaid and CHIP (CMS-
                                 2334-F2).
49............................  CY 2017 Inpatient                 0938-AS70  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Hospital Deductible and
                                 Hospital and Extended
                                 Care Services
                                 Coinsurance Amounts (CMS-
                                 8062-N).
50............................  CY 2018 Inpatient                 0938-AT05  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Hospital Deductible and
                                 Hospital and Extended
                                 Care Services
                                 Coinsurance Amounts (CMS-
                                 8065-N).
51............................  Adoption and Foster Care          0970-AC47  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Analysis and Reporting
                                 System (AFCARS).
52............................  Flexibility, Efficiency,          0970-AC50  Final Rule Stage.
                                 and Modernization of
                                 Child Support
                                 Enforcement Programs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                         Department of Homeland Security
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Regulation
         Sequence No.                     Title             Identifier No.            Rulemaking stage.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
53............................  Chemical Facility Anti-           1601-AA69  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Terrorism Standards
                                 (CFATS).
54............................  New Classification for            1615-AA67  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Victims of Criminal
                                 Activity; Eligibility
                                 for the U Nonimmigrant
                                 Status.
55............................  Requirements for Filing           1615-AB98  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Motions and
                                 Administrative Appeals.
56............................  Improvement of the                1615-AC07  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Employment Creation
                                 Immigrant Regulations.
57............................  Classification for                1615-AA59  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Victims of Severe Forms
                                 of Trafficking in
                                 Persons; Eligibility for
                                 T Nonimmigrant Status.
58............................  Special Immigrant                 1615-AB81  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Juvenile Petitions.
59............................  International                     1615-AC04  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Entrepreneur.
60............................  Retention of EB-1, EB-2,          1615-AC05  Final Rule Stage.
                                 and EB-3 Immigrant
                                 Workers and Program
                                 Improvements Affecting
                                 Highly-Skilled H-1B
                                 Nonimmigrant Workers.
61............................  Commercial Fishing                1625-AB85  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Vessels--Implementation
                                 of 2010 and 2012
                                 Legislation.
62............................  Seafarers' Access to              1625-AC15  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Maritime Facilities.
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............................  Surface Transportation            1652-AA56  Prerule Stage.
                                 Vulnerability
                                 Assessments and Security
                                 Plans.
66............................  Security Training for             1652-AA55  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Surface Transportation
                                 Employees.
67............................  Vetting of Certain                1652-AA69  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Surface Transportation
                                 Employees.
68............................  Eligibility Checks of             1653-AA71  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Nominated and Current
                                 Designated School
                                 Officials of Schools
                                 That Enroll F and M
                                 Nonimmigrant Students
                                 and of Exchange Visitor
                                 Program-Designated
                                 Sponsors of J
                                 Nonimmigrants.

[[Page 94505]]

 
69............................  Updates to Floodplain             1660-AA85  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Management and
                                 Protection of Wetlands
                                 Regulations to Implement
                                 Executive Order 13690
                                 and the Federal Flood
                                 Risk Management Standard.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                   Department of Housing and Urban Development
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Regulation
         Sequence No.                     Title             Identifier No.             Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
70............................  Floodplain Management and         2501-AD62  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Protection of Wetlands;
                                 Minimum Property
                                 Standards for Flood
                                 Hazard Exposure;
                                 Building to the Federal
                                 Flood Risk Management
                                 Standard (FR-5717).
71............................  Notification, Evaluation          2501-AD77  Final Rule Stage.
                                 and Reduction of Lead-
                                 Based Paint Hazards in
                                 Federally Owned
                                 Residential Property and
                                 Housing Receiving
                                 Federal Assistance;
                                 Response to Elevated
                                 Blood Lead Level (FR-
                                 5816).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                              Department of Justice
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Regulation
         Sequence No.                     Title             Identifier No.             Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
72............................  Nondiscrimination on the          1190-AA65  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Basis of Disability:
                                 Accessibility of Web
                                 Information and Services
                                 of State and Local
                                 Governments.
73............................  Nondiscrimination on the          1190-AA63  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Basis of Disability;
                                 Movie Captioning and
                                 Audio Description.
74............................  Revision of Standards and         1190-AA71  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Procedures for the
                                 Enforcement of Section
                                 274B of the Immigration
                                 and Nationality Act.
75............................  Motions To Reopen                 1125-AA68  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Removal, Deportation, or
                                 Exclusion Proceedings
                                 Based Upon a Claim of
                                 Ineffective Assistance
                                 of Counsel.
76............................  Recognition of                    1125-AA72  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Organizations and
                                 Accreditation of Non-
                                 Attorney Representatives.
77............................  Implementation of the ADA         1105-AB50  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Amendments Act of 2008
                                 Federally Assisted
                                 Programs (Section 504 of
                                 the Rehabilitation Act
                                 of 1973).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                               Department of Labor
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Regulation
         Sequence No.                     Title             Identifier No.             Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
78............................  Employment of Workers             1235-AA14  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 With Disabilities Under
                                 Special Certificates.
79............................  Equal Employment                  1205-AB59  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Opportunity in
                                 Apprenticeship Amendment
                                 of Regulations.
80............................  Amendment to Claims               1210-AB39  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Procedure Regulation.
81............................  Savings Arrangements              1210-AB76  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Established by Political
                                 Subdivisions for Non-
                                 Governmental Employees.
82............................  Respirable Crystalline            1219-AB36  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Silica.
83............................  Proximity Detection               1219-AB78  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Systems for Mobile
                                 Machines in Underground
                                 Mines.
84............................  Preventing Workplace              1218-AD08  Prerule Stage.
                                 Violence in Healthcare.
85............................  Infectious Diseases......         1218-AC46  Proposed Rule Stage.
86............................  Standards Improvement             1218-AC67  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Project IV.
87............................  Occupational Exposure to          1218-AB76  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Beryllium.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                          Department of Transportation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Regulation
         Sequence No.                     Title             Identifier No.             Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
88............................  Airport Safety Management         2120-AJ38  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 System.
89............................  Pilot Professional                2120-AJ87  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Development.
90............................  Revision of Airworthiness         2120-AK65  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Standards for Normal,
                                 Utility, Acrobatic, and
                                 Commuter Category
                                 Airplanes (RRR).
91............................  National Goals and                2125-AF53  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Performance Management
                                 Measures 2 (MAP-21).
92............................  National Goals and                2125-AF54  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Performance Management
                                 Measures 3 (MAP-21).
93............................  Entry-Level Driver                2126-AB66  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Training.
94............................  Tire Fuel Efficiency              2127-AK76  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Consumer Information--
                                 Part 2.
95............................  Heavy Vehicle Speed               2127-AK92  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Limiters.
96............................  Federal Motor Vehicle             2127-AL55  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Safety Standard (FMVSS)
                                 150--Vehicle to Vehicle
                                 (V2V) Communication.
97............................  Locomotive Recording              2130-AC51  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Devices.
98............................  Risk Reduction Program...         2130-AC11  Final Rule Stage.

[[Page 94506]]

 
99............................  Pipeline Safety: Safety           2137-AE66  Final Rule Stage.
                                 of Hazardous Liquid
                                 Pipelines.
100...........................  Hazardous Materials: Oil          2137-AF08  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Spill Response Plans and
                                 Information Sharing for
                                 High-Hazard Flammable
                                 Trains.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                         Department of Veterans Affairs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Regulation
         Sequence No.                     Title             Identifier No.             Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
101...........................  Schedule for Rating               2900-AP16  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Disabilities: The
                                 Genitourinary Diseases
                                 and Conditions.
102...........................  Revise and Streamline VA          2900-AP50  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Acquisition Regulation
                                 to Adhere to Federal
                                 Acquisition Regulation
                                 Principles (VAAR Case
                                 2014-V001, Parts 803,
                                 814, 822).
103...........................  VA Homeless Providers             2900-AP54  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Grant and Per Diem
                                 Program.
104...........................  Revise and Streamline VA          2900-AP58  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Acquisition Regulation
                                 to Adhere to Federal
                                 Acquisition Regulation
                                 Principles (VAAR Case
                                 2014-V005, Parts 812,
                                 813).
105...........................  Diseases Associated With          2900-AP66  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Exposure to Contaminants
                                 in the Water Supply at
                                 Camp Lejeune.
106...........................  Revise and Streamline VA          2900-AP81  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Acquisition Regulation
                                 to Adhere to Federal
                                 Acquisition Regulation
                                 Principles VAAR Case
                                 2014-V004 (Parts 811,
                                 832).
107...........................  Revise and Streamline VA          2900-AP82  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Acquisition Regulation
                                 to Adhere to Federal
                                 Acquisition Regulation
                                 Principles (VAAR Case
                                 2014-V002, Parts 816,
                                 828).
108...........................  Schedule for Rating               2900-AO19  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Disabilities: The
                                 Hematologic and
                                 Lymphatic Systems.
109...........................  Schedule for Rating               2900-AO44  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Disabilities: The
                                 Endocrine System.
110...........................  Fiduciary Activities.....         2900-AO53  Final Rule Stage.
111...........................  Per Diem Paid to States           2900-AO88  Final Rule Stage.
                                 for Care of Eligible
                                 Veterans in State Homes.
112...........................  Schedule for Rating               2900-AP08  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Disabilities; Dental and
                                 Oral Conditions.
113...........................  Schedule for Rating               2900-AP13  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Disabilities:
                                 Gynecological Conditions
                                 and Disorders of the
                                 Breast.
114...........................  Schedule for Rating               2900-AP14  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Disabilities: The Organs
                                 of Special Sense and
                                 Schedule of Ratings--Eye.
115...........................  Schedule for Rating               2900-AP27  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Disabilities: Skin
                                 Conditions.
116...........................  Tiered Pharmacy                   2900-AP35  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Copayments for
                                 Medications.
117...........................  Advanced Practice                 2900-AP44  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Registered Nurses.
118...........................  Expanded Access to Non-VA         2900-AP60  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Care Through the
                                 Veterans Choice Program.
119...........................  Veterans Employment Pay           2900-AP72  Final Rule Stage.
                                 for Success Grant
                                 Program.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                         Environmental Protection Agency
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Regulation
         Sequence No.                     Title             Identifier No.             Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
120...........................  Federal Baseline Water            2040-AF62  Prerule Stage.
                                 Quality Standards for
                                 Indian Reservations.
121...........................  Renewables Enhancement            2060-AS66  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 and Growth Support Rule.
122...........................  Implementation of the             2060-AS82  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 2015 National Ambient
                                 Air Quality Standards
                                 for Ozone: Nonattainment
                                 Area Classifications and
                                 State Implementation
                                 Plan Requirements.
123...........................  Renewable Fuel Volume             2060-AT04  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Standards for 2018 and
                                 Biomass Based Diesel
                                 Volume (BBD) for 2019.
124...........................  Trichloroethylene (TCE);          2070-AK03  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Rulemaking Under TSCA
                                 Section 6(a).
125...........................  N-Methylpyrrolidone (NMP)         2070-AK07  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 and Methylene Chloride;
                                 Rulemaking Under TSCA
                                 Section 6(a).
126...........................  Trichloroethylene (TCE);          2070-AK11  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Rulemaking Under TSCA
                                 Section 6(a); Vapor
                                 Degreasing.
127...........................  Polychlorinated Biphenyls         2070-AK12  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 (PCBs); Reassessment of
                                 Use Authorizations for
                                 PCBs in Small Capacitors
                                 in Fluorescent Light
                                 Ballasts in Schools and
                                 Daycares.
128...........................  Procedures for Evaluating         2070-AK20  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Existing Chemical Risks
                                 Under the Toxic
                                 Substances Control Act.
129...........................  Procedures for                    2070-AK23  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Prioritization of
                                 Chemicals for Risk
                                 Evaluation Under the
                                 Toxic Substances Control
                                 Act.
130...........................  Financial Responsibility          2050-AG61  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Requirements Under
                                 CERCLA Section 108(b)
                                 for Classes of
                                 Facilities in the
                                 Hardrock Mining Industry.
131...........................  National Primary Drinking         2040-AF15  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Water Regulations for
                                 Lead and Copper:
                                 Regulatory Revisions.
132...........................  Fees for Water                    2040-AF64  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Infrastructure Project
                                 Applications Under the
                                 Water Infrastructure
                                 Finance and Innovation
                                 Act.
133...........................  National Emission                 2060-AP26  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Standards for Hazardous
                                 Air Pollutants (NESHAP)
                                 Subpart W: Standards for
                                 Radon Emissions From
                                 Operating Uranium Mill
                                 Tailings: Review.

[[Page 94507]]

 
134...........................  Revision of 40 CFR 192--          2060-AP43  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Health and Environmental
                                 Protection Standards for
                                 Uranium and Thorium Mill
                                 Tailings and Uranium In
                                 Situ Leaching Processing
                                 Facilities.
135...........................  Model Trading Rules for           2060-AS47  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
                                 From Electric Utility
                                 Generating Units
                                 Constructed on or Before
                                 January 8, 2014.
136...........................  Renewable Fuel Volume             2060-AS72  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Standards for 2017 and
                                 Biomass Based Diesel
                                 Volume (BBD) for 2018.
137...........................  Pesticides; Certification         2070-AJ20  Final Rule Stage.
                                 of Pesticide Applicators.
138...........................  Modernization of the              2050-AG82  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Accidental Release
                                 Prevention Regulations
                                 Under Clean Air Act.
139...........................  Credit Assistance for             2040-AF63  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Water Infrastructure
                                 Projects.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                     Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Regulation
         Sequence No.                     Title             Identifier No.             Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
140...........................  Affirmative Action for            3046-AA94  Final Rule. Stage.
                                 Individuals With
                                 Disabilities in the
                                 Federal Government.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                          Small Business Administration
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Regulation
         Sequence No.                     Title             Identifier No.             Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
141...........................  Small Business Innovation         3245-AG64  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Research Program and
                                 Small Business
                                 Technology Transfer
                                 Program Policy Directive.
142...........................  Small Business Investment         3245-AG66  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Company (SBIC) Program--
                                 Impact SBICs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                         Social Security Administration
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Regulation
         Sequence No.                     Title             Identifier No.             Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
143...........................  Revised Medical Criteria          0960-AG38  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 for Evaluating
                                 Musculoskeletal
                                 Disorders (3318P).
144...........................  Revised Medical Criteria          0960-AG65  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 for Evaluating Digestive
                                 Disorders (3441P).
145...........................  Revised Medical Criteria          0960-AG74  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 for Evaluating
                                 Cardiovascular Disorders
                                 (3477P).
146...........................  Revising the Ticket to            0960-AH50  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Work Program Rules
                                 (3780A).
147...........................  Revisions to Rules                0960-AH51  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Regarding the Evaluation
                                 of Medical Evidence.
148...........................  Revised Medical Criteria          0960-AH54  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 for Evaluating Hearing
                                 Loss and Disturbances of
                                 Labyrinthine-Vestibular
                                 Function (3806P).
149...........................  Use of Electronic Payroll         0960-AH88  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Data To Improve Program
                                 Administration.
150...........................  Treatment of Earnings             0960-AH90  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Derived From Services.
151...........................  Closure of Unintended             0960-AH93  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Loopholes (Conforming
                                 Changes to Regulations
                                 on Presumed Filing and
                                 Voluntary Suspension).
152...........................  Revisions to Rules on             0960-AG56  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Representation of
                                 Parties (3396F).
153...........................  Revised Medical Criteria          0960-AG71  Final Rule Stage.
                                 for Evaluating Human
                                 Immunodeficiency Virus
                                 (HIV) Infection and for
                                 Evaluating Functional
                                 Limitations in Immune
                                 System Disorders (3466F).
154...........................  Amendments to Regulations         0960-AH07  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Regarding Withdrawals of
                                 Applications and
                                 Voluntary Suspension of
                                 Benefits (3573F).
155...........................  Revisions to Rules of             0960-AH63  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Conduct and Standards of
                                 Responsibility for
                                 Appointed
                                 Representatives.
156...........................  Ensuring Program                  0960-AH71  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Uniformity at the
                                 Hearing and Appeals
                                 Council Levels of the
                                 Administrative Review
                                 Process.
157...........................  Implementation of the             0960-AH95  Final Rule Stage.
                                 NICS Improvement
                                 Amendments Act of 2007.
158...........................  Availability of                   0960-AI07  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Information and Records
                                 to the Public.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                       Consumer Product Safety Commission
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Regulation
         Sequence No.                     Title             Identifier No.             Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
159...........................  Flammability Standard for         3041-AB35  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Upholstered Furniture.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 94508]]


                                        National Indian Gaming Commission
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Regulation
         Sequence No.                     Title             Identifier No.             Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
160...........................  Class II Minimum Internal         3141-AA60  Proposed Rule Stage.
                                 Control Standards.
161...........................  Minimum Internal Control          3141-AA55  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Standards.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                          Nuclear Regulatory Commission
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Regulation
         Sequence No.                     Title             Identifier No.             Rulemaking stage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
162...........................  Modified Small Quantities         3150-AJ70  Final Rule Stage.
                                 Protocol [NRC-2015-0263].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BILLING CODE 6820-27-P

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Fall 2016 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 reflects USDA's 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. Under the Farm Bill authorities, 
USDA will continue to build on historic economic gains in rural 
America. The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 (HHFKA) provided the 
authority for USDA to make genuine 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 over 6 
million rural residents. 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 a final rule confirming the interim rule entitled 
``Rural Broadband Access Loans and Loan Guarantees'' which published in 
the Federal Register on June 9, 2016. The final rule implements the 
statutory changes from the 2014 Farm Bill and facilitates greater 
deployment of and access to broadband services in rural communities by 
adjusting certain service area eligibility criteria, establishing new 
priority considerations, and introducing new reporting sections that 
require more detailed information gathering and publishing for both the 
Agency and awardees. 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 is 
developing a rule that will 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 
final rule on December 16, 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 ensure that 
farm program payments are made to the farmers and farm families that 
they are intended to help. Specifically, as required by the 2014 Farm 
Bill, FSA revised 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. For more information about 
this rule, see RIN 0560-AI31.
    The Federal Crop Insurance Program mitigates production and revenue 
losses

[[Page 94509]]

from yield or price fluctuations and 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 a final rule on June 30, 2016, 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. For more information about this rule, 
see RIN 0563-AC43.
    The Packers and Stockyards Program promotes fair business practices 
and competitive environments to market livestock, meat, and poultry. 
Accordingly, and consistent with its oversight activities under the 
Packers and Stockyards Act (P&S Act), the Grain Inspection, Packers and 
Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) proposes to establish criteria to be 
considered in determining whether an undue or unreasonable preference 
or advantage has occurred during contractual growing arrangements. For 
more information about this rule, see RIN 0580-AB27. Consistent with 
the P&S Act, GIPSA also proposes to establish certain requirements when 
using a ``tournament'' system for contract poultry growing. For more 
information about this rule, see RIN 0580-AB26. Finally, GIPSA proposes 
to issue interim clarifying language on the list of unfair practices 
between those that do not require a showing of harm to competition and 
those that violate the P&S Act only with a finding of harm to 
competition. For more information about this rule, see RIN 0580-AB25
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 2015, an estimated 115,233 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 March 10, 2016, NRCS published a final rule to implement provisions 
of the 2014 Farm Bill that amended CSP. 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 
June 3, 2016, NRCS published a final rule that implemented changes 
mandated by 2014 Farm Bill and addressed 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). 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

[[Page 94510]]

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 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 Agricultural Service (FAS) published a final rule for 
the Local and Regional procurement (LRP) Program on July 1, 2016 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. 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.
    As part of an Act to reauthorize and amend the National Sea Grant 
College Program Act (Act), the President signed a bill to amend the 
Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 to include subtitle E, the National 
Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard (Pub. L. 114-216). The 
legislation requires that the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) 
establish a mandatory national bioengineered food disclosure standard 
and the procedures necessary to implement the national standard within 
two years of the enactment of the Act. Throughout the process, AMS will 
engage consumers and industry stakeholders to ensure that the final 
program is established effectively and with the utmost transparency. 
AMS is currently preparing an advance notice of proposed rulemaking to 
begin the rulemaking process for implementing the national 
bioengineered food disclosure standards. For more information about 
this action, see RIN 0581-AD54.
    The AMS National Organic Program establishes national standards 
governing the marketing of organically produced agricultural products. 
These standards do not currently include organic farmed aquatic animals 
in the United States which means that seafood currently sold as organic 
in the United States is imported from other countries and certified to 
private standards or other countries' standards. Accordingly, and based 
on recommendations from the National Organic Standards Board, USDA is 
proposing to establish standards for organic farmed aquatic animals and 
their products. This would allow U.S. producers to compete in the 
organic seafood market and may expand trade partnerships. For more 
information about this rule, see RIN 0581-AD34.
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 45 million Americans, more 
than half of whom were children, the elderly, or individuals with 
disabilities, put food on the table in 2015. The Food and Nutrition 
Service (FNS) plans to publish a final rule that works with States 
interested in implementing photos on SNAP Electronic Benefit Transfer 
(EBT) cards to ensure that the issuance of photo EBT cards does not

[[Page 94511]]

inhibit access to this critical nutrition assistance program. For more 
information about this rule, see RIN 0584-AE09.
    Additionally, FNS plans to issue a final rule codifying 2008 Farm 
Bill changes addressing SNAP eligibility, certification, and employment 
and training provisions. 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. For more information 
about this rule, see RIN 0584-AD87.
    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. This objective represents FNS's efforts 
to ensure that program benefits meet appropriate standards to 
effectively improve nutrition for program participants, to improve the 
diets of its clients through nutrition education, and to support the 
national effort to reduce obesity by promoting healthy eating and 
physical activity. The Department will finalize changes to eligibility 
requirements for SNAP retail food stores to ensure access to nutritious 
foods for home preparation and consumption for the families most 
vulnerable to food insecurity. The final rule will consider the balance 
of ensuring participant access to retail food stores with enhanced 
stocking requirements. For more information about this rule, see RIN 
0584-AE27.
    FNS published a final rule on July 27, 2016, 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. For more information about this rule, see RIN 
0584-AE09.
    FNS published the final rule, Meal Pattern Revisions Related to the 
Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, on July 8, 2016, 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. For more 
information about this rule, see RIN 0584-AE18.
    FNS published a final rule, Local School Wellness Policy 
Implementation and School Nutrition Environment Information, on July 
27, 2016, 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. For more 
information about this rule, see RIN 0584-AE25.
    The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) continues to ensure 
that meat and poultry products are properly marked, labeled, and 
packaged, and prohibits the distribution in-commerce of meat or poultry 
products that are adulterated or misbranded. FSIS is planning to 
publish a proposed rule that would amend the nutrition labeling 
requirements for meat and poultry products to better reflect scientific 
research and dietary recommendations and to improve the presentation of 
nutrition information to assist consumers in maintaining healthy 
dietary practices. This rule will be consistent with the recent changes 
that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) finalized for other food 
products. This rule will ensure that nutrition information is presented 
consistently across the food supply. For more information about this 
rule, see RIN 0583-AD56.
    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 final rule on July 18, 2016, requiring non-ambulatory 
disabled veal calves that are offered for slaughter to be condemned and 
promptly euthanized. 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. For more information about this rule, see RIN 0583-
AD54.
    FSIS is also proposing to amend the Federal meat inspection 
regulations to improve the effectiveness of swine slaughter inspection 
by establishing a new inspection system for swine slaughter 
establishments. The proposed New Swine Slaughter Inspection System 
would facilitate pathogen reduction in pork products by permitting FSIS 
to conduct more offline inspection activities that are more effective 
in ensuring food safety; improving animal welfare and compliance with 
the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act; and making better use of FSIS 
resources. For more information about this rule, see RIN 0583-AD62.
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&

[[Page 94512]]

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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Food Safety & Inspection Service (FSIS).  Requirements for the             0583-AD54.
                                           Disposition of Non-Ambulatory
                                           Disabled Veal Calves.
Animal Plant Health & Inspection Service  Participation in the             TBD.
 (APHIS).                                  International Trade Data
                                           System (ITDS) via the
                                           Automated Commercial
                                           Environment (ACE).
FSIS....................................  Electronic Export Application    0583-AD41.
                                           and Certification Fee.
Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS)....  Input Export Form Numbers Into   TBD.
                                           the Automated Export System.
AMS.....................................  Revisions to the Electronic      0581-AD40.
                                           Submission of the Import
                                           Request of Shell Eggs.
APHIS...................................  Forms for Declaration Mandated   0579-AD99.
                                           by 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.
FNS.....................................  Simplified Cost Accounting and   0584-AD84.
                                           Other Actions to Reduce
                                           Paperwork in the Summer Food
                                           Service Program.
Rural Business Services (RBS)...........  Biorefinery, Renewable           0570-AA73, 0570-0065.
                                           Chemical, and Biobased Product
                                           Manufacturing Assistance.
RBS.....................................  Rural Energy for America         0570-AA76.
                                           Program.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


USDA--AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE (AMS)

Proposed Rule Stage

1. National Organic Program--Organic Aquaculture Standards

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 7 U.S.C. 6501 to 6522
    CFR Citation: 7 CFR 205.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This action proposes to establish standards for organic 
production and certification of farmed aquatic animals and their 
products in the USDA organic regulations. This action would also add 
aquatic animals as a scope of certification and accreditation under the 
National Organic Program (NOP).
    Statement of Need: This action is necessary to establish standards 
for organic farmed aquatic animals and their products which would allow 
U.S. producers to compete in the organic seafood market. This action is 
also necessary to address multiple recommendations provided to USDA by 
the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB). From 2007 through 2009, 
the NOSB made five recommendations to establish standards for the 
certification of organic farmed aquatic animals and their products. 
Finally, the U.S. currently has organic standards equivalence 
arrangements with Canada and the European Union (EU). Both Canada and 
the EU established standards for organic aquaculture products. Because 
the U.S.does not have organic aquaculture standards, the U.S. is unable 
to include aquaculture in the scope of these arrangements. Establishing 
U.S. organic aquaculture may provide a basis for expanding those trade 
partnerships.
    Summary of Legal Basis: AMS National Organic Program is authorized 
by the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (OFPA) to establish 
national standards governing the marketing of organically produced 
agricultural products (7 U.S.C. 6501-6522). The USDA organic 
regulations set the requirements for the organic certification of 
agricultural products (7 CFR part 205).
    Alternatives: An alternative to providing organic aquatic animal 
standards would be to not publish such standards and allow aquatic 
animal products to continue to be sold as organic based on private 
standards or other countries' standards.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The cost for existing conventional 
aquaculture operations to convert and participate in this voluntary 
marketing program generally would be incurred in the cost of changing 
management practices, increased feed costs, and obtaining organic 
certification. There also would be some costs to certifying agents who 
would need to add aquaculture to their areas of accreditation under the 
USDA organic regulations. These costs include application fees and 
expanded audits to ensure certifying agents meet the accreditation 
requirements needed to provide certification services to aquaculture 
operations. By providing organic standards for organic aquatic animal 
products, producers will be able to sell certified organic aquatic 
animal products for a premium above the price of conventionally 
produced seafood. Organic consumers will be assured that organic 
aquatic animal products comply with the USDA organic regulations.

[[Page 94513]]

    Risks: There are no known risks to providing these additional 
standards for certification of organic products.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   11/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
    Agency Contact: Miles V. McEvoy, Deputy Administrator, USDA 
National Organic Program, Department of Agriculture, Agricultural 
Marketing Service, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250, 
Phone: 202 720-3252.
    RIN: 0581-AD34

USDA--AMS

Final Rule Stage

2. NOP; Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 7 U.S.C. 6501 to 6522
    CFR Citation: 7 CFR 205.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This action would establish standards that support 
additional practice standards for organic livestock and poultry 
production. This action would add provisions to the USDA organic 
regulations to address and clarify livestock and poultry living 
conditions (for example, outdoor access, housing environment and 
stocking densities), health care practices (for example physical 
alterations, administering medical treatment, euthanasia), and animal 
handling and transport to and during slaughter.
    Statement of Need: This action would establish standards that 
support additional practice standards for organic livestock and poultry 
production. This action would add provisions to the USDA organic 
regulations to address and clarify livestock and poultry living 
conditions (for example, outdoor access, housing environment and 
stocking densities), health care practices (for example physical 
alterations, administering medical treatment, euthanasia), and animal 
handling and transport to and during slaughter.
    Summary of Legal Basis: This action is necessary to augment the 
USDA organic livestock and poultry production regulations with robust 
and clear provisions to fulfill an objective of the Organic Foods 
Production Act of 1990 (OFPA): To assure consumers that organically-
produced products meet a consistent and uniform standard (7 U.S.C. 
6501). OFPA mandates that detailed livestock and poultry regulations be 
developed through notice and comment rulemaking and intends for 
National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) involvement in that process (7 
U.S.C. 6508(g)).
    Alternatives: The alternative is that consumers will not have the 
assurance that organically-produced products meet a consistent and 
uniform standard as there will be continued inconsistency among organic 
livestock producers. Nor will certifying agents be able to make 
consistent certification decisions and facilitate fairness and 
transparency for the organic producers and consumers that participate 
in the market.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: AMS expects this rule to maintain 
consumer confidence in the high standards represented by the USDA 
organic seal. This action would promote consistency among certifying 
agents to uniformly verify and enforce clear requirements for organic 
livestock. AMS estimates that annualized benefits for increased or 
sustained demand for organic products is $14.5 to $34 million per year. 
The cost of implementing the rule would fall primarily on organic 
poultry operations that may need to purchase and transition additional 
land to organic production and modify existing poultry structures to 
come into compliance with this rule. AMS estimates that the annualized 
cost to the organic industry for this rule is $13 to 15.6 million per 
year.
    Risks: AMS expects that a few provisions among the numerous 
proposed will be contentious.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   04/13/16  81 FR 21955
NPRM Comment Period End.............   06/13/16  .......................
Final Action........................   12/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Miles V. McEvoy, Deputy Administrator, USDA 
National Organic Program, Department of Agriculture, Agricultural 
Marketing Service, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250, 
Phone: 202 720-3252.
    RIN: 0581-AD44

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

Proposed Rule Stage

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

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7701 to 7772; 7 U.S.C. 7781 to 7786; 31 
U.S.C. 9701
    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 regarding the 
regulation of GE organisms.
    Statement of Need: This rule is necessary in order to respond to 
advances in genetic engineering and APHIS' understanding of the pest 
risks posed by genetically engineered organisms, to evaluate 
genetically engineered plants for noxious weed risk (an evaluation that 
is not part of the current regulations), to respond to two Office of 
Inspector General audits regarding APHIS' regulation of genetically 
engineered organisms, and to respond to the requirements of the 2008 
Farm Bill.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The Plant Protection Act of 200, as amended 
(7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.).
    Alternatives: Alternatives that we considered were (1) to leave the 
regulations unchanged; (2) to regulate all GE organisms as presenting a 
possible plant pest or noxious weed risk, without exception, and with 
no means of granting nonregulated status; or (3) to withdraw APHIS 
regulations governing biotechnology and instead implement a voluntary 
program under which developers would present genetically engineered 
organisms to APHIS for an evaluation of their plant pest and noxious 
weed risk, and organisms determined to be plant pests and/or noxious 
weeds would be

[[Page 94514]]

regulated under other APHIS regulations.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Not yet determined.
    Risks: Unless we issue this proposal, we may not be able to 
regulate a genetically engineered plant that does not pose a plant pest 
risk, but does pose a noxious weed risk. Additionally, as noted above, 
the current regulations do not incorporate recommendations of two OIG 
audits, and do not respond to the requirements of the 2008 Farm Bill, 
particularly regarding APHIS oversight of field trials and 
environmental releases of genetically engineered organisms.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   12/00/16  .......................
NPRM Comment Period End.............   02/00/17  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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: Gwendolyn Burnett, Agriculturalist, BRS, Department 
of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 4700 River 
Road, Unit 147, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236, Phone: 301 851-3893.
    RIN: 0579-AE15

USDA--APHIS

Final Rule Stage

4. Horse Protection; Licensing of Designated Qualified Persons and 
Other Amendments

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1823 to 1825; 15 U.S.C. 1828
    CFR Citation: 9 CFR 11.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This rulemaking will amend training and licensing 
requirements mandated by the horse protection regulations. We are also 
making several changes to the responsibilities of show management of 
horse shows, horse exhibitions, horse sales, and horse auctions, as 
well as changes to the list of devices, equipment, substances, and 
practices that can cause soring or are otherwise prohibited under the 
Horse Protection Act and regulations. Additionally, we are amending the 
inspection procedures. These actions are intended to strengthen 
existing requirements intended to eliminate soring and promote 
enforcement of Horse Protection Act and regulations.
    Statement of Need: Soring, the act of deliberately inducing pain in 
a horse's feet to produce an exaggerated show gait, has been a 
persistent practice within the Tennessee Walking Horse industry despite 
regulations prohibiting it. Third party inspectors are currently 
trained and licensed by horse industry organizations and conduct 
inspections of horses at horse shows and exhibitions. In response to 
public concerns about the ability of the Horse Protection Program to 
prevent soring, the United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) 
Office of the Inspector General (OIG) initiated an audit of APHIS' 
oversight of the Horse Protection program and concluded that APHIS' 
inspection program for inspecting gaited horses is not adequate to 
ensure that horses are not being sored for the purposes of enhanced 
performance. OIG recommended that APHIS eliminate the horse inspection 
program in its current form and assume a direct involvement in the 
accreditation and monitoring of inspectors and inspection procedures. 
Under the proposed rule, all training and licensing of inspectors would 
be conducted only by APHIS, and devices used to cause soring would be 
further restricted or prohibited. APHIS is in agreement with these 
recommendations but needs to amend the regulations through rulemaking 
in order to adopt it.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Section 4 of the Horse Protection Act, as 
amended (15 U.S.C. 1823), requires the Secretary of Agriculture to 
prescribe by regulation requirements for the appointment by the 
management of a horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction (referred to 
below as show management) of persons qualified to detect and diagnose a 
horse which is sore or to otherwise inspect horses for the purpose of 
enforcing the Act. Section 9 (15 U.S.C. 1828) authorizes the Secretary 
of Agriculture to issue such rules and regulations as deemed necessary 
to carry out the provisions of the Act.
    Alternatives: In following the recommendations of the USDA OIG 
Audit, we believe the changes we proposed in this rulemaking represent 
the best alternative option that would accomplish the stated objectives 
and minimize impacts on small entities. In the proposed rule, we 
welcomed comments from the public on other options, in particular the 
viability of alternative approaches that would continue to rely on the 
horse industry organization concept, and what the governance of such an 
organization should be like.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The benefits of the proposed rule 
are expected to justify the costs. The proposed changes to the horse 
protection regulations would promote the humane treatment of walking 
and racking horses by more effectively ensuring that those horses that 
participate in exhibitions, sales, shows, or auctions are not sored. 
This benefit is an unquantifiable animal welfare enhancement. The 
proposed rule is not expected to adversely impact communities in which 
shows are held since walking and racking horse shows are expected to 
continue.
    Risks: This rulemaking is intended to reduce the risk of horses 
suffering pain and injury from the practice of soring without 
restricting the activities of horse owners and organizations that have 
no history of soring and for which the USDA does not consider soring to 
be a concern.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   07/26/16  81 FR 49111
NPRM Comment Period End.............   09/26/16  .......................
Final Rule..........................   01/00/17  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Organizations.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Additional Information: Additional information about APHIS and its 
programs is available on the Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov.
    Agency Contact: Rachel Cezar, Supervisory Veterinary Medical 
Officer, Horse Protection Coordinator, Animal Care, Department of 
Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 4700 River 
Road, Unit 84, Riverdale, MD 20737, Phone: 301 851-3746.
    RIN: 0579-AE19

USDA--GRAIN INSPECTION, PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS ADMINISTRATION (GIPSA)

Proposed Rule Stage

5. Tournament Systems and Poultry Growing Arrangements

    Priority: Other Significant.

[[Page 94515]]

    Legal Authority: 7 U.S.C. 181 to 229c
    CFR Citation: 9 CFR 201.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Grain Inspection, 
Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) plans to propose amending 
part 201 of the Regulations under the Packers and Stockyards Act (P&S 
Act) (7 U.S.C. 181-229c) to address the use of tournament systems as a 
method of payment and settlement grouping for poultry growers under 
contract in poultry growing arrangements with live poultry dealers. The 
proposed regulation would establish certain requirements to which a 
live poultry dealer must comply if a tournament system is going to be 
utilized to determine grower payment. A live poultry dealer's failure 
to comply would be deemed an unfair, unjustly discriminatory and 
deceptive practice according to factors outlined in the proposed rule.
    Statement of Need: This proposed section 201.214 will establish 
criteria that the Secretary may consider when determining whether a 
live poultry dealer has used a poultry grower ranking system to 
compensate poultry grower in an unfair, unjustly discriminatory, or 
deceptive manner, or in a way that gives an undue or unreasonable 
prejudice or disadvantage. Proposed section 201.210(10) will link the 
criteria to an unfair practice in violation of section 202(a) of the 
P&S Act. These provisions are needed to protect poultry growers from 
unfair, unjustly discriminatory or deceptive practices and devices and 
from undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage. SUMMARY OF LEGAL 
BASIS: Section 407 of the P&S Act provides that [t]he Secretary may 
make such rules, regulations, and orders as may be necessary to carry 
out the provisions of this Act. This rule is necessary to carry out the 
provisions of Section 202(a) and (b) of the P&S Act.
    Summary of Legal Basis: GIPSA considered three regulatory 
alternatives: Maintain the status quo and not propose the regulation; 
propose a revised version of the proposed rule published in 2010; and 
propose a revised version that would be phased in as existing contracts 
expire, are replaced, or modified.
    Alternatives:
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: GIPSA estimates the annualized costs 
of proposed regulation 201.211 to be less than $11 million. GIPSA 
estimates the costs to be greater than $100 million annually. GIPSA was 
unable to quantify the benefits of the regulations. However, the 
primary benefit of regulation 201.214 is the increased ability to 
protect poultry growers from unfair practices associated with the use 
of poultry grower ranking systems. GIPSA also expects that the 
regulation will improve efficiencies and reduce market failures, by 
increasing the amount of relevant information available to poultry 
growers and reducing information asymmetries. Potential poultry growers 
will make better informed business decisions regarding whether to enter 
the industry and established poultry growers will make better informed 
decisions regarding additional capital investments.
    Risks: The risk addressed by this rulemaking is the present 
uncertainty that poultry growers face regarding treatment in a poultry 
grower ranking system and the inefficient allocation of resources due 
to incomplete information needed for business decisions.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Rule.......................   12/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Raymond Dexter Thomas II, Lead Regulatory Analyst, 
Department of Agriculture, Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards 
Administration, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room 2530-South, 
Washington, DC 20250, Phone: 202 720-6529, Fax: 202 690-2173, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 0580-AB26

USDA--GIPSA

6. Unfair Practices and Unreasonable Preference

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: Pub. L. 110-246; 7 U.S.C. 181-229c
    CFR Citation: 9 CFR 201.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: Title XI of the 2008 Farm Bill required the Secretary of 
Agriculture to issue a number of regulations under the P&S Act. Among 
these instructions, the 2008 Farm Bill directed the Secretary to 
identify criteria to be considered in determining whether an undue or 
unreasonable preference or advantage has occurred in violation of the 
P&S Act. In June of 2010, the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards 
Administration (GIPSA) published a proposed rule addressing this 
statutory requirement along with several other rules required by the 
2008 Farm Bill. Proposed 201.211 to the regulations under the P&S Act 
would have established criteria that the Secretary may consider in 
determining if conduct would violate section 202(b) of the P&S Act 
(undue or unreasonable preference or advantage). While many commenters 
provided examples of similarly situated poultry growers and livestock 
producers receiving different treatment, other commenters were 
concerned about the impacts of the provision on marketing arrangements 
and other beneficial contractual agreements. Beginning with the FY 2012 
appropriations act, USDA was precluded from working on certain proposed 
regulatory provisions related to the P&S Act, including criteria in 
this proposal regarding undue or unreasonable preferences or 
advantages. Consequently, GIPSA did not finalize this rule in 2011. The 
prohibitions are not included in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 
2016. This rulemaking is necessary to fulfill statutory requirements. 
Section 201.210 will illustrate by way of examples types of conduct 
GIPSA would consider unfair, unjustly discriminatory, or deceptive.
    Statement of Need: This proposed rulemaking will establish a list 
of practices that violate section 202(a) of the P&S Act without a 
showing of harm to completion and establish criteria that the Secretary 
will consider when determining whether a packer, swine contractor, or 
live poultry dealer has engaged in conduct or action that constitutes 
an undue or unreasonable preference or advantage in violation of 
section 202(b) of the P&S Act. These provisions are needed to protect 
livestock producers and poultry growers from unfair, unjustly 
discriminatory or deceptive practices and devices and from undue or 
unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage or undue or unreasonable 
preference or advantage. The 2008 Farm Bill directed the Secretary of 
Agriculture to establish criteria that the Secretary will consider in 
determining whether a live poultry dealer has provided reasonable 
notice to poultry growers of any suspension of the delivery of birds 
under a poultry growing arrangement; when a requirement of additional 
capital investments over the life of a poultry growing arrangement or 
swine production contract constitutes a violation of the P&S Act; and 
if a live poultry dealer or swine contractor has provided a reasonable 
period of time for a poultry grower or a swine production contract 
grower to remedy a breach of contract that could lead to termination of 
the poultry growing arrangement or swine production contract. GIPSA 
published final rules establishing the

[[Page 94516]]

required criteria in December 2011. These regulations will link the 
regulatory criteria to a violation of the P&S Act.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Section 11006 of the Food, Conservation, 
and Energy Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-246) (2008 Farm Bill) required 
GIPSA to establish criteria regarding: Undue or unreasonable preference 
or advantage; suspension of delivery of birds under a poultry growing 
arrangement; additional capital investments for poultry or swine 
contracts; and reasonable period of time to remedy a breach of 
contract. GIPSA issued final regulations for three of the four required 
criteria on December 9, 2011. Section 201.210 of this rule, will link 
the criteria to a violation of the section 202(a) of the Packers and 
Stockyards Act. In addition, section 201.210 will identify other 
conduct that GIPSA considers to be unfair, unjustly discriminatory, or 
deceptive and a violation of section 202(a) of the P&S Act without a 
showing of harm to competition. Section 201.211 will establish criteria 
for the remaining area undue or unreasonable preference or advantage. 
Together, the regulations will complete the unfinished work from the 
2008 Farm Bill. Section 407 of the P&S Act provides that [t]he 
Secretary may make such rules, regulations, and orders as may be 
necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act. This rule is 
necessary to carry out the provisions of section 202(a) and (b) of the 
P&S Act.
    Alternatives: GIPSA considered three regulatory alternatives: 
Maintain the status quo and not issue the regulations; issuing revised 
versions of the proposed rule published in 2010 as proposed rules; and 
proposing regulations that would be phased in as existing contracts 
expire.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: GIPSA estimates the cost to be 
greater than $100 million annually. GIPSA was unable to quantify the 
benefits of the regulations. However, the primary benefit of 
regulations 201.210 and 201.211 is the increased ability to protect 
producers and growers through enforcement of the P&S Act for violations 
of section 202(a) and/or (b) that do not result in harm or the 
likelihood of harm to competition.
    Risks: The risk addressed by this rulemaking is the present 
uncertainty that limits enforcement of section 202(a) or (b) of the P&S 
Act. The clarification provided by this rulemaking will allow the 
linkage of the regulatory criteria to a violation of the P&S Act, which 
is a substantial portion of the GIPSA Packers and Stockyards Program's 
mission.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Rule.......................   12/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Raymond Dexter Thomas II, Lead Regulatory Analyst, 
Department of Agriculture, Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards 
Administration, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room 2530-South, 
Washington, DC 20250, Phone: 202 720-6529, Fax: 202 690-2173, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 0580-AB27

USDA--GIPSA

Final Rule Stage

7. Clarification of Scope

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Legal Authority: Pub. L. 110-246; 7 U.S.C. 181 to 229c
    CFR Citation: 9 CFR 201.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: In June of 2010, GIPSA published a proposal to amend 
section 201.3 of the regulations issued under the Packers and 
Stockyards Act (P&S Act), 1921, as amended. This proposed change 
responds to guidance from the courts. The courts, in addressing 
litigation brought by poultry growers alleging harm, have said that 
GIPSA's statements regarding the appropriate application of subsections 
202(a) and 202(b) are not entitled to deference in the absence of 
regulation addressing whether the P&S Act prohibits all unfair 
practices, or only those causing harm or a likelihood of harm to 
competition. The amendment to 201.3 will establish GIPSA's 
interpretation of the statute which will then be entitled to judicial 
deference.
    Statement of Need: This rulemaking will clarify the long held 
position of the Department of Agriculture that it is not necessary in 
all cases to demonstrate harm or likely harm to competition in order to 
establish a violation of either Section 202(a) or (b) of the P&S Act. 
Several U.S. Courts of Appeals have held that it was necessary for 
plaintiffs to prove harm or likely harm to competition in cases 
alleging unfair practices in violation of the P&S Act. The 2008 Farm 
Bill directed the Secretary of Agriculture to establish criteria that 
the Secretary will consider in determining whether a live poultry 
dealer has provided reasonable notice to poultry growers of any 
suspension of the delivery of birds under a poultry growing 
arrangement; when a requirement of additional capital investments over 
the life of a poultry growing arrangement or swine production contract 
constitutes a violation of the P&S Act; and if a live poultry dealer or 
swine contractor has provided a reasonable period of time for a poultry 
grower or a swine production contract grower to remedy a breach of 
contract that could lead to termination of the poultry growing 
arrangement or swine production contract. GIPSA published final rules 
establishing the required criteria in December 2011. However, to link 
the regulatory criteria and a violation of the P&S Act, requires the 
interpretation that it is not necessary to show harm to competition in 
order to prove that a packer, swine contractor, or live poultry dealer 
has committed an unfair practice in violation of the P&S Act.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Section 407 of the P&S Act provides that 
[t]he Secretary may make such rules, regulations, and orders as may be 
necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act. This rule is 
necessary to carry out the provisions of section 202(a) and (b) of the 
P&S Act.
    Alternatives: GIPSA considered three regulatory alternatives: 
Maintain the status quo and not issue the regulation; issuing 
regulation as an interim final regulation; and issuing the regulation 
as an interim final regulation but exempting small businesses.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: GIPSA estimates the costs to be 
greater than $100 million annually. GIPSA was unable to quantify the 
benefits of the regulation. However, the primary benefit of regulation 
201.3 is the increased ability to protect producers and growers through 
enforcement of the P&S Act for violations of section 202(a) and/or (b) 
that do not result in harm or the likelihood of harm to competition.
    Risks: The risk addressed by this rulemaking is the present 
uncertainty that limits enforcement of section 202(a) or (b) of the P&S 
Act. The clarification provided by this rulemaking will allow the 
linkage of the regulatory criteria to a violation of the P&S Act, which 
is a substantial portion of the GIPSA Packers and Stockyards Program's 
mission.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   06/22/10  75 FR 35338
NPRM Comment Period End.............   11/22/10  .......................
Interim Final Rule..................   12/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 94517]]

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Raymond Dexter Thomas II, Lead Regulatory Analyst, 
Department of Agriculture, Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards 
Administration, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room 2530-South, 
Washington, DC 20250, Phone: 202 720-6529, Fax: 202 690-2173, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 0580-AB25

USDA--FOOD AND NUTRITION SERVICE (FNS)

Final Rule Stage

8. Eligibility, Certification, and Employment and Training Provisions

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Legal Authority: Pub. L. 110-246; Pub. L. 104-121
    CFR Citation: 7 CFR 273.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This final rule amends the regulations governing the 
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to codify provisions 
from the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-246) 
(FCEA) concerning the eligibility and certification of SNAP applicants 
and participants and SNAP employment and training.
    Statement of Need: This rule amends the regulations governing SNAP 
to implement provisions from the FCEA concerning the eligibility and 
certification of SNAP applicants and participants and SNAP employment 
and training. In addition, this rule revises the SNAP regulations 
throughout 7 CFR part 273 to change the program name from the Food 
Stamp Program to SNAP and to make other nomenclature changes as 
mandated by the FCEA. The statutory effective date of these provisions 
was October 1, 2008. The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) is also 
implementing two discretionary revisions to SNAP regulations to provide 
State agencies options that are available currently only through 
waivers. These provisions allow State agencies to average student work 
hours and to provide telephone interviews in lieu of face-to-face 
interviews. FNS anticipates that this rule will impact the associated 
paperwork burdens.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 
(Pub. L. 110-246).
    Alternatives: Most aspects of the rule are non-discretionary and 
tied to specific requirements for SNAP in the FCEA, and others were new 
program options the FCEA created that State agencies may include in 
their administration of the program. FNS did consider alternatives 
within these mandatory and optional FCEA provisions addressed in the 
rule. For example, under the new optional provision implementing 
section 4119 of the FCEA, Telephonic Signature Systems, FNS considered 
what specific conditions must be satisfied for a signature to be 
considered a spoken signature.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The proposed rule estimated total 
SNAP costs to the Government of the FCEA provisions proposed in the 
rule to be $831 million in fiscal 2010 and $5.619 billion over the five 
years of fiscal year 2010 through fiscal year 2014. The final rule will 
present a revised cost analysis. There are many potential societal 
benefits of this rule, including that certain provisions in the rule 
will reduce the administrative burden for households and State 
agencies.
    Risks: The statutory and discretionary changes under consideration 
would streamline program operations. The changes are expected to reduce 
the risk of inefficient operations.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   05/04/11  76 FR 25414
NPRM Comment Period End.............   07/05/11  .......................
Final Action........................   11/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Government Levels Affected: Local, State.
    Agency Contact: Charles H. Watford, Regulatory Review Specialist, 
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, 3101 Park Center 
Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302, Phone: 703 605-0800, Email: 
[email protected].
    Lynnette M. Thomas, Chief, Planning and Regulatory Affairs Branch, 
Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, 3101 Park Center 
Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302, Phone: 703 605-4782, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 0584-AD87

USDA--FNS

9. 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.
    Legal Authority: Pub. L. 111-296
    CFR Citation: 7 CFR 210; 7 CFR 220.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This rule codifies a provision of the Healthy, Hunger-
Free Kids Act (Pub. L. 111-296; the Act) under 7 CFR parts 210 and 220. 
Section 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 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.

[[Page 94518]]

    Alternatives: Several alternatives were considered in the proposed 
rule that were not incorporated into the final rule. Alternatives 
included different options for the treatment of entrees and side dishes 
that are served as part of a reimburseable meal, options for 
establishing limits on the frequency of exempt fundraisers, options for 
public comment on lower-calorie beverages for high school students, and 
an option that considered prohibiting the sale of beverages with added 
caffeine to high school students.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Expected Costs Analysis and 
Budgetary Effects Statement: We expect 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 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 & Interim Final Rule..........   07/29/16  81 FR 50131
Final Action........................   03/00/17  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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: 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-AE09

USDA--FNS

10. 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: The final rule will address the criteria used to 
authorize retail food stores for redemption of SNAP benefits.
    Statement of Need: The Agricultural Act 2014 (2014 Farm Bill) 
amended the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 to increase the required 
amount of food that certain SNAP authorized retail food stores have 
available on a continual basis from at least three varieties of items 
in each of four staple food categories to a mandatory minimum of seven 
varieties. The 2014 Farm Bill also amended the Act to increase the 
minimum number of categories in which perishable foods are required 
from two to three. This rule codifies these mandatory requirements. 
Further, the rulemaking addresses depth of stock, redefines staple and 
accessory foods, and amends 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) 
prohibits 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: Alternative approaches to several discretionary 
provisions are being considered based on commenter feedback on the 
proposed rule.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The 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................................   02/17/16  81 FR 8015
NPRM Comment Period End.............   05/18/16  .......................
Final Action........................   11/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

11. 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.
    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 the SNAP Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) card 
contain a photo of one or more household members. The final 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.

[[Page 94519]]

    Summary of Legal Basis: The Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, 7 
U.S.C. 2011 et seq., 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: The final rule would mostly codify guidance issued in 
December 2014. The Department considered not issuing any regulation on 
photo EBT cards.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The changes 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.
    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: This rule will promulgate and expand on current program 
guidance 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................................   01/06/16  81 FR 398
NPRM Comment Period End.............   03/07/16  .......................
Final Action........................   12/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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--FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE (FSIS)

Proposed Rule Stage

12. Revision of the Nutrition Facts Panels for Meat and Poultry 
Products and Updating Certain Reference Amounts Customarily Consumed

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 601 et 
seq.); Poultry Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 451 et seq.)
    CFR Citation: 9 CFR 317; 9 CFR 381; 9 CFR 413.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: Consistent with the recent changes that the Food and Drug 
Administration (FDA) finalized, the Food Safety and Inspection Service 
(FSIS) is proposing to amend the Federal meat and poultry products 
inspection regulations to update and revise the nutrition labeling 
requirements for meat and poultry products to reflect recent scientific 
research and dietary recommendations and to improve the presentation of 
nutrition information to assist consumers in maintaining healthy 
dietary practices. FSIS is proposing to (1) update the list of 
nutrients that are required or permitted to be declared; (2) provide 
updated Daily Reference Values (DRV) and Reference Daily Intake (RDI) 
values that are based on current dietary recommendations from consensus 
reports; and (3) amend the requirements for foods represented or 
purported to be specifically for children under the age of four years 
and pregnant and lactating women and establish nutrient reference 
values specifically for these population subgroups. FSIS is also 
proposing to revise the format and appearance of the Nutrition Facts 
Panel; amend the definition of a single-serving container; require 
dual-column labeling for certain containers; and update and modify 
several reference amounts customarily consumed (RACCs or reference 
amounts). FSIS also is proposing to consolidate the nutrition labeling 
regulations for meat and poultry products into a new Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR) part.
    Statement of Need: On May 27, 2016, the Food and Drug 
Administration (FDA) published two final rules: (1) ``Food Labeling: 
Revision of the Nutrition and Supplement Facts Labels'' (81 FR 33742); 
and (2) ``Food Labeling: Serving Sizes of Foods that Can Reasonably be 
Consumed at One Eating Occasion; Dual-Column Labeling; Updating, 
Modifying, and Establishing Certain Reference Amounts Customarily 
Consumed; Serving Size for Breath Mints; and Technical Amendments'' (81 
FR 34000). FDA finalized these rules to update the Nutrition Facts 
label to reflect new nutrition and public health research, to reflect 
recent dietary recommendations from expert groups, and to improve the 
presentation of nutrition information to help consumers make more 
informed choices and maintain healthy dietary practices. FSIS has 
reviewed FDA's analysis and, to ensure that nutrition information is 
presented consistently across the food supply, FSIS will propose to 
amend the nutrition labeling regulations for meat and poultry products 
to parallel, to the extent possible, FDA's regulations. This approach 
will help increase clarity of information to consumers and will improve 
efficiency in the marketplace.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 
601 et seq.) and the Poultry Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 451 et 
seq.).
    Alternatives: FSIS is considering different alternatives for 
presentation of nutrition information on the Nutrition Facts Panel.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: These proposed regulations are 
expected to benefit consumers by increasing and improving dietary 
information available in the market. An estimate of the monetary 
benefits from these market improvements can be obtained by calculating 
the medical cost savings generated by linking information use to 
improved consumer diets. In addition, FSIS believes that the public 
would be better served by having the regulations governing nutrition 
labeling consolidated in one part of title 9. Rather than searching 
through two separate parts of title 9, CFR parts 317 and 381, to find 
the nutrition labeling regulations, interested parties would only have 
to survey one, part 413, to be able to apply nutrition panels to their 
meat and poultry products. The proposed actions would necessitate the 
majority of products to be relabeled. Firms would incur a one-time cost 
for relabeling, recordkeeping costs, and costs associated with 
voluntary reformulation.

[[Page 94520]]

    Risks: None.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   11/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Dr. Daniel L. Engeljohn, Assistant Administrator, 
Office of Policy and Program Development, Department of Agriculture, 
Food Safety and Inspection Service, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., 349-E 
JWB, Washington, DC 20250, Phone: 202 205-0495, Fax: 202 720-2025, 
Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 0583-AD56

USDA--FSIS

13.  Modernization of Swine Slaughter Inspection

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 21 U.S.C. 601 et seq.
    CFR Citation: 9 CFR 301, 309, 310, and 314.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is 
proposing to amend the Federal meat inspection regulations to establish 
a new inspection system for swine slaughter establishments demonstrated 
to provide greater public health protection than the existing 
inspection system. The Agency is also proposing several changes to the 
regulations that would affect all establishments that slaughter swine, 
regardless of the inspection system under which they operate.
    Statement of Need: The proposed action is necessary to improve food 
safety; improve compliance with the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act; 
improve the effectiveness of market hog slaughter inspection; make 
better use of the Agency's resources; and remove unnecessary regulatory 
obstacles to innovation.
    Summary of Legal Basis: 21 U.S.C. 601 et seq.
    Alternatives: The Agency is considering alternatives such as: (1) A 
mandatory New Swine Slaughter Inspection System (NSIS) for market hog 
slaughter establishments and (2) a voluntary NSIS for market hog 
establishments, under which FSIS would conduct the same offline 
inspection activities as traditional inspection.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The estimated total annualized value 
of all mandatory costs to industry is approximately $0.74 million, 
while total annualized value of all voluntary costs to industry is 
approximately $11.66 million, assuming a 10 year annualization and a 3 
percent discount rate. Estimated combined the total annualized costs to 
industry is approximately $12.40 million ($0.77 + $11.66), assuming a 
10 year annualization and a 3 percent discount rate. FSIS estimates 
industry-wide adoption of the NSIS would reduce the number of human 
illness attributed to products derived from market hog by an average of 
about 2,621 Salmonella illnesses, which represents potential savings of 
approximately $9.56 million annually. The Agency's budget is expected 
to be impacted by changes to personnel and training requirements. The 
estimated annualized value of the combined changes to the Agency's 
budget is a net reduction of roughly $8.77 million, over 10 years 
assuming a 3 percent discount rate. With the expected impact on the 
Agency's budget included, and assuming all large and small exclusively 
market hog establishments convert to NSIS, the rule is anticipated to 
have a net benefit of approximately $4.97 million a year, annualized 
over 10 years assuming a 3 percent discount rate.
    Risks: None.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   03/00/17  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Charles Williams, Director, Issuances Staff (IS), 
Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service, Office 
of Policy and Program Development, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room 
6065, South Building, Washington, DC 20250-3700, Phone: 202 720-5627, 
Fax: 202 690-0486, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 0583-AD62

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,

[[Page 94521]]

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 pre-
regulatory or regulatory actions for FY 2017. During the next year, 
NOAA plans to publish five rulemaking actions that are designated as 
Regulatory Plan actions. The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) may 
also publish rulemaking actions designated as Regulatory Plan actions. 
Further information on these actions is provided below.
    Commerce has a long-standing policy to prohibit the issuance of any 
regulation that discriminates on the basis of race, religion, gender, 
or any other suspect category and requires that all regulations be 
written so as to be understandable to those affected by them. The 
Secretary also requires that Commerce afford the public the maximum 
possible opportunity to participate in Departmental rulemakings, even 
where public participation is not required by law.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

    NOAA establishes and administers Federal policy for the 
conservation and management of the Nation's oceanic, coastal, and 
atmospheric resources. It provides a variety of essential environmental 
and climate services vital to public safety and to the Nation's 
economy, such as weather forecasts, drought forecasts, and storm 
warnings. It is a source of objective information on the state of the 
environment. NOAA plays the lead role in achieving Commerce's goal of 
promoting stewardship by providing assessments of the global 
environment.
    Recognizing that economic growth must go hand-in-hand with 
environmental stewardship, Commerce, through NOAA, conducts programs 
designed to provide a better understanding of the connections between 
environmental health, economics, and national security. Commerce's 
emphasis on ``sustainable fisheries'' is designed to boost long-term 
economic growth in a vital sector of the U.S. economy while conserving 
the resources in the public trust and minimizing any economic 
dislocation necessary to ensure long-term economic growth. Commerce is 
where business and environmental interests intersect, and the classic 
debate on the use of natural resources is transformed into a ``win-
win'' situation for the environment and the economy.
    Three of NOAA's major components, the National Marine Fisheries 
Services (NMFS), the National Ocean Service (NOS), and the National 
Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service (NESDIS), 
exercise regulatory authority.
    NMFS oversees the management and conservation of the Nation's 
marine 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 2017, 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.

[[Page 94522]]

    The FMCs provide a forum for public debate and, using the best 
scientific information available, make the judgments needed to 
determine optimum yield on a fishery-by-fishery basis. Optional 
management measures are examined and selected in accordance with the 
national standards set forth in the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This process, 
including the selection of the preferred management measures, 
constitutes the development, in simplified form, of an FMP. The FMP, 
together with draft implementing regulations and supporting 
documentation, is submitted to NMFS for review against the national 
standards set forth in the Magnuson-Stevens Act, in other provisions of 
the Act, and other applicable laws. The same process applies to 
amending an existing approved FMP.
Marine Mammal Protection Act
    The Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (MMPA) provides the 
authority for the conservation and management of marine mammals under 
U.S. jurisdiction. It expressly prohibits, with certain exceptions, the 
take of marine mammals. The MMPA allows NMFS to permit the collection 
of wild animals for scientific research or public display or to enhance 
the survival of a species or stock. NMFS initiates rulemakings under 
the MMPA to establish a management regime to reduce marine mammal 
mortalities and injuries as a result of interactions with fisheries. 
The MMPA also established the Marine Mammal Commission, which makes 
recommendations to the Secretaries of the Departments of Commerce and 
the Interior and other Federal officials on protecting and conserving 
marine mammals. The Act underwent significant changes in 1994 to allow 
for takings incidental to commercial fishing operations, to provide 
certain exemptions for subsistence and scientific uses, and to require 
the preparation of stock assessments for all marine mammal stocks in 
waters under U.S. jurisdiction.
Endangered Species Act
    The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) provides for the 
conservation of species that are determined to be ``endangered'' or 
``threatened,'' and the conservation of the ecosystems on which these 
species depend. The ESA authorizes both NMFS and the Fish and Wildlife 
Service (FWS) to jointly administer the provisions of the ESA. 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 five actions that rise to the level of ``most important'' 
of Commerce's significant regulatory actions and thus are included in 
this year's regulatory plan. A description of the five regulatory plan 
actions is provided below.
    1. 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.
    2. Final Rule to Designate Critical Habitat for the Gulf of Maine, 
New York Bight, and Chesapeake Bay Distinct Population Segments of 
Atlantic Sturgeon (0648-BF28): The National Marine Fisheries Service 
listed four distinct population segments of Atlantic sturgeon as 
endangered--and one distinct population of Atlantic sturgeon as 
threatened--under the Endangered Species Act on February 6, 2012. This 
rule would designate critical habitat for the Gulf of Maine, New York 
Bight, and Chesapeake Bay Distinct Population Segments of Atlantic 
sturgeon.
    3. Final Rule to Designate Critical Habitat for the Carolina and 
South Atlantic Distinct Population Segments of Atlantic Sturgeon (0648-
BF32): The National Marine Fisheries Service listed four distinct 
population segments of Atlantic sturgeon as endangered--and one 
distinct population of Atlantic sturgeon as threatened--under the 
Endangered Species Act on February 6, 2012. This action would designate 
critical habitat for the Carolina and South Atlantic Distinct 
Population Segments of Atlantic sturgeon, both listed as endangered.
    4. Proposed Rule to Designate Critical Habitat for Threatened 
Caribbean Corals (0648-BG20): On September 10, 2014, the National 
Marine Fisheries Service listed 5 corals in the Caribbean as threatened 
under the Endangered Species Act. With this action, the National Marine 
Fisheries Service proposes to designate critical habitat for the 5 
Caribbean corals (Dendrogyra cylindrus, Orbicella annularis, Orbicella 
faveolata, Orbicella franksi, and Mycetophyllia ferox) and revises 
critical habitat for the previously-listed corals Acropora palmata and 
Acropora cervicornis. The proposed designation would cover coral reef 
habitat containing essential features that support reproduction, 
growth, and survival of the listed coral species.
    5. Proposed Rule to Designate Critical Habitat for Threatened Indo-
Pacific Corals (0648-BG26): On September 10, 2014, the National Marine 
Fisheries Service listed 15 species of reef-building corals in the 
Indo-Pacific as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Of the 15 
Indo-Pacific species listed, seven occur in U.S. waters of the Pacific 
Islands Region, including in American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of 
the Mariana Islands, and the Pacific Remote Island Areas. With this 
action, the National Marine Fisheries Service proposes to designate 
critical habitat for the seven species in U.S. waters (Acropora 
globiceps, Acropora jacquelineae, Acropora retusa, Acropora speciosa, 
Euphyllia paradivisa, Isopora crateriformis, and Seriatopora aculeata). 
The proposed designation would cover coral reef habitat containing 
essential features that support reproduction, growth, and survival of 
the listed coral species.

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

[[Page 94523]]

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 2016 
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; Military 
Electronics; Toxicological agents; and Directed energy weapons. During 
fiscal year 2015, BIS published a proposed rule that would add to the 
CCL items related to: Fire control, range finder, optical and guidance 
and control equipment, followed by a second proposed rule in fiscal 
year 2016.
    During fiscal year 2015, BIS initiated a process of evaluating the 
effectiveness of its ECRI efforts by seeking public input on whether 
the regulations are clear; do not inadvertently control, as military 
items, items in normal commercial use; account for technological 
developments; and properly implement the national security and foreign 
policy objectives of the reform effort. The first review addressed the 
first two categories of items added to the CCL by ECRI: Military 
aircraft and gas turbine engines. After reviewing public comments, BIS 
completed this review by publishing a final rule in fiscal year 2016. 
In fiscal year 2016, BIS continued this review process with a notice 
seeking public comment on implementation of ECRI with respect to 
military vehicles, vessels of war, submersible vessels, oceanographic 
equipment, and auxiliary and miscellaneous military equipment. BIS 
anticipates continuing this series of notices after the public has had 
time to develop experience with each regulation that added categories 
of items to the CCL.

[[Page 94524]]

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 has moved 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. 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. The system, however, requires ongoing review and 
maintenance for it to accomplish these objectives. Some technologies 
are modified and become more sensitive or are applied to more sensitive 
uses; others become more commercially available and warrant fewer 
controls. The approach is novel and will require regular refinement to 
further the objective of increasing interoperability with allies and 
reducing unnecessary regulatory burdens.

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 published a rule effective in 
September 2015 that removed the Special Comprehensive License 
provisions from the EAR. These provisions had been rendered obsolete by 
liberalizations to the individual licensing process, and their removal 
not only streamlined the EAR but also achieved paperwork burden 
reductions. More significantly, BIS, working with its colleagues in the 
State Department, substantially updated and revised the key structural 
definitions within the export control regulations. The effort is not 
yet completed and substantial additional work is needed to harmonize, 
update, and simplify the regulatory structure of the existing export 
control system, which has been in place for decades without material 
modification.
    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/2016/04/05/commerce-plan-retrospective-analysis-existing-rules.

DOC--NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION (NOAA)

Proposed Rule Stage

14.  Endangered and Threatened Species; Critical Habitat for 
the Threatened Caribbean Corals

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.
    CFR Citation: 50 CFR 226.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The National Marine Fisheries Service listed five 
Caribbean corals in the Southeast Region as threatened under the 
Endangered Species Act on October 10, 2014. Critical habitat shall be 
specified to the maximum extent prudent and determinable at the time a 
species is proposed for listing. We concluded that critical habitat was 
not determinable for the five corals at the time of listing. However, 
we anticipated that critical habitat would be determinable in the 
future given on-going research. We, therefore, announced in the final 
listing rules that we would propose critical habitat in separate 
rulemakings. This rule proposes to designate critical habitat for the 5 
newly-listed corals and revises critical habitat for the previously-
listed corals Acropora palmata and Acropora cervicornis. A

[[Page 94525]]

separate rule is being prepared that would propose to designate 
critical habitat for the 15 Indo-Pacific corals listed as threatened in 
the same rule as the five Caribbean corals.
    Statement of Need: This action would designate new critical habitat 
for five corals (Dendrogyra cylindrus, Orbicella annularis, O. 
faveolata, O. franksi, and Mycetophyllia ferox) and revise the 2008 
critical habitat designation for two corals (Acropora palmata and A. 
cervicornis) in accordance with section 4 of the Endangered Species 
Act. This action follows from the listing of the five new species.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Endangered Species Act.
    Alternatives: NMFS evaluated alternatives including the impacts of 
designating all and any parts of 38 (one for each species in each US 
jurisdiction in which it occurs) units as critical habitat. Units 1 for 
each species are the waters offshore Florida (generally Martin, Palm 
Beach, Broward, Miami-Dade, and Monroe counties). Units 2 are the 
waters surrounding the islands of Puerto Rico. Units 3 are the waters 
surround the islands of St. Thomas and St. John, US Virgin Islands. 
Units 4 are the waters surrounding the island of St. Croix, US Virgin 
Islands. Units 5 are the waters surrounding the island of Navassa. 
Units 6 are the waters within the Flower Garden Banks National Marine 
Sanctuary, approximately 100 miles offshore of Texas in the Gulf of 
Mexico. NMFS analyzed the economic, national security, and other 
relevant impacts of designating critical habitat. NMFS will further 
consider these impacts based on any relevant public and peer reviewer 
comments regarding this proposed designation.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The primary benefit of designation 
is the protection afforded under section 7 of the Endangered Species 
Act, requiring all Federal agencies to insure their actions are not 
likely to destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat. In 
addition to these protections, the designation may also result in other 
forms of benefits including, but not limited to: Educational awareness 
and outreach benefits, benefits to tourism and recreation, and improved 
or sustained habitat quality. Costs specifically associated with the 
designation of critical habitat stem mainly from Federal agencies 
requirement to consult with NMFS, under section 7 of the Endangered 
Species Act, to insure that any action they carry out, permit 
(authorize), or fund will not result in the destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat of a listed species.
    Risks: If critical habitat is not designated, listed corals will 
not be protected to the extent provided for in the ESA, posing a legal 
risk to the agency and a risk to the species continued existence and 
recovery.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   12/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Donna Wieting, Director, Office of Protected 
Resources, Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West 
Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910, Phone: 301 427-8400
    RIN: 0648-BG20

DOC--NOAA

15.  Designation of Critical Habitat for Threatened Indo-
Pacific Reef-Building Corals

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.
    CFR Citation: 50 CFR 226.
    Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, September 10, 2016, Statutory 
deadline for final critical habitat designation of listed Indo-Pacific 
corals.
    Abstract: On September 10, 2014, the National Marine Fisheries 
Service listed 20 species of reef-building corals as threatened under 
the Endangered Species Act, 15 in the Indo-Pacific and five in the 
Caribbean. Of the 15 Indo-Pacific species, seven occur in U.S. waters 
of the Pacific Islands Region, including in American Samoa, Guam, the 
Commonwealth of the Mariana Islands, and the Pacific Remote Island 
Areas. This proposed rule would designate critical habitat for the 
seven species in U.S. waters (Acropora globiceps, Acropora 
jacquelineae, Acropora retusa, Acropora speciosa, Euphyllia paradivisa, 
Isopora crateriformis, and Seriatopora aculeata). A separate proposed 
rule is being prepared to designate critical habitat for the listed 
Caribbean coral species. The proposed designation would cover coral 
reef habitat around 13 island or atoll units in the Pacific Islands 
Region, including three in American Samoa, one in Guam, seven in the 
Commonwealth of the Mariana Islands, and two in Pacific Remote Island 
Areas, containing essential features that support reproduction, growth, 
and survival of the listed coral species.
    Statement of Need: This action would designate new critical habitat 
for seven corals (Acropora globiceps, Acropora jacquelineae, Acropora 
retusa, Acropora speciosa, Euphyllia paradivisa, Isopora crateriformis, 
and Seriatopora aculeata) in accordance with section 4 of the 
Endangered Species Act. This action follows from the listing of the 
seven new species.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Endangered Species Act.
    Alternatives: NMFS evaluated alternatives including the impacts of 
designating all and any parts of 19 islands within the U.S. 
jurisdictions of American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern 
Mariana Islands, and the Pacific Remote Island Areas as units of 
proposed critical habitat for the seven listed corals, including: (1) 
Tutuila & Offshore Banks; (2) Ofu & Olosega; (3) Ta'u; (4) Rose Atoll; 
(5) Guam & Offshore Banks; (6) Rota; (7) Aguijan; (8) Tinian and 
Tatsumi Reef; (9) Saipan and Garapan Bank; (10) Farallon de Medinilla; 
(11) Anatahan; (12) Pagan; (13) Maug Islands & Supply Reef; (14) 
Howland Island; (15) Palmyra Atoll; (16) Kingman Reef; (17) Johnston 
Atoll; (18) Wake Atoll; and (19) Jarvis Island. NMFS analyzed the 
economic, national security, and other relevant impacts of designating 
critical habitat. NMFS will further consider these impacts based on any 
relevant public and peer reviewer comments regarding this proposed 
designation.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The primary benefit of designation 
is the protection afforded under section 7 of the Endangered Species 
Act, requiring all Federal agencies to insure their actions are not 
likely to destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat. In 
addition to these protections, the designation may also result in other 
forms of benefits including, but not limited to: Educational awareness 
and outreach benefits, benefits to tourism and recreation, and improved 
or sustained habitat quality. Costs specifically associated with the 
designation of critical habitat stem mainly from Federal agencies 
requirement to consult with NMFS, under section 7 of the Endangered 
Species Act, to insure that any action they carry out, permit 
(authorize), or fund will not result in the destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat of a listed species.
    Risks: If critical habitat is not designated, listed corals will 
not be protected to the extent provided for in the ESA, posing a legal 
risk to the

[[Page 94526]]

agency and a risk to the species continued existence and recovery.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   12/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal.
    Agency Contact: Donna Wieting, Director, Office of Protected 
Resources, Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West 
Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910, Phone: 301 427-8400.
    RIN: 0648-BG26

DOC--NOAA

Final Rule Stage

16. Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act; Seafood 
Import Monitoring Program

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1857
    CFR Citation: 50 CFR 300; 50 CFR 600.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: On March 15, 2015, the Presidential Task Force on 
Combating Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated Fishing and Seafood 
Fraud (Task Force), co-chaired by the Departments of Commerce and 
State, published its action plan to implement Task Force 
recommendations for a comprehensive framework of integrated programs to 
combat illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing and seafood fraud. 
The plan identifies actions that will strengthen enforcement, create 
and expand partnerships with state and local governments, industry, and 
non-governmental organizations, and create a traceability program to 
track seafood from harvest to entry into U.S. commerce, including the 
use of existing traceability mechanisms. As part of that plan, the 
National Marine Fisheries Service proposes regulatory changes to 
improve the administration of the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries 
Conservation and Management Act prohibition on the entry into 
interstate or foreign commerce of any fish taken in violation of any 
foreign law or regulation. The rule includes adjustments to permitting 
and reporting requirements to provide for traceability of seafood 
products offered for entry into the U.S. supply chain, and to ensure 
that these products were lawfully acquired and are properly labeled. 
Requirements for an international trade permit and reporting on the 
origin of certain imported or exported fishery products were previously 
established by regulations applicable to a number of specified fishery 
products. This rulemaking would extend those existing permitting and 
reporting requirements to additional fish species and seafood products.
    Statement of Need: The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 
Management Act prohibits the importation and trade in interstate 
commerce of fishery products from fish caught in violation of any 
foreign law or regulation.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 
Management Act.
    Alternatives: An alternative to this rulemaking that would diminish 
the incentives for illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing would be 
through cooperation and assistance programs. While the U.S. has 
developed effective fisheries management and enforcement techniques and 
applied these in many fisheries, there is no guarantee that these 
methods will be widely adopted in foreign fisheries. Technical and 
financial assistance for the development and implementation of 
monitoring, control and surveillance measures would not be precluded by 
this rulemaking, but market access incentives will increase the 
likelihood of action by harvesting nations exporting to the U.S.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Potential benefits of this 
rulemaking include: An incentive for exporting nations to adopt and 
implement fisheries regulatory and enforcement standards, including 
monitoring, control and surveillance measures that are comparable to 
the U.S. as a condition for access to the U.S. seafood market, enhanced 
fisheries conservation for shared and transboundary stocks, especially 
high seas stocks, and a safe and sustainable seafood supply for the 
U.S. market. Anticipated costs include: Increased administrative costs 
to the U.S. government for monitoring U.S. imports and making 
determinations about lawful acquisition of fisheries products; 
increased requests for international cooperation and assistance to 
implement fisheries monitoring, control and surveillance measures. 
Additionally, U.S. importers and fish processors may incur incremental 
costs for recordkeeping and reporting.
    Risks: Prohibiting imports from seafood exporting nations for which 
lawful acquisition cannot be established will diminish the risk of 
further declines in global fisheries stocks that are affected by 
illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing activities.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   02/05/16  81 FR 6210
NPRM Comment Period End.............   04/05/16  .......................
Final Action........................   11/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
    Agency Contact: John Henderschedt, Director, Office for 
International Affairs and Seafood Inspection, Department of Commerce, 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1315 East West 
Highway, Room 10362, Silver Spring, MD 20910, Phone: 301 427-8314, 
Email: [email protected].
    Related RIN: Related to 0648-AX63
    RIN: 0648-BF09

DOC--NOAA

17. Designation of Critical Habitat for the Gulf of Maine, New York 
Bight, and Chesapeake Bay Distinct Population Segments of Atlantic 
Sturgeon

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.
    CFR Citation: 50 CFR 226.
    Legal Deadline: NPRM, Judicial, May 30, 2016, per consent decree 
entered December 3, 2014, and modified by a November 9, 2015, order.
    Following a complaint from the Natural Resources Defense Council 
and Delaware Riverkeeper Network, we agreed to submit this proposed 
rule to the Federal Register by November 30, 2015 for publication.
    Abstract: The National Marine Fisheries Service listed four 
distinct population segments of Atlantic sturgeon as endangered and one 
distinct population of Atlantic sturgeon as threatened under the 
Endangered Species Act on February 6, 2012. This rule would designate 
critical habitat for the Gulf of Maine, New York Bight, and Chesapeake 
Bay Distinct Population Segments of Atlantic sturgeon. A separate rule 
would designate critical habitat for the Carolina and South Atlantic 
distinct population segments of Atlantic sturgeon.
    Statement of Need: The Gulf of Maine, New York Bight, and

[[Page 94527]]

Chesapeake Bay distinct population segments (DPSs) of Atlantic sturgeon 
were listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in February 2012. 
Section 4 of the ESA requires that critical habitat be specified to the 
maximum extent prudent and determinable at the time a species is listed 
(16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(6)(C)). The ESA also requires that we publish final 
critical habitat rules within one year of proposed rules. At the time 
the Atlantic sturgeon DPSs were listed, we were unable to determine 
what areas met the statutory definition of critical habitat. We 
subsequently published a proposed rule to designate critical habitat 
for these DPSs on June 3, 2016. Under an existing court-ordered 
settlement agreement, we are required to publish final critical habitat 
designations by June 3, 2017--one year from the date of publication of 
the proposed rules.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Endangered Species Act and court-ordered 
settlement agreement.
    Alternatives: During the formulation of the final rule, pursuant to 
section 4(b)(2) of the ESA, we will evaluate the impacts of designating 
all and any parts of the proposed critical habitat. We are required to 
analyze the economic, national security, and other relevant impacts of 
designating critical habitat. Through this process, we have discretion 
to exclude areas from the final designation as long as such exclusions 
do not result in the extinction of Atlantic sturgeon DPSs. Based on our 
draft impacts analysis supporting the proposed rule, we did not exclude 
any portions of the proposed critical habitat. We also completed an 
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis and analyzed a no action 
alternative, an alternative in which some of the identified critical 
habitat areas are designated, and an alternative in which all critical 
habitat areas identified for the Gulf of Maine, New York Bight, and 
Chesapeake Bay DPSs of Atlantic sturgeon are designated.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The primary benefit of critical 
habitat designation is the protection afforded under section 7 of the 
ESA, which requires all Federal agencies to insure their actions are 
not likely to destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat. 
In addition to these protections, the designation may also result in 
other forms of benefits including, but not limited to: educational 
awareness and outreach benefits, benefits to tourism and recreation, 
and improved or sustained habitat quality. Costs specifically 
associated with the designation of critical habitat stem mainly from 
the requirement that Federal agencies consult with NMFS, under section 
7 of the ESA, to insure that any action they carry out, permit 
(authorize), or fund will not result in the destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat of a listed species.
    Risks: If critical habitat is not designated, listed Atlantic 
sturgeon will not be protected to the extent provided for in the ESA, 
posing a legal risk to the agency and a risk to the species continued 
existence and recovery.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   06/03/16  81 FR 35701
NPRM Comment Period End.............   09/01/16  .......................
NPRM Comment Period Reopened........   09/29/16  81 FR 66911
Comment Period End..................   10/14/16  .......................
Final Action........................   06/00/17  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State.
    Agency Contact: Donna Wieting, Director, Office of Protected 
Resources, Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West 
Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910, Phone: 301 427-8400.
    RIN: 0648-BF28

DOC--NOAA

18. Designation of Critical Habitat for the Carolina and South Atlantic 
Distinct Population Segments of Atlantic Sturgeon

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.
    CFR Citation: 50 CFR 226.
    Legal Deadline: NPRM, Judicial, May 30, 2016, Per consent decree 
entered December 3, 2014, and modified by a November 9, 2015, order.
    Abstract: The National Marine Fisheries Service listed four 
distinct population segments of Atlantic sturgeon as endangered--and 
one distinct population of Atlantic sturgeon as threatened--under the 
Endangered Species Act on February 6, 2012. This action proposes to 
designate critical habitat for the Carolina and South Atlantic Distinct 
Population Segments of Atlantic sturgeon, both listed as endangered.
    Statement of Need: The Carolina and south Atlantic distinct 
population segments (DPSs) of Atlantic sturgeon were listed under the 
Endangered Species Act (ESA) in February 2012. Section 4 of the ESA 
requires that critical habitat be specified to the maximum extent 
prudent and determinable at the time a species is listed (16 U.S.C. 
1533(b)(6)(C)). The ESA also requires that we publish final critical 
habitat rules within one year of proposed rules. At the time the 
Atlantic sturgeon DPSs were listed, we were unable to determine what 
areas met the statutory definition of critical habitat. We subsequently 
published a proposed rule to designate critical habitat for these DPSs 
on June 3, 2016. Under an existing court-ordered settlement agreement, 
we are required to publish final critical habitat designations by June 
3, 2017--one year from the date of publication of the proposed rules.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Endangered Species Act and court-ordered 
settlement agreement.
    Alternatives: During the formulation of the final rule, pursuant to 
section 4(b)(2) of the ESA, we will evaluate the impacts of designating 
all and any parts of the proposed critical habitat. We are required to 
analyze the economic, national security, and other relevant impacts of 
designating critical habitat. Through this process, we have discretion 
to exclude areas from the final designation as long as such exclusions 
do not result in the extinction of Atlantic sturgeon DPSs. Based on our 
draft impacts analysis supporting the proposed rule, we did not exclude 
any portions of the proposed critical habitat. We also completed an 
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis and analyzed a no action 
alternative, an alternative in which some of the identified critical 
habitat areas are designated, and an alternative in which all critical 
habitat areas identified for the Carolina and south Atlantic DPSs of 
Atlantic sturgeon are designated.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The primary benefit of critical 
habitat designation is the protection afforded under section 7 of the 
ESA, which requires all Federal agencies to insure their actions are 
not likely to destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat. 
In addition to these protections, the designation may also result in 
other forms of benefits including, but not limited to: Educational 
awareness and outreach benefits, benefits to tourism and recreation, 
and improved or sustained habitat quality. Costs specifically 
associated with the designation of critical habitat stem mainly from 
the requirement that Federal agencies consult with NMFS,

[[Page 94528]]

under section 7 of the ESA, to insure that any action they carry out, 
permit (authorize), or fund will not result in the destruction or 
adverse modification of critical habitat of a listed species.
    Risks: If critical habitat is not designated, listed Atlantic 
sturgeon will not be protected to the extent provided for in the ESA, 
posing a legal risk to the agency and a risk to the species continued 
existence and recovery.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   06/03/16  81 FR 36077
Correction..........................   06/28/16  81 FR 41926
NPRM Comment Period End.............   09/01/16  .......................
NPRM Comment Period Reopened........   09/29/16  81 FR 66911
Comment Period End..................   10/14/16  .......................
Final Action........................   06/00/17  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State.
    Agency Contact: Donna Wieting, Director, Office of Protected 
Resources, Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West 
Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910, Phone: 301 427-8400.
    RIN: 0648-BF32

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 1,329,949 military personnel and 878,527 civilians 
assigned as of June 30, 2016, 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, present 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 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 Executive Order 
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 that 
can be significant as defined in Executive Order 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 in a constrained fiscal 
environment. DoD, as a matter of overall priority for its regulatory 
program, fully incorporates the provisions of the President's 
priorities and objectives under Executive Order 12866.
International Regulatory Cooperation
    As the President noted in Executive Order 13609, ``Promoting 
International Regulatory Cooperation'' of May 1, 2012, ``international 
regulatory cooperation, consistent with domestic law and prerogatives 
and U.S. trade policy, can be an important means of promoting'' public 
health, welfare, safety, and our environment as well as economic 
growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation. Accordingly, in 
Executive Order 13609, the President requires each executive agency to 
include in its Regulatory Plan a summary of its international 
regulatory cooperation activities that are reasonably anticipated to 
lead to significant regulations.
    The Department of Defense, along with the 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 Executive Order 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)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0702-AA71..........................  Army Privacy Program

[[Page 94529]]

 
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 (DFARS Case
                                      2014-D025)
0750-AI58..........................  Detection and Avoidance of
                                      Counterfeit Electronic Parts--
                                      Further Implementation (DFARS Case
                                      2014-D005)
0750-AI76..........................  Duty-Free Entry Threshold (DFARS
                                      Case 2015-D036)
0750-AI85..........................  Prohibition on Requiring the Use of
                                      Fire-Resistant Rayon Fiber (DFARS
                                      Case 2016-D012)
0790-AI19..........................  Service Academies
0790-AI42..........................  Personnel Security Program
0790-AI54..........................  Defense Support of Civilian Law
                                      Enforcement Agencies
0790-AI63..........................  Alternative Dispute Resolution
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
0790-AI88..........................  Shelter for the Homeless
0790-AI90..........................  DoD Assistance to Non-Government,
                                      Entertainment-Oriented Media
                                      Productions
0790-AI94..........................  Public Affairs Liaison with
                                      Industry
0790-AI98..........................  Professional U.S. Scouting
                                      Organizations Operating at U.S.
                                      Military Installations Overseas
0790-AJ00..........................  Civilian Employment and
                                      Reemployment Rights of Applicants
                                      for, and Service Members and
                                      Former Service Members of, the
                                      Uniformed Services
0790-AJ03..........................  DoD Privacy Program
0790-AJ06..........................  Voluntary Education Programs
0790-AJ07..........................  Historical Research in the Files of
                                      the Office of the Secretary of
                                      Defense (OSD)
0790-AJ10..........................  Enhancement of Protections on
                                      Consumer Credit for Members of the
                                      Armed Forces and Their Dependents
0790-AJ11..........................  Defense Materiel Disposition
0790-AJ19..........................  Background Checks on Individuals in
                                      DoD Child Care Services Programs
0790-AJ28..........................  National Language Service Corps
                                      (NLSC)
                                     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) rule:
     Network Penetration Reporting and Contracting for Cloud 
Services (DFARS case 2013-D018). This final rule implements section 941 
of the National Defense Authorization Act (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.
    The Department plans to propose the following DFARS rule:
     Use of the Government Property Clause (DFARS Case 2015-
D035). This rule amends the DFARS to expand the prescription for use of 
Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) clause 52.245-1, Government 
Property. This clause requires contractors to comply with basic 
property receipt and record

[[Page 94530]]

keeping requirements in order for the Government to track, report, and 
manage Government-furnished property. Currently, this clause is not 
required for use in purchase orders for repair when the unit 
acquisition cost of Government property to be repaired does not exceed 
the simplified acquisition threshold (SAT). However, acquisition value 
alone is not an indicator of the criticality or sensitivity of 
Government property items. For example, firearms, body armor, night 
vision equipment, computers or crypto-logical devices may individually 
all be below the SAT, but accountability of these items is of vital 
importance. Lack of the use of the Government property clause in these 
instances significantly increases the risk of misuse or loss of 
Government property. In order to strengthen the management and 
accountability of Government-furnished property (GFP), this rule 
proposes to amend the DFARS to require use of the Government property 
clause in these instances, regardless of the acquisition value.
    2. Rulemakings that promote open Government and use disclosure as a 
regulatory tool.
    The Department plans to finalize the following DFARS rule:
     Promoting Voluntary Post-Award Disclosure of Defective 
Pricing (DFARS Case 2015-D030). In response to the Better Buying Power 
2.0 initiative on ``Eliminating Requirements Imposed on Industry where 
Costs Outweigh Benefits,'' contractors recommended that DoD clarify 
policy guidance to reduce repeated submissions of certified cost or 
pricing data. Frequent submissions of such data are used as a defense 
against defective pricing claims by DoD after contract award, since 
data that are frequently updated are less likely to be considered 
outdated or inaccurate and, therefore, defective. Better Buying Power 
3.0 called for a revision of regulatory guidance regarding the 
requirement for contracting officers to request an audit, even if a 
contractor voluntarily discloses defective pricing after contract 
award. This rule amends the DFARS to stipulate that DoD contracting 
officers shall request a limited-scope audit when a contractor 
voluntarily discloses defective pricing after contract award, unless a 
full-scope audit is appropriate for the circumstances.
    3. Rulemakings of particular interest to small businesses.
    The Department plans to propose the following DFARS rules--
     Temporary Extension of Test Program for Comprehensive 
Small Business Subcontracting Plans (DFARS Case 2015-D013). This rule 
amends the DFARS to implement 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 1991 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 will amend the DFARS to: (1) Extend the Test Program through 
December 31, 2017; (2) implement new reporting requirements for program 
participants; (3) require contracting officers to consider an offerors 
failure to make a good faith effort to comply with its CSP in past 
performance evaluations; and (4) establish procedures for the 
assessment of liquidated damages. 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.
     Amendment to Mentor-Prot[eacute]g[eacute] Program (DFARS 
Case 2016-D011). This rule amends the DFARS to implement section 861 of 
the NDAA for FY 2016 (Pub. L. 114-92), which provides amendments to the 
Pilot Mentor-Prot[eacute]g[eacute] Program (``the Program''). 
Specifically, section 861 requires mentor firms participating in the 
Program to report additional information on the assistance they have 
provided to their prot[eacute]g[eacute] firms, the success this 
assistance has had in addressing the prot[eacute]g[eacute] firm's 
developmental needs, the impact on DoD contracts, and any problems 
encountered. The new reporting requirements apply retroactively to 
mentor-prot[eacute]g[eacute] agreements entered into before, on, or 
after the date of enactment of the NDAA for FY 2016 (enacted November 
25, 2015). DoD's OSBP will use the information reported by mentors to 
support decisions regarding continuation of particular mentor-
prot[eacute]g[eacute] agreements. In addition, section 861 adds new 
eligibility criteria for mentor and prot[eacute]g[eacute] firms; limits 
the period of time a prot[eacute]g[eacute] firm can participate in the 
Program; limits the number of mentor-prot[eacute]g[eacute] agreements 
to which a prot[eacute]g[eacute] can be a party; and extends the 
Program for three years. This rule amends DFARS to implement the new 
reporting requirements and other Program amendments.
    The Department plans to reissue the Nationwide Permits--
     Department of the Army (DA) permits are required for 
discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States 
and any structures or other work that affect the course, location, or 
condition of navigable waters of the United States. Small businesses 
proposing to discharge dredged or fill material into waters of the 
United States and/or install structures or do work in navigable waters 
of the United States must obtain DA permits to conduct those 
activities, unless a particular activity is exempt from those permit 
requirements. Individual permits and general permits can be issued by 
the Corps to satisfy the permit requirements of these two statutes. 
Nationwide permits (NWPs) are a form of general permit issued by the 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) that authorize activities that 
have no more than minimal individual and cumulative adverse 
environmental effects. The NWPs provide a streamline authorization 
process for small businesses to fulfill DA permit requirements. 
Nationwide permits can only be issued for a period of no more than five 
years. The issuance and reissuance of NWPs must be done every five 
years to continue the NWP program. Currently, there are 50 NWPs, and 
those NWPs expire on March 18, 2017. In addition to proposing to 
reissue all of the 50 existing NWPs, the Corps is also proposing to 
issue two new NWPs. The Corps plans on issuing the final NWP rule 
before the current NWPs expire so that NWPs will continue to be 
available to small businesses and other regulated entities.
    4. Rulemakings that streamline regulations, reduce unjustified 
burdens, and minimize burdens on small businesses.
    The Department plans to propose the following DFARS rule--
     Pilot Program for Streamlining Awards for Innovative 
Technology Projects (DFARS Case 2016-D016). This rule proposes to amend 
the DFARS to implement section 873 of the NDAA for FY 2016 (Pub. L. 
114-92). Section 873 provides the following exception from certified 
cost and pricing data requirements for contracts, subcontracts, or 
modifications of contracts or subcontracts valued at less than $7.5 
million awarded to a small business or nontraditional defense 
contractor pursuant to a technical, merit-based selection procedure 
(e.g., broad agency announcement) or the Small Business Innovation 
Research (SBIR) Program. In

[[Page 94531]]

addition, section 873 provides an exception from the records 
examination requirement at 10 U.S.C. 2313 for contracts valued at less 
than $7.5 million awarded to a small business or nontraditional defense 
contractor pursuant to a technical, merit-based selection procedure 
(e.g., broad agency announcement) or the SBIR Program. However, section 
873 also provides authority in certain circumstances to determine that 
submission of cost and pricing data or auditing of records should be 
required based on past performance of the specific small business or 
nontraditional defense contractor or analysis of other information 
specific to the award. These exceptions end on October 1, 2020.
    The Department plans to reissue the Nationwide Permits--
     As discussed above, nationwide permits (NWPs) are a form 
of general permit issued by the Corps that authorizes activities that 
require DA authorization and have no more than minimal individual and 
cumulative adverse environmental effects. The Corps plans to reissue 
the 50 existing NWPs and issue two new NWPs. Unlike individual permits, 
NWPs authorize activities without the requirement for public notice and 
comment on each proposed activity, which reduces burdens on small 
businesses and streamlines the authorization process. In FY 2015, the 
Corps issued approximately 31,700 NWP verifications, with an average 
processing time of 41 days. In FY 2015, the Corps issued approximately 
1,700 standard individual permits, with an average processing time of 
211 days. The proposed NWPs were published in the Federal Register on 
June 1, 2016, for a 60-day comment period. The Corps plans on 
finalizing the NWPs before the current NWPs expire on March 18, 2017. 
The costs for obtaining authorization under an NWP are low compared to 
the standard individual permit process, both in terms of financial 
costs and the time it takes to obtain the required authorization.
    5. Rules to be modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed to make 
the agency's regulatory program more effective or less burdensome in 
achieving the regulatory objectives.
    The Department plans to finalize the following DFARS rule--
     Enhancing Independent Research and Development Efforts 
(DFARS Case 2016-D002). This rule will amend the DFARS to improve the 
effectiveness of independent research and development (IR&D) 
investments by the defense industrial base that are reimbursed as 
allowable costs. Specifically, DoD is revising DFARS 231.205-18, 
Independent Research and Development and Bid and Proposal Costs, to 
require that proposed new independent research and development (IR&D) 
efforts be communicated to appropriate DoD personnel prior to the 
initiation of these investments, and that results from these 
investments should also be shared with appropriate DoD personnel. IR&D 
investments need to meet the complementary goals of providing defense 
companies an opportunity to exercise independent judgement on 
investments in promising technologies that will provide a competitive 
advantage, including the creation of intellectual property, while at 
the same time pursuing technologies that may improve the military 
capability of the United States. These efforts can have the best 
payoff, both for DoD and for individual performing companies, when the 
Government is well informed of the investments that companies are 
making, and when companies are well informed about related investments 
being made elsewhere in the Government's research and development 
portfolios and about Government plans for potential future acquisitions 
where this IR&D may be relevant.
    Specific DoD Priorities: For this regulatory plan, there are six 
specific DoD priorities, all of which reflect the established 
regulatory principles. DoD has focused its regulatory resources on the 
most serious 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, personnel benefits, 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, for example: (1) Implementing the new convention to 
construct clauses with alternates in a manner whereby the alternate 
clauses are included in full-text; and (2) removing obsolete reporting 
or other requirements imposed on contractors. Such improvements ensure 
that contracting officers, contractors, and offerors have a clear 
understanding of the rules for doing business with the Department.
     Obtain early engagement with industry on procurement 
topics of high public interest by, for example: (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) updating certain evaluation thresholds 
based on the consumer price index; (2) allowing contractors to display 
one DoD Inspector General hotline poster instead of three; and (3) 
revising the DD Form 1547, Record of Weighted Guidelines, to provide a 
more transparent means of documenting costs incurred during the 
undefinitized period of an undefinitized contract action.

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

[[Page 94532]]

care plan, refining and enhancing both benefits and programs in a 
manner consistent with the law, industry 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 rules--
     Final Rule: Civilian Health and Medical Program of the 
Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS)/TRICARE: Refills of Maintenance 
Medications Through Military Treatment Facility Pharmacies or National 
Mail Order Pharmacy Program. This final rule implements Section 702(c) 
of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 which states that beginning 
October 1, 2015; the pharmacy benefits program shall require eligible 
covered beneficiaries generally to refill non-generic prescription 
maintenance medications through military treatment facility pharmacies 
or the national mail-order pharmacy program. Section 702(c) of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 also terminates 
the TRICARE For Life Pilot Program on September 30, 2015. The TRICARE 
For Life Pilot Program described in Section 716(f) of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, was a pilot program 
which began in March 2014 requiring TRICARE For Life beneficiaries to 
refill non-generic prescription maintenance medications through 
military treatment facility pharmacies or the national mail-order 
pharmacy program. TRICARE for Life beneficiaries are those enrolled in 
the Medicare wraparound coverage option of the TRICARE program. This 
rule includes procedures to assist beneficiaries in transferring 
covered prescriptions to the mail order pharmacy program. This rule has 
been identified as an economically significant rule. DoD anticipates 
publishing the final rule in the first quarter of FY 2017.
     Final Rule: TRICARE; Reimbursement of Long Term Care 
Hospitals and Inpatient Rehabilitation Facilities. The Department of 
Defense, Defense Health Agency, is revising its reimbursement of Long 
Term Care Hospitals (LTCHs) and Inpatient Rehabilitation Facilities 
(IRFs). Revisions are in accordance with the statutory provision at 
title 10, United States Code (U.S.C.), section 1079(i)(2) that requires 
TRICARE payment methods for institutional care be determined, to the 
extent practicable, in accordance with the same reimbursement rules as 
apply to payments to providers of services of the same type under 
Medicare. 32 CFR 199.2 includes a definition for ``Hospital, long-term 
(tuberculosis, chronic care, or rehabilitation).'' This rule deletes 
this definition and creates separate definitions for ``Long Term Care 
Hospital'' and ``Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility'' in accordance with 
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) classification 
criteria. Under TRICARE, LTCHs and IRFs (both freestanding 
rehabilitation hospitals and rehabilitation hospital units) are 
currently paid the lower of a negotiated rate (if they are a network 
provider) or billed charges (if they are a non-network provider). 
Although Medicare's reimbursement methods for LTCHs and IRFs are 
different, it is prudent to adopt both the Medicare LTCH and IRF 
Prospective Payment System (PPS) methods simultaneously to align with 
our statutory requirement to reimburse like Medicare. This rule sets 
forth the proposed regulation modifications necessary for TRICARE to 
adopt Medicare's LTCH and IRF Prospective Payment Systems and rates 
applicable for inpatient services provided by LTCHs and IRFs to TRICARE 
beneficiaries. This rule has been identified as an economically 
significant rule. DoD anticipates publishing the final rule in the 
third quarter of FY 2017.

3. Personnel and Readiness, Department of Defense

    The Department of Defense plans to publish the following rules--
     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 final rule in the third quarter of FY 2017.
     Final Rule: 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 reports, 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 final rule in the third quarter of FY 2017.
     Final Rule: Identification (ID) Cards for Members of the 
Uniformed Services, Their Dependents, and Other Eligible Individuals. 
Among the Obama Administration regulatory priorities are rules which 
extend fairness and tolerance to all Americans. The Department of 
Defense (DoD) previously published an interim final rule that extended 
benefits to all eligible dependents of uniformed Service members and 
eligible DoD civilians. It was necessary to publish an amended interim 
final rule to ensure the issuance of ID cards and extension of benefits 
aligns with current Federal and DoD policy, and to include an 
additional implementing manual addressing eligibility documentation 
requirements. The final rule incorporates all comments received during 
the public comment process that were adjudicated by the Department as 
necessary changes to the rule. DoD anticipates publishing the final 
rule in the third quarter of FY 2017.

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. The DoD-DIB CS Activities regulation mandates 
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. This interim final rule will 
modify eligibility criteria to permit greater participation in the 
voluntary DoD-DIB CS information sharing program. Expanding 
participation in the DoD-DIB CS information sharing program is part of 
DoD's comprehensive approach to counter cyber threats through 
information sharing between the Government and DIB participants. The

[[Page 94533]]

DoD-DIB CS information sharing program allows eligible DIB participants 
to receive Government furnished information (GFI) and cyber threat 
information from other DIB participants, thereby providing greater 
insights into adversarial activity targeting the DIB. DoD anticipates 
publishing the interim final rule in the third quarter of FY 2017.

DOD--OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (OS)

Final Rule Stage

19. Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Program Procedures

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: Pub. L. 112-239; Pub. L. 113-66; Pub. L. 113-291; 
Pub. L. 114-92
    CFR Citation: 32 CFR 105.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This rule will provide sexual assault victims the ability 
to get a fresh start through an Expedited Transfer policy aimed at 
removing the stigma associated with victimization. It will also allow 
sexual assault victims to be notified of the protections and support 
that come with individual legal representation as they navigate the 
criminal justice process. With this rule Reserve Component and National 
Guard members who are victims of sexual assault would receive the same 
SAPR advocacy regardless of when the sexual assault incident occurred, 
similar to the advocate support afforded their active duty 
counterparts. The goal of this rule is to ensure victims of sexual 
assault receive improved victim advocacy support, quality health care 
service, appropriate and sensitive command involvement, individualized 
legal support, and a military culture better informed on the issue of 
sexual assault. This rule establishes the SAFE Helpline as the sole DoD 
hotline for crisis intervention; establishes requirements for a sexual 
assault victim safety assessment and the execution of a high-risk team 
to monitor cases where the sexual assault victim's life and safety may 
be in jeopardy; and incorporates several requirements of the National 
Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) relating to sexual assault in the 
military.
    Statement of Need: Issue this part to:
    (1) Implement 32 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 103 and assign 
responsibilities and provide guidance and procedures for the SAPR 
Program;
    (2) Establish SAPR minimum program standards, SAPR training 
requirements, and SAPR requirements for the Department of Defense (DoD) 
Annual Report on Sexual Assault in the Military; and consistent with 
title 10, United States Code (Reference (d)) the DoD Task Force Report 
on Care for Victims of Sexual Assault (Reference (e)) and pursuant to 
References (b) and (c), and Public Law 106-65, 108-375, 109-163, 109-
364, 110-417, 111-84, 111-383, 112-81, 112-239, 113-66, 113-291, and 
114-92;
    (3) Provide of the preemption of state and local laws mandating 
reporting of an adult sexual assault incident;
    (4) Protect from retaliation, coercion, and reprisal due to 
reporting a sexual assault;
    (5) Provide for individualized legal representation from a Special 
Victims' Counsel (SVC) or Victims' Legal Counsel (VLC);
    (6) Provide for the opportunity to request an Expedited Transfer as 
a means to getting a fresh start to support victim recovery;
    (7) Establish the multidisciplinary Case Management Group as the 
oversight body of an Unrestricted sexual assault report.
    Summary of Legal Basis: This regulation is pursued under the 
authorities of all applicable congressional mandates from section 113 
of title 10, United States Code (U.S.C.), and Public Law 106-65, 108-
375, 109-163, 109-364, 110-417, 111-84, 112-81, 113-66; 113-291, 114-
92.
    Alternatives: The DoD will not have current guidance relating to 
the provisions of law enacted by Congress critical to the 
implementation of sexual assault prevention and response (SAPR), SAPR 
training standards, victim support, and reporting procedures.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Fiscal year 2016 estimate of the 
anticipated cost associated with this rule is approximately $15 
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. These costs are less 
than those of other alternative benefits and 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 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 for persons covered in this part.
    (4) Creating Command sexual assault awareness and prevention 
programs and DoD law enforcement procedures that enable persons to be 
held appropriately accountable for their actions.
    (5) Standardized SAPR requirements, terminology, guidelines, 
protocols, and guidelines for training materials focus on awareness, 
prevention, and response at all levels, as appropriate.
    (6) Requiring Sexual Assault Response Coordinators (SARC), SAPR 
Victim Advocates (VA), and other responders to assist sexual assault 
victims regardless of Service affiliation.
    (7) Procedures for informing victims at the time of making the 
report, or as soon as practicable, of the option to request a temporary 
or permanent expedited transfer from their assigned command or 
installation, or to a different location within their assigned command 
or installation, in accordance with the procedures for commanders in 
105.9 of this part.
    (8) Protections from reprisal, or threat of reprisal, for filing a 
report of sexual assault.
    (9) Reporting options for Service members and military dependents 
18 years and older who have been sexually assaulted.
    (10) Providing support to an active duty Military Service member 
regardless of when or where the sexual assault took place.
    (11) Establishing 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) Requiring Military Departments to establish procedures for 
supporting

[[Page 94534]]

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) Directing 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 1726 of NDAA FY 
14.
    (15) Providing for the Preemption of state and local laws requiring 
disclosure of personally identifiable information of the service member 
(or adult military dependent) victim or alleged perpetrator to state or 
local law enforcement agencies, unless such reporting is necessary to 
prevent or mitigate a serious and imminent threat to the health and 
safety of an individual, as determined by an authorized Department of 
Defense official.
    Risks: The degree of risk to Service member is that sexual assault 
victims will not be able to access support services or understand the 
availability of resources to assist them, such as: the opportunity to 
receive an Expedited Transfer as a means to getting a fresh start to 
support recovery; inability to request a Restricted Report in mandatory 
reporting jurisdiction; and failure to capture and preserve forensic 
evidence associated with sexual assault cases.
    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..................   11/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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: Diana Rangoussis, Department of Defense, Office of 
the Secretary, Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301, Phone: 703 696-
9422.
    RIN: 0790-AI36

DOD--OS

20. Identification (ID) Cards for Members of the Uniformed Services, 
Their Dependents, and Other Eligible Individuals (Adding Subpart D)

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 10 U.S.C. 1061; 10 U.S.C. 1062; 10 U.S.C. 1063; 10 
U.S.C. 1064; 10 U.S.C. 1072; 10 U.S.C. 1073; 10 U.S.C. 1074; 10 U.S.C. 
1074(a); 10 U.S.C. 1074(b); 10 U.S.C. 1074(c); 10 U.S.C. 1076; 10 
U.S.C. 1076(a); 10 U.S.C. 1077; 10 U.S.C. 1095(k)(2); 18 U.S.C. 499; 18 
U.S.C. 506; 18 U.S.C. 509; 18 U.S.C. 701; 18 U.S.C. 1001
    CFR Citation: 32 CFR 161.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: Among the Obama Administration regulatory priorities are 
rules which extend fairness and tolerance to all Americans. The 
Department of Defense (DoD) previously published an interim final rule 
that establishes policy, assigns responsibilities, and provides 
procedures for the issuing of distinct DoD ID cards. The ID cards are 
issued to uniformed service members, their dependents, and other 
eligible individuals and are used as proof of identity and DoD 
affiliation, and facilitate the extension of DoD benefits. The interim 
final rule extended benefits to all eligible dependents of Uniformed 
Service members and eligible DoD civilians. It was necessary to amend 
the interim final rule to ensure the issuance of ID cards and extension 
of benefits aligns with current Federal and DoD policy, and to include 
an additional implementing manual addressing eligibility documentation 
requirements. 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: Many changes have occurred since DoD previously 
issued ID card policy in 1997 that require regulation and policy to be 
updated, which include but are not limited to Obama administration 
priorities of extending fairness and tolerance to all Americans. 
Supreme Court decisions within the last five years, required DoD to 
ensure that ID card policy was inclusive of same-sex spouse and 
transgender retiree and dependent populations. Additionally, the length 
of the previous document combined with additional information necessary 
to make the document current, required separation into an overarching 
instruction with supporting subject matter specific manuals.
    Summary of Legal Basis: This regulation is pursued under the 
authorities of title 5, title 10 and title 18 U.S.C.
    Alternatives: DoD does not have any alternatives to address the 
issuing of distinct DoD ID cards.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: There are no costs to the public. 
There are no capital or start-up costs associated with the issuance of 
this rule. ID cards cost the Department approximately $28.3 million 
annually.
    Risks: There is no risk to the public.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule..................   10/27/16  81 FR 74874
Interim Final Rule Effective........   10/27/16  .......................
Interim Final Rule Comment Period      12/27/16  .......................
 End.
Final Action........................   05/00/17  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Additional Information: DoD Instruction 1000.13, ``Identification 
(ID) Cards for Members of the Uniformed Services, Their Dependents, and 
Other Eligible Individuals''; DoD Manual 1000.13, Volume 1, ``DoD 
Identification (ID) Cards: ID Card Life-Cycle''; DoD Manual 1000.13, 
Volume 2, ``DoD Identification (ID) Cards: Benefits for Members of the 
Uniformed Services, Their Dependents, and Other Eligible Individuals''; 
DoD Manual 1000.13, Volume 3, ``DoD Identification (ID) Cards: 
Eligibility Documentation Required for Defense Enrollment Eligibility 
(DEERS) Enrollment, Record Management, and ID Card Issuance''
    Agency Contact: Robert Eves, Department of Defense, Office of the 
Secretary, Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301, Phone: 571 372-1956, 
Email: [email protected].
    Related RIN: Related to 0790-AI61
    RIN: 0790-AJ37

DOD--OS

21. Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR) Program

    Priority: Other Significant.

[[Page 94535]]

    Legal Authority: 10 U.S.C. 113; Pub. L. 112-81; Pub. L. 113-66; 
Pub. L. 114-92
    CFR Citation: 32 CFR 103.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This interim final rule establishes that victims of 
sexual assault perpetrated by a spouse or intimate partner, or military 
dependent under the age of 18 is a Family Advocate Program (FAP) matter 
and does not fall within the SAPR program. However to ensure FAP 
involvement, this interim final rule requires the installation SARC and 
installation FAP to coordinate together when a sexual assault occurs as 
a result of domestic violence or involves child abuse. The rule 
requires sexual assault victims be informed of the availability of 
legal assistance and the right to consult with a Special Victims' 
Counsel and Victims' Legal Counsel and gives military members who are 
sexually assaulted the ability to request an Expedited Transfer as a 
means to getting a fresh start'' while escaping the stigma associated 
with sexual assault. Finally, the rule mandates the establishment and 
implementation of a SAPR program within National Guard Bureau. The 
Department of Defense is publishing this rule as interim to maintain 
and enhance the current SAPR program which elucidates the prevention, 
response, and oversight of sexual assaults involving members of the 
U.S. Armed Forces and Reserve Component, to include the National Guard.
    Statement of Need: The purpose of this rule is to:
    (1) Establish and implement a complete SAPR program which focuses 
on prevention, training, and response to sexual assaults involving 
members of the U.S. Armed Forces.
    (2) 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.
    (3) Focus on the victim and on doing what is necessary and 
appropriate to support victim recovery.
    (4) Establish SAPR minimum program standards to include training 
requirements, oversight responsibilities, data collection, and reports.
    Summary of Legal Basis: This regulation is established pursuant to 
all applicable congressional mandates from section 113 of title 10, 
United States Code (U.S.C.), and Public Laws 106-65, 108-375, 109-163, 
109-364, 110-417, 111-84, 112-81, 113-66.
    Alternatives: The DoD will not have current guidance relating to 
the implementation of the provisions of law enacted by Congress 
critical to sexual assault prevention and response (SAPR), SAPR 
training standards, victim support, and reporting procedures.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Fiscal Year 2015 Operation and 
Maintenance funding for DoD SAPRO was $24.3 million with an additional 
Congressional allocation of $25.0 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. These 
costs are less than those of other alternative benefits and 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.
    (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 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 does not intend physical or mental harm to 
individuals of the public. The rule intends to enable military 
readiness by establishing a culture free of sexual assault. Sexual 
assault poses a serious threat to military readiness because the 
potential costs and consequences are extremely high: chronic 
psychological consequences may include depression, post-traumatic 
stress disorder, and substance abuse. In the U.S. Armed Forces, sexual 
assault not only degrades individual resilience but also may erode unit 
integrity. An effective fighting force cannot tolerate sexual assault 
within its ranks. Sexual assault is incompatible with military culture 
and mission readiness, and the risks to mission accomplishments are 
unbearable. This rule aims to mitigate this risk to mission readiness.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule..................   11/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Final Rule Stage

22. TRICARE; Reimbursement of Long Term Care Hospitals and Inpatient 
Rehabilitation Facilities

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Legal Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 10 U.S.C. ch 55
    CFR Citation: 32 CFR 199.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Department of Defense, Defense Health Agency, is 
proposing to revise its reimbursement of Long Term Care Hospitals 
(LTCHs) and Inpatient Rehabilitation Facilities (IRFs). Proposed 
revisions are in accordance with the statutory provision at title 10, 
United States Code (U.S.C.), section 1079(i)(2) that requires TRICARE 
payment methods for institutional care be determined, to the extent 
practicable, in accordance with the same reimbursement rules as apply 
to payments to providers of services of the same type under Medicare. 
32 CFR 199.2 includes a definition for ``Hospital, long-term 
(tuberculosis, chronic care, or rehabilitation).'' This rule proposes 
to delete this definition and create separate definitions for ``Long 
Term Care Hospital'' and ``Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility'' in 
accordance with Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) 
classification criteria. Under TRICARE, LTCHs and IRFs (both 
freestanding

[[Page 94536]]

rehabilitation hospitals and rehabilitation hospital units) are 
currently paid the lower of a negotiated rate (if they are a network 
provider) or billed charges (if they are a non-network provider). 
Although Medicare's reimbursement methods for LTCHs and IRFs are 
different, it is prudent to propose adopting both the Medicare LTCH and 
IRF Prospective Payment System (PPS) methods simultaneously to align 
with our statutory requirement to reimburse like Medicare.This proposed 
rule sets forth the proposed regulation modifications necessary for 
TRICARE to adopt Medicare's LTCH and IRF Prospective Payment Systems 
and rates applicable for inpatient services provided by LTCHs and IRFs 
to TRICARE beneficiaries. 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: The rule is necessary to meet the statutory 
provision to use Medicare reimbursement rules to the extent 
practicable.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Congress established enabling legislation 
under section 707 of the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal 
Year 2002 (NDAA-02), Public Law 107-107 (Dec. 28, 2001) changing the 
statutory authorization in 10 U.S.C. 1079 (j)(2) that TRICARE payment 
methods for institutional care shall be determined to the extent 
practicable, in accordance with the same reimbursement rules used by 
Medicare.
    Alternatives: This rule implements statutorily required provisions 
for adoption and implementation of Medicare institutional reimbursement 
rules which are consistent with well established congressional 
objectives. No other alternative is applicable.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: It is projected that implementation 
of this rule in Fiscal Year (FY) 17 will result in a health care 
savings of $77 million for LTCHs and $53 million for IRFs.
    Risks: The rule implements statutorily required provisions for 
adoption and implementation of Medicare institutional reimbursement 
systems which are consistent with well established Congressional 
objectives. No risk to the public is applicable.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   01/26/15  80 FR 3926
NPRM Comment Period End.............   03/27/15  .......................
Second NPRM.........................   08/31/16  81 FR 59934
Second NPRM Comment Period End......   10/31/16  .......................
Final Action........................   06/00/17  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal.
    Agency Contact: Ann N. Fazzini, Department of Defense, Office of 
Assistant Secretary for Health Affairs, 1200 Defense Pentagon, 
Washington, DC 20301, Phone: 303 676-3803.
    RIN: 0720-AB47

DOD--DODOASHA

23. TRICARE: Refills of Maintenance Medications Through Military 
Treatment Facility Pharmacies or National Mail Order Pharmacy Program

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 10 U.S.C. ch 55; 5 U.S.C. 301
    CFR Citation: 32 CFR 199.
    Legal Deadline: Other, Statutory, October 1, 2015, section 702(c) 
of the NDAA 2015. Section 702(c) of the Carl Levin and Howard P. Buck 
McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 states 
that beginning October 1, 2015, the pharmacy benefits program shall 
require eligible covered beneficiaries generally to refill non-generic 
prescription maintenance medications through military treatment 
facility pharmacies or the national mail-order pharmacy program. 
Section 702(c) also terminates the TRICARE For Life Pilot Program on 
September 30, 2015.
    Abstract: This final rule implements section 702(c) of the Carl 
Levin and Howard P. Buck'' McKeon National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2015 which states that beginning October 1, 2015, the 
pharmacy benefits program shall require eligible covered beneficiaries 
generally to refill non-generic prescription maintenance medications 
through military treatment facility pharmacies or the national mail-
order pharmacy program. Section 702(c) of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 also terminates the TRICARE For 
Life Pilot Program on September 30, 2015. The TRICARE For Life Pilot 
Program described in section 716(f) of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, was a pilot program which began 
in March 2014 requiring TRICARE For Life beneficiaries to refill non-
generic prescription maintenance medications through military treatment 
facility pharmacies or the national mail-order pharmacy program. 
TRICARE for Life beneficiaries are those enrolled in the Medicare 
wraparound coverage option of the TRICARE program. This rule includes 
procedures to assist beneficiaries in transferring covered 
prescriptions to the mail order pharmacy program.
    Statement of Need: The DoD interim rule established processes for 
the new program of refills of maintenance medications for all non-
active duty TRICARE beneficiaries through military treatment facility 
pharmacies and the mail order pharmacy program.
    Summary of Legal Basis: This regulation is established under the 
authorities of 5 U.S.C. 301; 10 U.S.C. ch 55; 32 CFR 199.21.
    Alternatives: The rule fulfills a statutory requirement, therefore 
there are no alternatives.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The effect of the statutory 
requirement, implemented by this rule, is to shift a volume of 
prescriptions from retail pharmacies to the most cost-effective point-
of-service venues of military treatment facility pharmacies and the 
mail order pharmacy program. This will produce savings to the 
Department of approximately $88 million per year, and savings to 
beneficiaries of approximately $16.5 million per year in reduced 
copayments. Updated and more in-depth economic data will be provided 
with the final rule.
    Risks: Not finalizing this rule would risk a loss of savings to 
both the Department and beneficiaries. There is no risk to the public.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule..................   08/06/15  80 FR 46796
Interim Final Rule Effective........   08/06/15  .......................
Interim Final Rule Comment Period      10/05/15  .......................
 End.
Final Action........................   11/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: George Jones, Department of Defense, Office of 
Assistant Secretary for Health Affairs, Defense Pentagon, Washington, 
DC 20301, Phone: 703 681-2890.
    RIN: 0720-AB64

BILLING CODE 5001-06-P


[[Page 94537]]



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 2016-2017 school year, about 56 million students will 
attend an estimated 132,000 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. Every Student Succeeds Act

    President Obama signed the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) into 
law on December 10, 2015. ESSA reauthorized the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act of 1965 with provisions aimed at helping to 
ensure success for students and schools. The law:
     Advances equity by upholding critical protections for 
America's disadvantaged and high-need students.
     Requires--for the first time--that all students in America 
be taught to high academic standards that will prepare them to succeed 
in college and careers.
     Ensures that vital information is provided to educators, 
families, students, and communities through annual statewide 
assessments that measure students' progress toward those high 
standards.
     Helps to support and grow local innovations--including 
evidence-based and place-based interventions developed by local leaders 
and educators--consistent with our Investing in Innovation and Promise 
Neighborhoods grant programs.
     Sustains and expands this administration's historic 
investments in increasing access to high-quality preschool.
     Maintains an expectation that there will be accountability 
and action to effect positive change in our lowest-performing schools, 
where groups of students are not making progress, and where graduation 
rates are low over extended periods of time.
    The Department issued two notices of proposed rulemaking (NPRMs) 
that would amend existing regulations pertaining to accountability and 
State plans, and the innovative assessment demonstration authority. We 
also, following the completion of negotiated rulemaking, issued an NPRM 
proposing to amend regulations on academic assessments, and plan to 
publish an NPRM on the supplement not supplant provision in September 
2016. We intend to issue final rules in all of these areas by January 
2017.

B. Higher Education Act of 1965, as Amended

    Congress is currently considering reauthorization of the Higher 
Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA). When enacted, the HEA's 
reauthorization will likely require the Department to promulgate 
conforming regulations. In the meantime, we have identified several 
regulatory activities for Fiscal Year 2017 under the Title IV Federal 
Student Aid programs to improve protections for students and safeguard 
Federal dollars invested in postsecondary education.

C. Perkins Act

    Congress is currently considering reauthorization of the Carl D. 
Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006 (Perkins Act), which 
focuses on increasing the quality of technical education. The 
priorities for reauthorization include:
     Effective alignment with today's labor market, including 
clear expectations for high-quality programs;
     Stronger collaboration among secondary and postsecondary 
institutions, employers, and industry partners;
     Meaningful accountability to improve academic and 
employment outcomes for students; and
     Local and State innovation in CTE, particularly the 
development and replication of innovative CTE models.

[[Page 94538]]

    We anticipate regulatory activity in response to the 
reauthorization of the Perkins Act.

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 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION (OESE)

Final Rule Stage

24. Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965--
Accountability and State Plans

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Legal Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1001, 1111, 1221e-3, 6303, 6311, 6394, 
6601, 6611(d), 6823, 7113(c), 7801, 7842, 7844, 7845, and 8302; 42 
U.S.C. 11432(g)
    CFR Citation: 34 CFR 200.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Secretary will amend the regulations implementing 
programs under title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
1965 (ESEA) to implement changes to the ESEA by the Every Student 
Succeeds Act (ESSA) enacted on December 10, 2015. The Secretary also 
will update the current ESEA general regulations to include the 
requirements for the submission of State plans under ESEA programs, 
including optional consolidated State plans.
    Statement of Need: These regulations are necessary to implement 
changes to the ESEA by the ESSA.
    Summary of Legal Basis: These regulations are necessary to 
implement changes to the ESEA by the ESSA.
    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................................   05/31/16  81 FR 34539
NPRM Comment Period End.............   08/01/16  .......................
Final Action........................   11/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Government Levels Affected: State.
    URL For Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Meredith Miller, Department of Education, Office of 
Elementary and Secondary Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., 3C106, 
Washington, DC 20202, Phone: 202 401-8368, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 1810-AB27

ED--OESE

25.  Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as Amended 
by the Every Student Succeeds Act--Supplement Not Supplant Under Title 
I, Part A

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Legal Authority: 20 U.S.C. 6321(b)
    CFR Citation: 34 CFR 200.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Secretary proposes to establish regulations governing 
programs administered under title I, part A of the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the Every Student 
Succeeds Act (ESSA). These proposed regulations are needed to implement 
recent changes to the supplement not supplant requirement of title I of 
the ESEA made by the ESSA.
    Statement of Need: These proposed regulations are needed to 
implement recent changes to the supplement not supplant requirement of 
title I of the ESEA made by the ESSA.
    Summary of Legal Basis: These proposed regulations are needed to 
implement recent changes to the supplement not supplant requirement of 
title I of the ESEA made by the ESSA.
    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................................   09/16/16  81 FR 61148
NPRM Comment Period End.............   11/07/16  .......................
Final Action........................   12/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: State.
    URL For Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: James Butler, Department of Education, Office of 
Elementary and Secondary Education, Room 3E108, 400 Maryland Avenue 
SW., Washington, DC 20202, Phone: 202 260-2274, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 1810-AB33

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;

[[Page 94539]]

     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 https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/other/2011-regulatory-action-plans/departmentofenergyregulatoryreformplanaugust2011.pdf. DOE has published 
a number of retrospective review update reports that are available at 
http://www.energy.gov/gc/services/open-government/restrospective-regulatory-review.

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 2015, the Department published final rules that adopted new or 
amended energy conservation standards for 13 different products, 
including, commercial air-cooled air conditioners and heat pumps, 
ceiling fan light kits, commercial pre-rinse spray valves, and beverage 
vending machines. The 13 standards finalized in 2015 are estimated to 
reduce carbon dioxide emissions by over 429 million metric tons and 
save American families and businesses $84 billion in electricity bills 
through 2030.
    Since 2009, the Energy Department has finalized new efficiency 
standards for more than 45 household and commercial products, including 
dishwashers, refrigerators and water heaters, which are estimated to 
save consumers $540 billion 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 14 
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 2016 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.

 Walk-In Coolers and Walk-In Freezers (1904-AD59)
 Residential Non-Weatherized Gas Furnaces and Mobile Home Gas 
Furnaces (1904-AD20)
 Commercial Water Heaters (1904-AD34)
 Commercial Packaged Boilers (1904-AD01)
 General Service Fluorescent Lamps (1904-AD09)
 Dedicated Purpose Pool Pumps (1904-AD52)
 Manufactured Housing (1904-AC11)

    For walk-in coolers and freezers, DOE estimates that energy savings 
from electricity will be 0.90 quads over 30 years and the net benefit 
to the Nation will be between $1.8 billion and $4.3 billion. For non-
weatherized gas furnaces and mobile home gas furnaces, DOE estimates 
that energy savings will be 2.78 quads over 30 years and the net 
benefit to the Nation will be between $3.1 billion and $16.1 billion. 
For commercial water heaters, DOE estimates that energy savings for 
combined natural gas and electricity will be 1.8 quads over 30 years 
and the net benefit to the Nation will be between $2.26 billion and 
$6.75 billion. For commercial packaged boilers, DOE estimates that 
energy savings will be 0.349 quads over 30 years and the net benefits 
to the Nation will be between $0,414 billion and $1,687 billion. For 
general service fluorescent lamps, DOE estimates that energy savings 
will be 0.85 quads over 30 years and the net benefit to the nation will 
be between $4.4 billion and $9.1 billion. For manufactured housing, DOE 
estimates that energy savings will be 0.884 quads (Single-section) and 
1.428 quads (Multi-section) over 30 years and the net benefit to the 
Nation will be between $1.26 billion (Single-section) and $2.18 billion 
(Multi-section) and $4.03 billion (Single-section) and $6.75 billion 
(Multi-section). For dedicated purpose pool pumps, DOE has not yet 
proposed candidate standard levels and therefore, 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 
rulemaking for dedicated purpose pool pumps.


[[Page 94540]]



DOE--ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY (EE)

Proposed Rule Stage

26. Energy Conservation Standards for General Service Lamps

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Unfunded Mandates: This action may affect the private sector under 
Public Law 104-4.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A) and (B)
    CFR Citation: 10 CFR 429; 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 (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)-(B)). 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: DOE is directed under EPCA to establish 
standards for GSL's, and that DOE complete the rulemaking by January 1, 
2017.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Amendments to EPCA in the Energy 
Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) directed DOE to conduct 
two rulemaking cycles to evaluate energy conservation standards got 
GSL's (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)-(B)). Furthermore, pursuant to EPCA, any 
new or amended energy conservation standard that the 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 in the statute.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: DOE finds that the benefits to the 
Nation of the proposed energy standards for General Service Lamps 
outweigh the burdens. DOE estimates that energy savings will be .85 
quads over 30 years and the net benefit to the Nation will be between 
$4.4 billion and $9.1 billion.
    Risks:
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Framework Document Availability;       12/09/13  78 FR 73737
 Notice of 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.
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.
Notice of Public Meeting; Webinar...   03/15/16  81 FR 13763
NPRM................................   03/17/16  81 FR 14528
NPRM Comment Period End.............   05/16/16  .......................
Notice of Public Meeting; Webinar...   10/05/16  81 FR 69009
Proposed Definition and Data           10/18/16  81 FR 71794
 Availability.
Proposed Definition and Data           11/08/16  .......................
 Availability Comment Period End.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    International Impacts: This regulatory action will be likely to 
have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise be of 
international interest.
    URL for More Information: 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

27. Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Non-Weatherized Gas 
Furnaces and Mobile Home Gas Furnaces

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Unfunded Mandates: This action may affect the private sector under 
Public Law 104-4.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6295(f)(4)(C); 42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1); 42 
U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)
    CFR Citation: 10 CFR 430.
    Legal Deadline: NPRM, Judicial, April 24, 2015, The later of 4/24/
2016 or one year after the issuance of the proposed rule. Final, 
Judicial, April 24, 2016.
    Abstract: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), as 
amended, prescribes energy conservation standards for various consumer 
products and certain commercial and industrial equipment, including 
residential furnaces. EPCA also requires the DOE to periodically 
determine every six years whether more-stringent amended standards 
would be technologically feasible and economically justified and would 
save a significant amount of energy. DOE is considering amendments to 
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), Public Law 94-163 (42 U.S.C. 6291-
6300, 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

[[Page 94541]]

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 in the statute.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: DOE finds that the benefits to the 
Nation of the proposed energy standards for Residential Non-Weatherized 
Gas Furnaces and Mobile Home Gas Furnaces (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). For non-weatherized gas furnaces 
and mobile home gas furnaces, DOE estimates that energy savings will be 
2.78 quads over 30 years and the net benefit to the Nation will be 
between $3.1 billion and $16.1 billion.
    Risks:
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice of Public Meeting............   10/30/14  79 FR 64517
NPRM and Notice of Public Meeting...   03/12/15  80 FR 13120
NPRM Comment Period Extended........   05/20/15  80 FR 28851
NPRM Comment Period Extended 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....   11/23/15  .......................
Supplemental NPRM and Notice of        09/23/16  81 FR 65720
 Public Meeting.
Supplemental NPRM Comment Period End   11/22/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    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

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

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Unfunded Mandates: This action may affect the private sector under 
Public Law 104-4.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6311; 42 U.S.C. 6313(f)
    CFR Citation: 10 CFR 431.306.
    Legal Deadline: Final, Judicial, Best efforts to complete the 
rulemaking by 12/01/2016.
    Abstract: In 2014, the Department of Energy (DOE) issued a rule 
setting performance-based energy conservation standards for a variety 
of walk-in cooler and freezer (walk-in) components. See 79 FR 32050 
(June 3, 2014). That rule was challenged by a group of walk-in 
refrigeration system manufacturers and walk-in installers, which led to 
a settlement agreement regarding certain refrigeration equipment 
classes addressed in that 2014 rule and certain aspects related to that 
rule's analysis. See Lennox Int'l v. DOE, Case No. 14-60535 (5th Cir. 
2014). Consistent with the settlement agreement, and in accordance with 
the Federal Advisory Committee Act, a working group was established 
under the Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ASRAC) 
to engage in a negotiated rulemaking to develop energy conservation 
standards to replace those that had been vacated by the U.S. Court of 
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. As a result of those negotiations, a 
Term Sheet was produced containing a series of recommendations to ASRAC 
for its approval and submission to DOE for the agency's further 
consideration. Using the Term Sheet's recommendations, DOE is proposing 
to establish energy conservation standards for the six equipment 
classes of walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers that were vacated by 
the Fifth Circuit and remanded to DOE for further action. Those 
standards at issue involve: (1) The two standards applicable to 
multiplex condensing refrigeration systems operating at medium and low 
temperatures; and (2) the four standards applicable to dedicated 
condensing refrigeration systems operating at low temperatures. Also 
consistent with the settlement agreement, DOE will consider any 
comments (including any accompanying data) regarding any potential 
impacts of these six standards on installers. DOE will also consider 
and substantively address any potential impacts of these six standards 
on installers in its Manufacturer Impact Analysis, consistent with its 
regulatory definition of ``manufacturer,'' and, as appropriate, in its 
analysis of impacts on small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act. As part of this rulemaking (and consistent with its obligations 
under the settlement agreement), DOE will provide an opportunity for 
all interested parties to submit comments concerning any proposed 
standards. DOE will use its best efforts to issue a final rule 
establishing the remanded standards by December 1, 2016.
    Statement of Need: DOE is required under 42 U.S.C. 6313(f) to 
establish performance-based energy conservation standards for walk-in 
coolers and freezers. This rulemaking is being conducted to satisfy 
that requirement by setting standards related to certain classes of 
refrigeration systems used in walk-in applications.
    Summary of Legal Basis: This rulemaking is being conducted under 
DOE's authority pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6311, which establishes the 
agency's legal authority over walk-in coolers and freezers as one type 
of covered equipment that DOE may regulate, and 42 U.S.C. 6313(f), 
which requires DOE to conduct a rulemaking to establish performance-
based energy conservation standards for this equipment.
    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

[[Page 94542]]

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 statute.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: DOE finds that the benefits to the 
Nation of the proposed energy standards for walk-in coolers and 
freezers (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 0.90 
quads over 30 years and the net benefit to the Nation will be between 
$1.8 billion to $4.3 billion.
    Risks:
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM and Notice of Public Meeting...   09/13/16  81 FR 62980
NPRM Comment Period End.............   11/14/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    URL for More Information: www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/standards.aspx?productid=56&action=viewlive.
    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-AD59

DOE--EE

Final Rule Stage

29. Energy Conservation Standards for Manufactured Housing

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 17071
    CFR Citation: 10 CFR 460.
    Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, December 19, 2011.
    Abstract: Section 413 of EISA requires that DOE establish energy 
conservation standards for manufactured housing. See 42 U.S.C. 
17071(a)(1). DOE is directed to base the energy efficiency standards on 
the most recent version of the International Energy Conservation Code 
(IECC), except where DOE finds that the IECC is not cost effective, or 
a more stringent standard would be more cost effective, based on the 
impact of the IECC on the purchase price of manufactured housing and on 
total life-cycle construction and operating costs. DOE undertook a 
successful negotiated rulemaking under the Appliance Standards and 
Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee in accordance with the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act and the Negotiated Rulemaking Act to negotiate 
proposed Federal standards for the energy efficiency of manufactured 
homes. As part of the consensus reached, the negotiating group 
recommended that DOE conduct additional analysis to inform the 
selection of solar heat gain coefficient requirements in certain 
climate zones and seek information regarding window fenestration 
pertaining to manufactured housing. A request for information was 
issued on these topics.
    Statement of Need: Section 413 of EISA requires that DOE establish 
energy conservation standards for manufactured housing.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Section 413 of EISA requires that DOE 
establish energy conservation standards for manufactured housing. See 
42 U.S.C. 17071(a)(1).
    Alternatives: DOE is directed to base the energy conservation 
standards on the most recent version of the International Energy 
Conservation Code (IECC), except where DOE finds that the IECC is not 
cost effective, or a more stringent standard would be more cost 
effective, based on the impact of the IECC on the purchase price of 
manufactured housing and on total life-cycle construction and operating 
costs.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: DOE finds that the benefits to the 
Nation of the proposed energy conservation standards for manufactured 
housing outweigh the burdens. For manufactured housing, DOE estimates 
that energy savings will be 0.884 quads (Single-section) and 1.428 
quads (Multi-section) over 30 years and the net benefit to the Nation 
will be between $1.26 billion (Single-section) and $2.18 billion 
(Multi-section) and $4.03 billion (Single-section) and $6.75 billion 
(Multi-section).
    Risks:
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM...............................   02/22/10  75 FR 7556
ANPRM Comment Period End............   03/24/10  .......................
Request for Information.............   06/25/13  78 FR 37995
RFI Comment Period End..............   07/25/13  .......................
Extension of Term; Notice of Public    10/01/14  79 FR 59154
 Meeting.
Request for Information.............   02/11/15  80 FR 7550
RFI Comment Period End..............   03/13/15  .......................
NPRM................................   06/17/16  81 FR 39756
NPRM Comment Period End.............   08/16/16  .......................
Final Action........................   11/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

DOE--EE

30. Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial Packaged Boilers

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Unfunded Mandates: This action may affect the private sector under 
Public Law 104-4.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C); 42 U.S.C. 6311(11)(B)
    CFR Citation: 10 CFR 431.87(B).
    Legal Deadline: NPRM, Statutory, July 22, 2015, Either propose rule 
or determination.
    Abstract: EPCA, as amended by AEMTCA, requires the Secretary to 
determine whether updating the statutory energy conservation standards 
for commercial packaged boilers is technically feasible and 
economically justified and would save a significant amount of energy. 
If justified, the Secretary will issue amended energy conservation 
standards for such equipment.
    Statement of Need: DOE is required to conduct an evaluation of its 
standards for commercial packaged boilers every 6 years and to publish 
either a notice of determination that such standards do not need to be 
amended or a NOPR including proposed amended standards,

[[Page 94543]]

42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(i). This rulemaking fulfills that requirement. 
Accordingly, DOE is proposing amended energy conservation standards for 
commercial packaged boilers.
    Summary of Legal Basis: This rulemaking is being conducted pursuant 
to DOE's authority under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(i).
    Alternatives: The statute requires DOE to conduct rulemakings to 
review standards and to amend 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 statute.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: DOE finds that the benefits to the 
Nation of the proposed energy conservation standards for commercial 
packaged boilers (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 will be 0.39 quads over 30 
years and the net benefits to the Nation will be between $0.414 billion 
and $1.687 billion.
    Risks:
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice of Proposed Determination       08/13/13  78 FR 49202
 (NOPD).
NOPD Comment Period End.............   09/12/13  .......................
Notice of Public Meeting and           09/03/13  78 FR 54197
 Framework Document Availability.
Framework Document Comment Period      10/18/13  .......................
 End.
Notice of Public Meeting and           11/20/14  79 FR 69066
 Preliminary Analysis.
Preliminary Analysis Comment Period    01/20/15  .......................
 End.
Withdrawal of NOPD..................   08/25/15  80 FR 51487
NPRM................................   03/24/16  81 FR 15836
NPRM Comment Period End.............   05/23/16  .......................
NPRM Comment Period Extended........   05/04/16  81 FR 26747
NPRM Comment Period Extended End....   06/22/16  .......................
Final Action........................   12/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    URL for More Information: www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/rulemaking.aspx/ruleid/79.
    Agency Contact: James Raba, Office of Building Technologies 
Program, EE-5B, Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable 
Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585, Phone: 202 
586-8654, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 1904-AD01

DOE--EE

31. Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial Water Heating 
Equipment

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Unfunded Mandates: This action may affect the private sector under 
Public Law 104-4.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 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 under EPCA 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: DOE is required under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C) to 
establish performance-based energy conservation standards for 
commercial water heaters. This rulemaking is being conducted to satisfy 
that requirement by setting standards related to certain classes of 
commercial water heating equipment.
    Summary of Legal Basis: This rulemaking is being conducted under 
DOE's authority pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6311, which establishes the 
agency's legal authority over water heaters as one type of covered 
equipment that DOE may regulate, and 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C), which 
requires DOE to conduct a rulemaking to establish performance-based 
energy conservation Standards for this equipment.
    Alternatives: Under EPCA, DOE shall either establish an amended 
uniform national standard for this equipment at the minimum level 
specified in the amended ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1, unless the Secretary 
determines, by rule published in the Federal Register, and supported by 
clear and convincing evidence, that adoption of a uniform national 
standard more stringent than the amended ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1 for 
this equipment would result in significant additional conservation of 
energy and is technologically feasible and economically justified (42 
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)-(C)).
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: DOE finds that the benefits to the 
Nation of the proposed energy conservation standards for commercial 
water heating equipment outweighs the burdens. DOE estimates that 
energy savings for combined natural gas and electricity will be 1.8 
quads over 30 years and the net benefit to the Nation will be between 
$2.26 billion and $6.75 billion.
    Risks:
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Request for Information (RFI).......   10/21/14  79 FR 62899
RFI Comment Period End..............   11/20/14  .......................
NPRM................................   05/31/16  81 FR 34440
NPRM Comment Period End.............   08/01/16  .......................
NPRM Comment Period Reopened........   08/05/16  81 FR 51812
Comment Period End..................   08/30/16  .......................
Final Action........................   12/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    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].

[[Page 94544]]

    RIN: 1904-AD34

DOE--EE

32. Energy Conservation Standards for Dedicated-Purpose Pool Pumps

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 
is undetermined.
    Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(A)
    CFR Citation: 10 CFR 431.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: Under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, DOE may set 
energy conservation standards for types of pumps, including dedicated-
purpose pool pumps (42 U.S.C. 3211(1)(A)). On August 8, 2015, DOE 
announced its intention to establish a negotiated rulemaking working 
group to negotiate proposed federal standards for dedicated-purpose 
pool pumps. The working group presented a final term sheet to the 
Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ASRAC) on 
December 8, 2015.
    Statement of Need: Under 42 U.S.C. 6311(a), DOE has established 
performance-based energy conservation standards for general-purpose 
pumps and created a separate category for dedicated-purpose pool pumps. 
DOE is now conducting this rulemaking to set energy conservation 
standards for dedicated-purpose pool pumps.
    Summary of Legal Basis: This rulemaking is being conducted under 
DOE's authority pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6311, which establishes the 
agency's legal authority over pumps as one type of covered equipment 
that DOE may regulate, and 42 U.S.C. 6311(a), which allows DOE to 
conduct a rulemaking to establish performance-based energy conservation 
standards for this equipment.
    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 is conducting a full analysis by evaluating a range 
of standard levels to determine whether potential standards for 
dedicated-purpose pool pumps would save energy and whether such 
standards would be technologically feasible and economically justified.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: DOE has not yet proposed candidate 
standard levels for dedicated purpose pool pumps and therefore, cannot 
provide an estimate of combined aggregated 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.
    Risks:
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Request for information (RFI).......   05/08/15  80 FR 26475
RFI Comment Period End..............   06/22/15  .......................
RFI Comment Period Reopened.........   07/02/15  80 FR 38032
RFI Comment Period Reopened End.....   08/17/15  .......................
Notice of Intent to Start Negotiated   08/25/15  80 FR 51483
 Rulemaking Working Group.
Notice of Public Meetings for DPPP     10/15/15  80 FR 61996
 Working Group.
Notice of Public Meetings for DPPP     02/29/16  81 FR 10152
 Working Group.
Notice of Public Meetings for DPPP     04/18/16  81 FR 22548
 Working Group.
Direct Final Rule...................   12/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
    Federalism: Undetermined.
    URL for More Information: www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/standards.aspx?productid=41&action=viewlive.
    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-AD52

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Statement of Regulatory Priorities for Fiscal Year 2017

    As the Federal agency with principal responsibility for protecting 
the health of all Americans and for providing essential human services, 
especially to those least able to help themselves, 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 2017 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 its efficiency and accountability 
includes its innovation agenda, program integrity and key human 
resources initiatives. In particular, the Department plans to issue a 
final regulation revising administrative appeal procedures for Medicare 
claims 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.

Preventing and Reducing Tobacco-Related Death and Disease

    In 2009, Congress enacted the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco 
Control Act, authorizing the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (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 past

[[Page 94545]]

year, FDA finalized the regulation deeming other tobacco products that 
meet the statutory definition of ``tobacco product'' to also be subject 
to the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act). This final regulation, 
known as the ``deeming rule,'' affords FDA the authority to regulate 
additional products which include hookah, electronic cigarettes, 
cigars, pipe tobacco, other novel tobacco products, and future tobacco 
products. Over the next year, FDA plans to issue further procedural and 
substantive augmentation of that landmark regulation, designed to both 
clarify the regulatory landscape for tobacco products and enhance 
information available to consumers on the health risks of tobacco use.

Preventing the Spread of Disease Across Borders

    Over the next year, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 
(CDC) plans to finalize amendments to the foreign and interstate 
quarantine regulations to more efficiently and effectively respond to 
communicable disease threats to the public's health. The regulation 
adds requirements for the collection of passenger and crew information, 
allows for the public health screening of travelers, and revises and 
adds relevant definitions.

Drugs and Medical Devices

    FDA plans to issue a proposed rule addressing medication guide 
regulations to require a new form of patient labeling, Patient 
Medication Information, for submission to and review by FDA for human 
prescription drug products used, dispensed, or administered on an 
outpatient basis. The proposed rule would include requirements for 
Patient Medication Information development, consumer testing, and 
distribution. The proposed rule would require clear and concise written 
prescription drug product information presented in a consistent and 
easily understood format to help patients use their prescription drug 
products safely and effectively. FDA is also proposing to amend its 
regulations governing mammography. The amendments would update the 
Mammography Quality Standards Act of 1992. FDA is taking this action to 
address changes in mammography technology and mammography processes 
that have occurred since the regulations were published in 1997 and to 
address breast density reporting to patient and health care providers.

Improving Substance Use Treatment and Research Opportunities

    The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration 
(SAMHSA) is working to finalize changes to 42 CFR 2, the 
Confidentiality of Substance Use Disorder Patient Records. The part 2 
regulation protects the confidentiality of records that are maintained 
in connection with any federally assisted program or activity related 
to substance abuse education, prevention, training, treatment, 
rehabilitation, or research. Under the part 2 statute and current 
regulations, a federally assisted substance abuse program may only 
release patient identifying information related to substance abuse 
treatment services with the individual's written consent; pursuant to a 
court order; or under a few other limited exceptions. These protections 
are more stringent than most other privacy laws, including HIPAA. 
SAMHSA is updating the part 2 rule in order to make it more compatible 
with new models of integrated care, which are based on information 
sharing, participation of multiple healthcare providers, and the 
development of an electronic infrastructure for managing and exchanging 
patient data. Part 2 has restricted the exchange of some of this data, 
to the detriment of patient care and research.

III. Reducing the Number of Uninsured and Providing Access to 
Affordable Quality Care

    The Affordable Care Act (ACA) 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 ACA 
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

    Forthcoming proposed and final rules will bring to completion 
regulatory provisions that support our efforts to assist states in 
implementing Medicaid eligibility and enrollment provisions stemming 
from the Affordable Care Act. These changes provide states more 
flexibility to coordinate Medicaid and CHIP eligibility notices, 
appeals, and other related administrative procedures with similar 
procedures used by the Exchanges.

Updating Organ Donation Authorities

    The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) is 
undertaking a regulation to improve and streamline the process for 
human organ donation. HRSA is proposing a final rule that clarifies 
that peripheral blood stem cells are included in the definition of bone 
marrow under section 30 of the National Organ Transplantation Act of 
1984.

IV. Leading in Science and Innovation

    HHS continues to expand on early successes of a number of 
initiatives, including the Precision Medicine Initiative, BRAIN 
Initiative, and the Vice President's Cancer Moonshot, specifically by 
updating the rules that govern research with human participants. In 
particular, HHS plans to finalize revisions to existing rules governing 
research with 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 final rule will 
aim to better protect human subjects while facilitating research, and 
also reducing burden, delay, and ambiguity for investigators.

Patient-Centered Improvements to Health Technology

    HHS plans to undertake regulations designed to enhance both 
security and interoperability of electronic and other health records to 
improve access to care. These initiatives include an update to the 
regulations regarding confidentiality of substance abuse treatment 
records to align with advances in health information technology (health 
IT) while maintaining appropriate patient privacy protections.

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

[[Page 94546]]

state of medical practice and to respond to feedback from providers 
seeking financial predictability and flexibility to better serve 
patients. In particular, the annual Hospital Inpatient Prospective 
Payment System for Acute Care Hospitals and the Long-Term Care Hospital 
Prospective Payment System and FY 2018 Rates proposed rule revises the 
Medicare hospital inpatient and long-term care hospital prospective 
payment systems for operating and capital-related costs. This proposed 
rule would implement changes arising from our continuing experience 
with these systems.

Improving the 340B Program

    HRSA plans to issue two regulations intended to improve 
transparency and operation of its 340B Drug Pricing Program. These 
regulations include:
     340B Drug Pricing Program Ceiling Price and Manufacturer 
Civil Monetary Penalties Regulation: HRSA plans to finalize this rule, 
which defines standards and methodology for the calculation of ceiling 
process for purposes of the 340B Program and imposes monetary sanctions 
on drug manufacturers who intentionally charge a covered entity a price 
above the ceiling price established for the 340B Program; and
     340B Drug Pricing Program Omnibus Guidance: This guidance, 
when finalized, sets forth the responsibilities of 340B covered 
entities and drug manufacturers to ensure compliance with the statute 
establishing the 340B Program.

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 its 
support of topics including early learning, Alzheimer's and dementia. 
ACF plans to finalize a regulation making child support program 
operations and enforcement procedures more efficient by recognizing 
advancements in technology and the move toward electronic 
communications and document management. An additional Administration 
for Children and Families rule, when finalized, amends the Adoption and 
Foster Care Analysis and Reporting Systems by modifying requirements 
for foster care agencies to collect and report data on children in out-
of-home care and children under adoption or guardianship agreements 
with child welfare agencies.

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

Final Rule Stage

33. Confidentiality of Substance Use Disorder Patient Records

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 290dd-2
    CFR Citation: 42 CFR 2.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The final rule will amend 42 CFR part 2 to update the 
regulations for the modern health care context with respect to health 
information technology and new health care models. The goal of this 
rule is to balance the need for information exchange in new health care 
models and applications with appropriate privacy protections for those 
undergoing treatment for substance use disorders. The revisions to the 
regulations would remain consistent with 42 U.S.C. 290dd-2 
(confidentiality of records).
    Statement of Need: The last substantive update to these regulations 
was in 1987. Over the last 29 years, significant changes have occurred 
within the U.S. health care system that were not envisioned by the 
current regulations, including new models of integrated care that are 
built on a foundation of information sharing to support coordination of 
patient care, the development of an electronic infrastructure for 
managing and exchanging patient information, and a new focus on 
performance measurement within the health care system. SAMHSA wants to 
ensure that patients with substance use disorders have the ability to 
participate in, and benefit from new integrated health care models 
without fear of putting themselves at risk of adverse consequences. 
These new integrated models are foundational to HHS's triple aim of 
improving health care quality, improving population health, and 
reducing unnecessary health care costs.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The statutory authority for the part 2 
regulation is based on 42 U.S.C. 290dd-2, which protects the 
confidentiality of records with respect to the identity, diagnosis, 
prognosis, or treatment of any patient records that are maintained in 
connection with the performance of any federally assisted program or 
activity relating to substance abuse education, prevention, training, 
treatment, rehabilitation, or research.\[1]\ Under the part 2 statute 
and current regulations, a federally assisted substance abuse program 
may only release patient identifying information related to substance 
abuse treatment services with the individual's written consent; 
pursuant to a court order; or under a few other limited exceptions.
    Alternatives: Failure to finalize the rule would result in the 
existing regulations staying in place, with none of the changes 
proposed being adopted.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Over the 10-year period of 2016-
2025, the total undiscounted cost of the part 2 changes will be about 
$241 million in 2016 dollars. When future costs are discounted at 3 
percent or 7 percent per year, the total costs become approximately 
$217,586,000 or $193,098,000, respectively. The benefits would be 
improvements in the integration and coordination of substance use 
disorder treatment with the broader health system and improved use of 
data to inform the development improvement of the substance use 
disorder treatment system.
    Risks: If this rule is not finalized, it will result in significant 
scrutiny from a variety of stakeholders, who have been pushing for an 
update to the rule. It would also inhibit integrated care for substance 
use disorders and prevent the use of some data in research related to 
substance use disorder treatment at a time when the issue is a key 
priority to the Department as a result of the opioid crisis.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   02/09/16  81 FR 6987
NPRM Comment Period End.............   04/11/16  .......................
Final Action........................   11/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Kate Tipping, Public Health Advisor, Department of 
Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 
Administration, 1 Choke Cherry Road, Rockville, MD 20850, Phone: 240 
276-1652.
    RIN: 0930-AA21

HHS--CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION (CDC)

Final Rule Stage

34. Control of Communicable Diseases

    Priority: Other Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Legal Authority: Sec. 361 of the Public Health Service Act (42 
U.S.C. 264 to 265)
    CFR Citation: 42 CFR 70; 42 CFR 71.

[[Page 94547]]

    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This rule clarifies data collection requirements for 
airline passengers and crew, codifies current practice, clarifies HHS/
CDC's authority to implement non-invasive public health screenings at 
U.S. ports of entry and other U.S. locations; and adds appeal 
provisions for persons served with a Federal public health order (e.g., 
quarantine) with due process, including clarification of reasons, 
processes, and reassessments.
    Statement of Need: The need for this proposed rulemaking was 
reinforced during HHS/CDC's response to the largest outbreak of Ebola 
virus disease (Ebola) on record, followed by the recent outbreak of 
Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) in South Korea, both 
quarantinable communicable diseases, and repeated outbreaks and 
responses to measles, a non-quarantinable communicable disease of 
public health concern, in the United States. The provisions contained 
within this proposal will enhance HHS/CDC's ability to prevent the 
further importation and spread of communicable diseases into the United 
States and interstate by clarifying and providing greater transparency 
regarding its response capabilities and practices.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The primary legal authority supporting this 
rulemaking is sections 361 and 362 of the Public Health Service Act (42 
U.S.C. 264, 265).
    Alternatives: None. The main impact of the proposals within this 
rule is to strengthen our regulations by codifying statutory language 
to describe HHS/CDC's authority to prevent the introduction, 
transmission, and spread of communicable diseases. The intent of these 
proposed updates is to best protect U.S. public health and to inform 
the regulated community of these updates.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The analysis of estimated costs and 
benefits of this rule has 4 components: (1) Costs and benefits for 
submitting passenger and crew information to CDC; (2) costs and 
benefits associated with improved transparency of how HHS/CDC uses its 
regulatory authorities to protect public health; (3) transfer payments 
by HHS/CDC for treatment and care; and (4) the impact of the proposed 
provision suspending the entry of animals, articles, or things from 
designated foreign countries and places into the United States.
    Risks: If this regulation is not published, HHS/CDC's ability to 
prevent the further importation and spread of communicable diseases 
into the United States and interstate will be limited; current 
regulatory language will not be clarified; and there will be less 
transparency to the public regarding HHS/CDC's response capabilities 
and practices.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   08/15/16  81 FR 54230
NPRM Comment Period End.............   10/14/16  .......................
Final Rule..........................   12/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
    Agency Contact: Ashley Marrone, Public Health Analyst, Department 
of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-E03, Atlanta, GA 30329, Phone: 
404 498-1600, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 0920-AA63

HHS--FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION (FDA)

Proposed Rule Stage

35. Mammography Quality Standards Act; Regulatory Amendments

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 21 U.S.C. 360i; 21 U.S.C. 360nn; 21 U.S.C. 374(e); 
42 U.S.C. 263b
    CFR Citation: 21 CFR 900.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: FDA is proposing to amend its regulations governing 
mammography. The amendments would update the regulations issued under 
the Mammography Quality Standards Act of 1992 (MQSA). FDA is taking 
this action to address changes in mammography technology and 
mammography processes that have occurred since the regulations were 
published in 1997 and to address breast density reporting to patient 
and health care providers.
    Statement of Need: FDA is proposing to update the mammography 
regulations that were issued under the Mammography Quality Standards 
Act of 1992 (MQSA) and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C 
Act). FDA is taking this action to address changes in mammography 
technology and mammography processes, such as breast density reporting, 
that have occurred since the regulations were published in 1997.
    FDA is also proposing updates to modernize the regulations by 
incorporating current science and mammography best practices. These 
updates are intended to improve the delivery of mammography services.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Mammography is an X-ray imaging examination 
device that is regulated under the authority of the FD&C Act. FDA is 
proposing these amendments to the mammography regulations (set forth in 
21 CFR part 900) under section 354 of the Public Health Service Act (42 
U.S.C. 263b), and sections 519, 537, and 704(e) of the FD&C Act (21 
U.S.C. 360i, 360nn, and 374(e)).
    Alternatives: The Agency will consider different options so that 
the health benefits to patients are maximized and the economic burdens 
to mammography facilities are minimized.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The primary public health benefits 
of the rule will come from the potential for earlier breast cancer 
detection, improved morbidity and mortality, resulting in reductions in 
cancer treatment costs. The primary costs of the rule will come from 
industry labor costs and costs associated with supplemental testing and 
biopsies.
    Risks: If a final regulation does not publish, the potential 
reduction in fatalities and earlier breast cancer detection, resulting 
in reduction in cancer treatment costs, will not materialize to the 
detriment of public health
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   02/00/17  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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: Nancy Pirt, Regulatory Counsel, Department of 
Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for 
Devices and Radiological Health, WO 66, Room 4438, 10903 New Hampshire 
Avenue, Silver Spring, MD 20993, Phone: 301 796-6248, Fax: 301 847-
8145, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 0910-AH04


[[Page 94548]]



HHS--FDA

36. Patient Medication Information

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 
is undetermined.
    Legal Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 262; 42 U.S.C. 
264
    CFR Citation: 21 CFR 208; 21 CFR 310.501 and 310.515; 21 CFR 
201.57(a)(18); 21 CFR 201.80(f)(2); 21 CFR 314.70(b)(2)(v)(B); 21 CFR 
610.60(a)(7); 21 CFR 201.100; . . .
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The proposed rule would amend FDA medication guide 
regulations to require a new form of patient labeling, Patient 
Medication Information, for submission to and review by the FDA for 
human prescription drug products used, dispensed, or administered on an 
outpatient basis. The proposed rule would include requirements for 
Patient Medication Information development, consumer testing, and 
distribution. The proposed rule would require clear and concise written 
prescription drug product information presented in a consistent and 
easily understood format to help patients use their prescription drug 
products safely and effectively.
    Statement of Need: Patients may currently receive one or more types 
of written patient information regarding prescription drug products. 
That information is frequently duplicative, incomplete, conflicting, or 
difficult to read and understand and is not sufficient to meet the 
needs of patients. Patient Medication Information is a new type of one-
page Medication Guide that FDA is proposing to require for certain 
prescription drug products. Patient Medication Information is intended 
to improve public health by providing clear, concise, accessible, and 
useful written prescription drug product information, delivered in a 
consistent and easily understood format, to help patients use 
prescription drug products safely and effectively and potentially 
reduce preventable adverse drug reactions and improve health outcomes.
    Summary of Legal Basis: FDA's proposed revisions to the regulations 
regarding format and content requirements for prescription drug 
labeling are authorized by the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 321 et seq.) and by 
the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262 and 264).
    Risks: The current system does not consistently provide patients 
with useful written information to help them use their prescription 
drug products safely and effectively. The proposed rule would require 
consumer-tested and FDA-approved Patient Medication Information for 
certain prescription drug products used, dispensed, or administered on 
an outpatient basis.
    Alternatives: FDA evaluated various formats for patient medication 
information.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The monetary benefit of the proposed 
rule stems from an increase in medication adherence due to patients 
having more complete information about their prescription drug 
products. The proposed rule would impose costs that stem from 
developing, testing, and approving Patient Medication Information.
    Risks: The current system does not consistently provide patients 
with useful written information to help them use their prescription 
drug products safely and effectively. The proposed rule would require 
consumer-tested and FDA-approved Patient Medication Information for 
certain prescription drug products used, dispensed, or administered on 
an outpatient basis.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   02/00/17  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Elisabeth Walther, Health Policy Analyst, 
Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, 
Building 50 Room 6312, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 
20993, Phone: 301 796-3913, Fax: 301 847-3529, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 0910-AH33

HHS--HEALTH RESOURCES AND SERVICES ADMINISTRATION (HRSA)

Final Rule Stage

37. 340(B) Civil Monetary Penalties for Manufacturers and Ceiling Price 
Regulations

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: Sec. 7102 of the Affordable Care Act; Pub. L. 111-
148, amending subsec(d); sec. 340(B) of the PHS Act
    CFR Citation: None.
    Legal Deadline: Other, Statutory, September 20, 2010, ANPRM met 
deadline for Civil Monetary Penalties for Manufacturers.
    Abstract: This final rule is required under the Affordable Care 
Act. It amends section 340(B) of the Public Health Service Act to 
impose monetary sanctions (not to exceed $5,000 per instance) on drug 
manufacturers who intentionally charge a covered entity a price above 
the ceiling price established under the procedures of the 340(B) 
Program and also define standards and methodology for the calculation 
of ceiling prices for purposes of the 340(B) Program.
    Statement of Need: The final rule provides a critical enforcement 
mechanism for the Department when drug manufacturers intentionally 
charge a covered entity a price above the ceiling price established 
under the procedures of the 340B Program. The rule also defines the 
standards and methodology for the calculation of ceiling prices for 
purposes of the 340B Program.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Sections 340B(d)(1)(B)(vi) and 
340B(d)(1)(B)(i)(I) of the Public Health Service Act.
    Alternatives: None. This rule implements a statutory requirement.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: None.
    Risks: This final rule enables the Department to meet its statutory 
obligation under the Affordable Care Act to finalize regulations in 
these areas, which is expected to enhance the integrity of the 340B 
Program.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM...............................   09/20/10  75 FR 57230
ANPRM Comment Period End............   11/19/10  .......................
NPRM................................   06/17/15  80 FR 34583
NPRM Comment Period End.............   08/17/15  .......................
Final Rule..........................   11/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: CAPT Krista Pedley, Department of Health and Human 
Services, Health Resources and Services Administration, Phone: 301 443-
5294, Email: [email protected].
    Related RIN: Merged with 0906-AA92
    RIN: 0906-AA89

HHS--HRSA

38. Definition of Human Organ Under Section 301 of the National Organ 
Transplant Act of 1984

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: Pub. L. 109-129; Stem Cell Therapeutic and 
Research Act of 2005, as amended in 2010 by Pub. L. 111-264
    CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
    Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, December 18, 2016, Congressional 
deadline.

[[Page 94549]]

    On December 18, 2015, Public Law 114-104 was enacted and required 
the Secretary to issue a determination no later than December 18, 2016, 
as to whether peripheral blood stem cells and umbilical cord blood are 
``human organs'' subject to NOTA section 301.
    Abstract: This final rule clarifies that peripheral blood stem 
cells are included in the definition of bone marrow under section 301 
of the National Organ Transplantation Act of 1984, as amended and 
codified in 42 U.S.C. 274e.
    Statement of Need:
     There are currently two methods to collect hematopoietic 
stem cells (HSCs) from a donor: bone marrow aspiration, and apheresis 
following a drug regimen. In the second category, granulocyte-colony-
stimulating factors are administered over 4-5 days to stimulate the 
donor to produce and release HSCs from the bone marrow into the 
peripheral (circulating) blood, where they are collected by apheresis 
in one or two sessions for a total of 8 hours.
     A panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has held 
that HSCs collected from peripheral blood are not human organs subject 
to the prohibition against transfer for valuable consideration 
established in section 301 of the National Organ Transplant Act of 1984 
(NOTA).
    Should donors begin to be compensated, that decision creates the 
potential for disparate compensation practices for HSCs collected by 
bone marrow aspiration and HSCs collected from peripheral blood. The 
disparity could lead to fewer donations of HSCs by bone marrow 
aspiration, despite clear clinical preferences for such HSCs for 
certain patients and conditions. It could also lead to a foreclosure of 
access to international donor registries, which continue to provide 
matched donors for patients in the United States.
    Summary of Legal Basis: In 2011, a panel of the Ninth Circuit Court 
of Appeals held that HSCs from peripheral blood are not bone marrow 
under the prohibition in NOTA section 301. Under this ruling, the 
transfer of HSCs in bone marrow would be subject to the prohibition in 
NOTA section 301, while HSCs obtained by mobilizing the donor to 
release HSCs from the bone marrow into the blood stream so that they 
may be recovered within days from the donor's peripheral blood would 
not be subject to the prohibition. The court further observed that, 
although NOTA section 301 authorized the Secretary to issue a 
regulation identifying additional human organs subject to that 
provision, HHS had not yet exercised its authority to identify 
peripheral blood stem cells as section 301 authorizes. Flynn v. Holder, 
684 F.3d 852 (9th Cir. 2012). On December 18, 2015, Public Law 114-104 
was enacted, which required the Secretary to issue a determination as 
to whether peripheral blood stem cells and umbilical cord blood are 
human organs subject to NOTA section 301 no later than December 18, 
2016.
    Alternatives:
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: This proposed rule is not expected 
to have significant cost implications.
    Risks: Although the registry for HSC donors administered under 
statute as the C.W. Bill Young Cell Transplantation Program has 
continued to advise registrants that they will not be compensated for 
registering or donating their HSCs, compensation may become more common 
if we do not complete this rulemaking. The implementation of payment 
for donors of peripheral blood stem cells could adversely affect the 
safety of donors who may proceed with donation even when they have 
concerns about the risks, as well as the safety of patients, if the 
lure of compensation leads donors to hide information about their 
communicable disease risks. In addition, it may make donors less 
willing to donate HSCs by bone marrow aspiration, if by doing so they 
would forego compensation for donating of peripheral blood stem cells. 
It could also foreclose access to international donors. Such access is 
currently provided by reciprocal agreements with foreign registries, 
which require that donors of HSCs be uncompensated volunteers.
    In addition, disapproval of this action would mean that HHS would 
not meet the December 18, 2016, deadline Congress set for completion. 
As drafted, the proposed rule elicited a few comments about the 
inclusion of umbilical cord blood within the scope of the proposed 
rule. On December 18, 2015, Public Law 114-104 was enacted, which 
required the Secretary to issue a determination as to whether 
peripheral blood stem cells and umbilical cord blood are human organs 
subject to NOTA section 301 no later than December 18, 2016.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   10/02/13  78 FR 60810
NPRM Comment Period End.............   12/02/13  .......................
Final Rule..........................   11/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
    Agency Contact: Dr. James Bowman, Medical Director, Division of 
Transplantation, Department of Health and Human Services, Health 
Resources and Services Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 12C-06, 
Rockville, MD 20857, Phone: 301 443-4861.
    RIN: 0906-AB02

HHS--HRSA

39. 340B Program Omnibus Guidelines

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: Not Yet Determined
    CFR Citation: None.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This guidance addresses key policy issues raised by 
stakeholders for which HHS does not have statutory rulemaking 
authority.
    Statement of Need: The Omnibus Guidance addresses key policy issues 
raised by various stakeholders committed to ensuring the integrity of 
the 340B Program and assisted covered entities and manufacturers in 
their ability to satisfy 340B Program requirements and expectations.
    Summary of Legal Basis: HHS is interpreting section 340B of the 
Public Health Service Act and issuing final guidance in critical areas.
    Alternatives: None.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Some covered entities and 
manufacturers may increase spending on 340B Program compliance efforts, 
including assessments of patients eligible for 340B drugs. HRSA does 
not expect any such costs to be significant.
    Risks: Not issuing the final guidance will result in a lack of 
clarity in some 340B areas.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice..............................   08/28/15  80 FR 52300
Notice Comment Period End...........   10/27/15  .......................
Final Guidance Action...............   12/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Krista Pedley, Director, Office of Pharmacy 
Affairs, Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and 
Services Administration, Healthcare Systems Bureau, 5600 Fishers Lane, 
Rockville, MD 20857, Phone: 301 443-5294, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 0906-AB08


[[Page 94550]]



HHS--OFFICE OF ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR HEALTH (OASH)

Final Rule Stage

40. Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects; Final Rules

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Unfunded Mandates: This action may affect the private sector under 
PL 104-4.
    Legal Authority: 21 U.S.C. 289
    CFR Citation: 45 CFR 46.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The final rules would revise current human subjects 
regulations in order to strengthen protections for research subjects 
while facilitating valuable research and reducing burden, delay, and 
ambiguity for investigators.
    Statement of Need: Since the Federal Policy for the Protection of 
Human Subjects (often referred to as the Common Rule) was promulgated 
by 15 U.S. Federal departments and agencies in 1991, the volume and 
landscape of research involving human subjects have changed 
considerably. Research with human subjects has grown in scale and 
become more diverse. Examples of developments include: An expansion in 
the number and type of clinical trials, as well as observational 
studies and cohort studies; a diversification of the types of social 
and behavioral research being used in human subjects research; 
increased use of sophisticated analytic techniques for use with human 
biospecimens; and the growing use of electronic health data and other 
digital records to enable very large data sets to be analyzed and 
combined in novel ways. Yet these developments have not been 
accompanied by major change in the human subjects research oversight 
system, which has remained largely unchanged over the last two decades. 
The proposed revisions are needed to modernize, strengthen, and make 
more effective the Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects.
    Summary of Legal Basis: None.
    Alternatives: None.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The quantified and non-quantified 
benefits and costs of all proposed changes to the Common Rule are the 
following: (1) Over the 2016-2025 period, present value benefits of 
$2,629 million and annualized benefits of $308 million are estimated 
using a 3 percent discount rate; and, present value benefits of $2,047 
million and annualized benefits of $291 million are estimated using a 7 
percent discount rate; (2) present value costs of $13,342 million and 
annualized costs of $1,564 million are estimated using a 3 percent 
discount rate; and, present value costs of $9,605 million and 
annualized costs of $1,367 million are estimated using a 7 percent 
discount rate.
    Risks: If this regulation is not published, the rules overseeing 
federally funded or conducted human subjects research will not be 
modernized, strengthened or made more effective.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM...............................   07/26/11  76 FR 44512
ANPRM Comment Period End............   10/26/11  .......................
NPRM................................   09/08/15  80 FR 53931
NPRM Comment Period End.............   12/07/15  .......................
Final Action........................   12/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
    Additional Information: Includes Retrospective Review under E.O. 
13563.
    Agency Contact: Jerry Menikoff, Director, Office for Human Research 
Protections, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Department 
of Health and Human Services, Office of Assistant Secretary for Health, 
200 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20201, Phone: 240 453-6900, 
Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 0937-AA02

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

Proposed Rule Stage

41. Eligibility Notices, Fair Hearing and Appeal Processes for 
Medicaid, and Other Provisions Related to Eligibility and Enrollment 
for Medicaid and CHIP (CMS-2334-P2)

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1302; Pub. L. 111-148
    CFR Citation: 42 CFR 430; 42 CFR 431; 42 CFR 433; 42 CFR 435; 42 
CFR 457.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This proposed rule proposes to implement provisions of 
the Medicaid statute pertaining to Medicaid eligibility and appeals. 
This proposed rule continues our efforts to provide guidance to assist 
States in implementing Medicaid and CHIP eligibility, appeals, and 
enrollment changes required by the Affordable Care Act.
    Statement of Need: On January 22, 2013, we published a proposed 
rule entitled ``Essential Health Benefits in Alternative Benefit Plans, 
Eligibility Notices, Fair Hearing and Appeal Processes for Medicaid and 
Exchange Eligibility Appeals and Other Provisions Related to 
Eligibility and Enrollment for Exchanges, Medicaid and CHIP, and 
Medicaid Premiums and Cost Sharing'' that proposed changes to provide 
states more flexibility to coordinate Medicaid and CHIP procedures 
related to eligibility notices, appeals, and other related 
administrative actions with similar procedures used by other health 
coverage programs authorized under the Affordable Care Act. We received 
a number of public comments on the proposed rule suggesting 
alternatives that we had not originally considered and did not propose. 
To give the public the opportunity to comment on those options, we are 
now proposing revisions related to those comments. In addition, we 
propose to make other corrections and modifications related to 
delegations of eligibility determinations and appeals, and appeals 
procedures. We have developed these proposals through our experiences 
working with states and Exchanges, and Exchange appeals entities 
operationalizing fair hearings.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The Affordable Care Act extends and 
simplifies Medicaid eligibility. The rule proposes alternatives not 
included in the previously published January 22, 2013 proposed rule, 
based on public comments received.
    Alternatives: The majority of Medicaid and CHIP eligibility 
provisions proposed in this rule serve to implement the Affordable Care 
Act. Therefore, alternatives considered for this rule were constrained 
due to the statutory provisions.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: While states will likely incur 
short-term increases in administrative costs, we do not anticipate that 
this proposed rule would have significant financial effects on state 
Medicaid programs. The extent of these initial costs will depend on 
current state policy and practices, as many states have already adopted 
the administrative simplifications addressed in the rule. In addition, 
the administrative simplifications proposed in this rule may lead to 
savings as states streamline their fair hearing processes, consistent 
with the processes used by the Marketplace, and implement timeliness 
and performance standards.
    Risks: None. Delaying publication of this rule delays states from 
moving forward with implementing changes to Medicaid and CHIP, and 
aligning operations between Medicaid, CHIP and the Exchanges.
    Timetable:

[[Page 94551]]



------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   11/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Government Levels Affected: State.
    Agency Contact: Judith Cash, Division Director, Division of 
Eligibility, Enrollment & Outreach, Department of Health and Human 
Services, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Center for Medicaid 
and CHIP Services, Mail Stop S2-01-16, 7500 Security Boulevard, 
Baltimore, MD 21244, Phone: 410 786-4473, Email: 
[email protected].
    Related RIN: Split from 0938-AS27
    RIN: 0938-AS55

HHS--CMS

42.  FY 2018 Prospective Payment System and Consolidated 
Billing For Skilled Nursing Facilities (SNFS) (CMS-1679-P)

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1302; 42 U.S.C. 1395hh
    CFR Citation: 42 CFR 483.
    Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, July 31, 2017.
    Abstract: This annual proposed rule would update the payment rates 
used under the prospective payment system for SNFs for fiscal year 
2018.
    Statement of Need: This proposed rule would update the SNF 
prospective payment rates as required under the Social Security Act 
(the Act). The Act requires the Secretary to provide, before the August 
1 that precedes the start of each FY, the unadjusted federal per diem 
rates, the case-mix classification system, and the factors to be 
applied in making the area wage adjustment.
    Summary of Legal Basis: In accordance with sections 
1888(e)(4)(E)(ii)(IV) and 1888(e)(5) of the Act, the federal rates in 
this proposed rule would reflect an update to the rates that we 
published in the SNF PPS final rule for FY 2017, which reflects the SNF 
market basket index, as adjusted by the multifactor productivity (MFP) 
adjustment for FY 2018. These changes would be applicable to services 
furnished on or after October 1, 2017.
    Alternatives: None. This is a statutory requirement.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Total expenditures will be adjusted 
for FY 2018.
    Risks: If this regulation is not published timely, SNF services 
will not be paid appropriately beginning October 1, 2017.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   04/00/17  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
    Agency Contact: Bill Ullman, Technical Advisor, Department of 
Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 
Center for Medicare, MS: C5-06-27, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, 
MD 21244, Phone: 410 786-5667, Fax: 410 786-0765, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 0938-AS96

HHS--CMS

43.  FY 2018 Inpatient Psychiatric Facilities Prospective 
Payment System--Rate Update (CMS-1673-P)

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 
is undetermined.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1302; 42 U.S.C. 1395hh
    CFR Citation: 42 CFR 412.
    Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, August 1, 2017.
    Abstract: This annual proposed rule would update the prospective 
payment rates for inpatient psychiatric facilities with discharges 
beginning on October 1, 2017.
    Statement of Need: This rule is required to update the prospective 
payment rates and wage index values for Medicare inpatient hospital 
services provided by inpatient psychiatric facilities (IPFs), which 
include freestanding IPFs and psychiatric units of an acute care 
hospital or critical access hospital.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Under section 1886 of the Act, rates are 
adjusted based on the market basket update. These changes would be 
applicable to services furnished on or after October 1, 2017.
    Alternatives: None. This is a statutory requirement.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Total expenditures will be adjusted 
for FY 2018.
    Risks: If this regulation is not published timely, IPFs will not 
receive accurate Medicare payments for furnishing inpatient psychiatric 
services to beneficiaries in IPFs in FY 2018.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   04/00/17  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, State.
    Agency Contact: Jana Lindquist, Director, Division of Chronic Care 
Management, Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for 
Medicare & Medicaid Services, Center for Medicare, MS: C5-05-27, 7500 
Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244, Phone: 410 786-9374, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 0938-AS97

HHS--CMS

44.  FY 2018 Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility (IRF) 
Prospective Payment System (CMS-1671-P)

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1302; 42 U.S.C. 1395hh
    CFR Citation: 42 CFR 412.
    Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, August 1, 2017.
    Abstract: This annual proposed rule would update the prospective 
payment rates for inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRFs) for fiscal 
year 2018.
    Statement of Need: This proposed rule would update the prospective 
payment rates for IRFs for as required under the Social Security Act 
(the Act). As required by the Act, this rule includes the 
classification and weighting factors for the IRF PPS's case-mix groups 
and a description of the methodologies and data used in computing the 
prospective payment rates for FY 2018. This rule also proposes 
revisions and updates to the quality measures and reporting 
requirements under the IRF QRP.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The IRF prospective payment rates are 
updated as required under section 1886(j)(3)(C) of the Act. It responds 
to section 1886(j)(5) of the Act, which requires the Secretary to, on 
or before the August 1 that precedes the start of each fiscal year, 
publish the classification and weighting factors for the IRF PPS's 
case-mix groups and a description of the methodology and data used in 
computing the prospective payment rates for that fiscal year.
    Alternatives: None. This is a statutory requirement.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Total expenditures will be adjusted 
for FY 2018.

[[Page 94552]]

    Risks: If this regulation is not published timely, IRF services 
will not be paid appropriately beginning October 1, 2017.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   04/00/17  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
    Agency Contact: Gwendolyn Johnson, Health Insurance Specialist, 
Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare & 
Medicaid Services, Center for Medicare, MS: C5-06-27, 7500 Security 
Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244, Phone: 410 786-6954, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 0938-AS99

HHS--CMS

45.  FY 2018 Hospice Rate Update (CMS-1675-P)

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1302
    CFR Citation: 42 CFR 418.
    Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, August 1, 2017.
    Abstract: This annual proposed rule would update the hospice 
payment rates and the wage index for fiscal year 2018.
    Statement of Need: We are required to annually issue the hospice 
wage index based on the most current available CMS hospital wage data, 
including any changes to the definitions of Core-Based Statistical 
Areas (CBSAs) or previously used Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs).
    Summary of Legal Basis: This rule proposes updates to the hospice 
payment rates for fiscal year as required under section 1814(i) of the 
Social Security Act (the Act). This rule also proposes new quality 
measures and provides an update on the hospice quality reporting 
program (HQRP) consistent with the requirements of section 1814(i)(5) 
of the Act, as added by section 3004(c) of the Affordable Care Act.
    Alternatives: None. This is a statutory requirement.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Total expenditures will be adjusted 
for FY 2018.
    Risks: If this regulation is not published timely, Hospice services 
will not be paid appropriately beginning October 1, 2017.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   04/00/17
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
    Agency Contact: Hillary Loeffler, Director, Division of Home Health 
and Hospice, Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for 
Medicare & Medicaid Services, Center for Medicare, MS: C5-07-22, 7500 
Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244, Phone: 410 786-0456, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 0938-AT00

HHS--CMS

46.  CY 2018 Hospital Outpatient PPS Policy Changes and Payment 
Rates and Ambulatory Surgical Center Payment System Policy Changes and 
Payment Rates (CMS-1678-P) (Section 610 Review)

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
    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, 2017.
    Abstract: This annual proposed rule would revise the Medicare 
hospital outpatient prospective payment system to implement statutory 
requirements and changes arising from our continuing experience with 
this system. The proposed rule describes changes to the amounts and 
factors used to determine payment rates for services. In addition, the 
rule proposes changes to the ambulatory surgical center payment system 
list of services and rates.
    Statement of Need: Medicare pays over 4,000 hospitals for 
outpatient department services under the hospital outpatient 
prospective payment system (OPPS). The OPPS is based on groups of 
clinically similar services called ambulatory payment classification 
groups (APCs). CMS annually revises the APC payment amounts based on 
the most recent claims data, proposes new payment policies, and updates 
the payments for inflation using the hospital operating market basket. 
Medicare pays roughly 5,000 Ambulatory Surgical Centers (ASCs) under 
the ASC payment system. CMS annually revises the payment under the ASC 
payment system, proposes new policies, and updates payments for 
inflation. CMS will issue a final rule containing the payment rates for 
the 2018 OPPS and ASC payment system at least 60 days before January 1, 
2018.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Section 1833 of the Social Security Act 
establishes Medicare payment for hospital outpatient services and ASC 
services. The rule revises the Medicare hospital OPPS and ASC payment 
system to implement applicable statutory requirements. In addition, the 
rule describes changes to the outpatient APC system, relative payment 
weights, outlier adjustments, and other amounts and factors used to 
determine the payment rates for Medicare hospital outpatient services 
paid under the prospective payment system as well as changes to the 
rates and services paid under the ASC payment system. These changes 
would be applicable to services furnished on or after January 1, 2018.
    Alternatives: None. This is a statutory requirement.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Total expenditures will be adjusted 
for CY 2018.
    Risks: If this regulation is not published timely, outpatient 
hospital and ASC services will not be paid appropriately beginning 
January 1, 2018.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   06/00/17
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
    Agency Contact: Lela Strong, Health Insurance Specialist, 
Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare & 
Medicaid Services, Center for Medicare, MS: C4-05-13, 7500 Security 
Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244, Phone: 410 786-3213, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 0938-AT03

HHS--CMS

47.  CY 2018 Changes to the End-Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) 
Prospective Payment System, Quality Incentive Program, and Durable 
Medical Equipment, Prosthetics, Orthotics, and Supplies (DMEPOS) (CMS-
1674-P)

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1302; 42 U.S.C. 1395d(d); 42 U.S.C. 
1395f(b); 42 U.S.C. 1395g; . . .

[[Page 94553]]

    CFR Citation: 42 CFR 413.
    Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, November 1, 2017.
    Abstract: This annual proposed rule would update the bundled 
payment system for ESRD facilities by January 1, 2018. The rule would 
also update the quality incentives in the ESRD program and implement 
changes to the DMEPOS competitive bidding program.
    Statement of Need: On January 1, 2011, CMS implemented the ESRD 
prospective payment system (PPS), a case-mix adjusted, bundled 
prospective payment system for renal dialysis services furnished by 
ESRD facilities. Annually, we update and make revisions to the ESRD PPS 
and requirements for the ESRD Quality Incentive Program (QIP). The ESRD 
QIP is the most recent step in fostering improved patient outcomes by 
establishing incentives for dialysis facilities to meet or exceed 
performance standards established by CMS. Additionally, we annually 
adjust the methodology for adjusting DMEPOS fee schedule amounts.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Section 1881(b)(14) of the Social Security 
Act (the Act), as added by section 153(b) of the Medicare Improvements 
for Patients and Providers Act of 2008 (MIPPA) (Public Law 110-275), 
and section 1881(b)(14)(F) of the Act, as added by section 153(b) of 
MIPPA and amended by section 3401(h) of the Affordable Care Act Public 
Law 111-148), established that beginning CY 2012, and each subsequent 
year, the Secretary will annually increase payment amounts by an ESRD 
market basket increase factor, reduced by the productivity adjustment 
described in section 1886(b)(3)(B)(xi)(II) of the Act. Additionally, 
the QIP program is authorized under section 1881(h) of the Social 
Security Act (the Act).
    Alternatives: None. This is a statutory requirement.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Total expenditures will be adjusted 
for CY 2018.
    Risks: If this regulation is not published timely, ESRD facilities 
will not receive accurate Medicare payment amounts for furnishing 
outpatient maintenance dialysis treatments beginning January 1, 2018.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   06/00/17
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
    Agency Contact: Michelle Cruse, Health Insurance Specialist, 
Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare & 
Medicaid Services, Center for Medicare, MS: C5-05-27, 7500 Security 
Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244.
    Phone: 410 786-7540.
    Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 0938-AT04

HHS--CMS

Final Rule Stage

48. Eligibility Notices, Fair Hearing and Appeal Processes for 
Medicaid, and Other Provisions Related to Eligibility and Enrollment 
for Medicaid and CHIP (CMS-2334-F2)

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Legal Authority: Pub. L. 111-148, secs 1411, 1413, 1557, 1943, 
2102, 2201, 2004, 2303, et al.
    CFR Citation: 42 CFR 430; 42 CFR 431; 42 CFR 433; 42 CFR 435; 42 
CFR 457.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This final rule implements provisions of the Affordable 
Care Act that expand access to health coverage through improvements in 
Medicaid and coordination between Medicaid, Children's Health Insurance 
Program (CHIP), and Exchanges. This rule finalizes the remaining 
provisions from the Medicaid, Children's Health Insurance Programs, and 
Exchanges: Essential Health Benefits in Alternative Benefit Plans, 
Eligibility Notices, Fair Hearing and Appeal Processes for Medicaid and 
Exchange Eligibility Appeals and Other Provisions Related to 
Eligibility and Enrollment for Exchanges, Medicaid and CHIP, and 
Medicaid Premiums and Cost Sharing; Proposed Rule that we published in 
the January 22, 2013, Federal Register. This final rule continues our 
efforts to provide guidance to assist States in implementing Medicaid 
and CHIP eligibility, appeals, and enrollment changes required by the 
Affordable Care Act.
    Statement of Need: This final rule will implement provisions of the 
Affordable Care Act and the Children's Health Insurance Program 
Reauthorization Act of 2009 (CHIPRA). This rule reflects new statutory 
eligibility provisions; changes to provide States more flexibility to 
coordinate Medicaid and CHIP eligibility notices, appeals, and other 
related administrative procedures with similar procedures used by other 
health coverage programs authorized under the Affordable Care Act; 
modernizes and streamlines existing rules, eliminates obsolete rules, 
and updates provisions to reflect Medicaid eligibility pathways; 
implements other CHIPRA eligibility-related provisions, including 
eligibility for newborns whose mothers were eligible for and receiving 
Medicaid or CHIP coverage at the time of birth. With publication of 
this final rule, we desire to make our implementing regulations 
available to States and the public as soon as possible to facilitate 
continued efficient operation of the State flexibility authorized under 
section 1937 of the Act.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The Affordable Care Act extends and 
simplifies Medicaid eligibility. In the July 15, 2013, Federal 
Register, we issued the ``Medicaid and Children's Health Insurance 
Programs: Essential Health Benefits in Alternative Benefit Plans, 
Eligibility Notices, Fair Hearing and Appeal Processes, and Premiums 
and Cost Sharing; Exchanges: Eligibility and Enrollment'' final rule 
that finalized certain key Medicaid and CHIP eligibility provisions 
included in the January 22, 2013, proposed rule. In this final rule, we 
are addressing the remaining provisions of the January 22, 2013, 
proposed rule.
    Alternatives: The majority of Medicaid and CHIP eligibility 
provisions proposed in this rule serve to implement the Affordable Care 
Act. All of the provisions in this final rule are a result of the 
passage of the Affordable Care Act and are largely self-implementing. 
Therefore, alternatives considered for this final rule were constrained 
due to the statutory provisions.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The March 23, 2012, Medicaid 
eligibility final rule detailed the impact of the Medicaid eligibility 
changes related to implementation of the Affordable Care Act. The 
majority of provisions included in this final rule were described in 
detail in that rule, but in summary, we estimate a total savings of 
$465 million over 5 years, including $280 million in cost savings to 
the Federal Government and $185 million in savings to States.
    Risks: None. Delaying publication of this final rule delays States 
from moving forward with implementing changes to Medicaid and CHIP, and 
aligning operations between Medicaid, CHIP, and the Exchanges.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Action........................   11/00/16
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 94554]]

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

HHS--CMS

49. CY 2017 Inpatient Hospital Deductible and Hospital and Extended 
Care Services Coinsurance Amounts (CMS-8062-N)

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1395e-2(b)(2); Social Security Act, sec. 
1813(b)(2)
    CFR Citation: None.
    Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, September 15, 2016.
    Abstract: This annual notice announces the inpatient hospital 
deductible and the hospital and extended care services coinsurance 
amounts for services furnished in calendar year 2017 under Medicare's 
Hospital Insurance program (Medicare Part A). The Medicare statute 
specifies the formula used to determine these amounts.
    Statement of Need: The Social Security Act (the Act) requires the 
Secretary to publish annually the amounts of the inpatient hospital 
deductible and hospital and extended care services coinsurance 
applicable for services furnished in the following CY.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Section 1813 of the Act provides for an 
inpatient hospital deductible to be subtracted from the amount payable 
by Medicare for inpatient hospital services furnished to a beneficiary. 
It also provides for certain coinsurance amounts to be subtracted from 
the amounts payable by Medicare for inpatient hospital and extended 
care services. Section 1813(b)(2) of the Act requires us to determine 
and publish each year the amount of the inpatient hospital deductible 
and the hospital and extended care services coinsurance amounts 
applicable for services furnished in the following calendar year (CY).
    Alternatives: None. This notice implements a statutory requirement.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Total costs will be adjusted for CY 
2017.
    Risks: None. Notice informs the public of the 2017 premium.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Action........................   11/00/16
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Clare McFarland, Deputy Director, Medicare and 
Medicaid Cost Estimates Group, Department of Health and Human Services, 
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Office of the Actuary, MS: 
N3-26-00, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244, Phone: 410 786-
6390, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 0938-AS70

HHS--CMS

50.  CY 2018 Inpatient Hospital Deductible and Hospital and 
Extended Care Services Coinsurance Amounts (CMS-8065-N)

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 1395e-2(b)(2); Social Security Act, sec. 
1813 (b)(2)
    CFR Citation: None.
    Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, September 15, 2017.
    Abstract: This annual notice announces the inpatient hospital 
deductible and the hospital and extended care services coinsurance 
amounts for services furnished in calendar year 2018 under Medicare's 
Hospital Insurance program (Medicare Part A). The Medicare statute 
specifies the formula used to determine these amounts.
    Statement of Need: The Social Security Act (the Act) requires the 
Secretary to publish, in September each year, the amounts of the 
inpatient hospital deductible and hospital and extended care services 
coinsurance applicable for services furnished in the following CY.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Section 1813 of the Act provides for an 
inpatient hospital deductible to be subtracted from the amount payable 
by Medicare for inpatient hospital services furnished to a beneficiary. 
It also provides for certain coinsurance amounts to be subtracted from 
the amounts payable by Medicare for inpatient hospital and extended 
care services. Section 1813(b)(2) of the Act requires us to determine 
and publish each year the amount of the inpatient hospital deductible 
and the hospital and extended care services coinsurance amounts 
applicable for services furnished in the following calendar year (CY).
    Alternatives: None. This notice implements a statutory requirement.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Total costs will be adjusted for CY 
2018.
    Risks: None. Notice informs the public of the 2018 premium.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Action........................   09/00/17
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Clare McFarland, Deputy Director, Medicare and 
Medicaid Cost Estimates Group, Department of Health and Human Services, 
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Office of the Actuary, MS: 
N3-26-00, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244, Phone: 410 786-
6390, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 0938-AT05

HHS--ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES (ACF)

Final Rule Stage

51. Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS)

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 620 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 670 et seq.; 42 
U.S.C. 1302
    CFR Citation: 45 CFR 1355.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This rule will amend the Adoption and Foster Care 
Analysis and Reporting Systems (AFCARS). It will modify requirements 
for title IV-E foster care agencies to collect and report data on 
children in out-of-home care and children under title IV-E adoption or 
guardianship agreements with the title IV-E agency.
    Statement of Need: This rule will amend the Adoption and Foster 
Care Analysis and Reporting Systems (AFCARS). It will modify 
requirements for title IV-E foster care agencies to collect and report 
data on children in out-of-home care and children under title IV-E 
adoption or guardianship agreements with the title IV-E agency.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Section 479 of the Social Security Act (the 
Act) mandates HHS regulate a data collection

[[Page 94555]]

system for national adoption and foster care data. Section 474(f) of 
the Act requires HHS to impose penalties for non-compliant AFCARS data. 
Section 1102 of the Act instructs the Secretary to promulgate 
regulations necessary for the effective administration of the functions 
for which HHS is responsible under the Act.
    Alternatives:
    1. ACF considered whether other existing data sets could yield 
similar information. ACF determined that AFCARS is the only 
comprehensive case-level data set on the incidence and experiences of 
children who are in out-of-home care under the placement and care of 
the title IV-E agency or who are adopted under a title IV-E adoption 
assistance agreement.
    2. We also received state comments to the 2016 SNPRM citing they 
have few Indian children in foster care, if any. ACF considered 
alternatives to collecting ICWA-related data through AFCARS, such as 
providing an exemption from reporting but alternative approaches are 
not feasible due to:
     AFCARS data must be comprehensive per section 479(c)(3) of 
the Act and exempting some states from reporting the ICWA-related data 
elements is not consistent with this statutory mandate, and would 
render it difficult to use this data for development of national 
policies.
     Section 474(f) of the Act provides for mandatory penalties 
on the title IVE agency for non-compliance on AFCARS data that is based 
on the total amount expended by the title IV-E agency for 
administration of foster care activities. Therefore, we are not 
authorized to permit some states to be subject to a penalty and not 
others. In addition, allowing states an alternate submission process 
would complicate and/or prevent the assessment of penalties per 
1355.47, including penalties for failure to submit data files free of 
cross-file errors, missing, invalid, or internally inconsistent data, 
or tardy transactions for each data element of applicable records.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: We estimate that costs for the final 
rule will be approximately $36 million. Benefits are that we will have 
an updated AFCARS regulation for the first time since 1993 and we will 
have national data on Indian children as defined in ICWA.
    Risks: If we do not implement this final rule, agencies will 
continue to report information to AFCARS that is not up to date with 
revisions to the statute over the years. Further, without regulations, 
we are unable to implement the statutory penalty provisions. In 
addition, we will not collect comprehensive national data on the status 
of American Indian/Alaska Native children to whom the Indian Child 
Welfare Act (ICWA) applies and historical data on children in foster 
care. We can expect criticisms from federally recognized Indian tribes 
and other stakeholders that the absence of ICWA data prevents 
understanding both how ICWA is implemented and how to address and 
reduce the disproportionate number of American Indian/Alaska Native 
children in foster care nationally.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   02/09/15  80 FR 7131
NPRM Comment Period End.............   04/10/15
Final Action........................   12/00/16
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: State, Tribal.
    Agency Contact: Joe Bock, Deputy Associate Commissioner, CB, 
Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children 
and Families, 330 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20201, Phone: 202 205-
8618, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 0970-AC47

HHS--ACF

52. Flexibility, Efficiency, and Modernization of Child Support 
Enforcement Programs

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: Sec. 1102 of the Social Security Act
    CFR Citation: 45 CFR 301 to 305; 45 CFR 307.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This regulation will make child support program 
operations and enforcement procedures more flexible and more efficient 
by recognizing advancements in technology and the move toward 
electronic communications and document management. The regulation will 
improve and simplify program operations, remove outmoded limitations to 
program innovation to better serve families, and clarify and correct 
technical provisions in existing regulations.
    Statement of Need: This regulation will make child support program 
operations and enforcement procedures more flexible and more efficient 
by recognizing advancements in technology and the move toward 
electronic communications and document management. The regulation will 
improve and simplify program operations, remove outmoded limitations to 
program innovation to better serve families, and clarify and correct 
technical provisions in existing regulations.
    Summary of Legal Basis: This final rule is published under the 
authority granted to the Secretary of the Department of Health and 
Human Services by section 1102 of the Social Security Act (Act), 42 
U.S.C. 1302. Section 1102 of the Act authorizes the Secretary to 
publish regulations, not inconsistent with the Act, which may be 
necessary for the efficient administration of the functions for which 
the Secretary is responsible under the Act.
    Additionally, the Secretary has authority under section 452(a)(1) 
of the Act to establish such standards for State programs for locating 
noncustodial parents, establishing paternity, and obtaining child 
support as he[she] determines to be necessary to assure that such 
programs will be effective. Rules promulgated under section 452(a)(1) 
must meet two conditions. First, the Secretary's designee must find 
that the rule meets one of the statutory objectives of locating 
noncustodial parents, establishing paternity, and obtaining child 
support. Second, the Secretary's designee must determine that the rule 
is necessary to assure that such programs will be effective.
    Section 454(13) requires a State plan to provide that the State 
will comply with such other requirements and standards as the Secretary 
determines to be necessary to the establishment of an effective program 
for locating noncustodial parents, establishing paternity, obtaining 
support orders, and collecting support payments and provide that 
information requests by parents who are residents of other States be 
treated with the same priority as requests by parents who are residents 
of the State submitting the plan.
    Alternatives: None.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: While there are some costs 
associated with these regulations, they are not economically 
significant as defined under E.O. 12866. However, the regulation is 
significant and has been reviewed by OMB.
    An area with associated Federal costs is modifying the child 
support statewide automated system for onetime system enhancements to 
accommodate new requirements such as notices, applications, and 
identifying noncustodial parents receiving SSI. This

[[Page 94556]]

has a cost of approximate $26,484,000. There is a cost of $26,460,000 
to modify statewide IVD systems for the 54 States or Territories at a 
cost of $100 an hour (with an assumption that 27 States will implement 
the optional requirements). A cost of $35,044 is designated to CMS' 
costs for State plan amendments and cooperative agreements. Another 
area associated with Federal costs is that of job services. We allow 
FFP for certain job services for noncustodial parents responsible for 
paying child support. The estimated total average annual net cost (over 
the first five years) of the job services proposal is $26,096,596 with 
$18,592,939 as the Federal cost. Thus, the total net cost of the final 
rule is $52,591,640, and the total Federal costs is $36,074,061. These 
regulations will improve the delivery of child support services, 
support the efforts of noncustodial parents to provide for their 
children, and improve the efficiency of operations.
    Risks:
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Action........................   12/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State.
    Additional Information: Includes Retrospective Review under E.O. 
13563.
    Agency Contact: Yvette Riddick, Director, Division of Policy, OCSE, 
Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children 
and Families, 330 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20201, Phone: 202 401-
4885, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 0970-AC50.

BILLING CODE 4150-03-P

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (DHS)

Fall 2016 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. The DHS mission statement provides the following: ``With honor and 
integrity, we will safeguard the American people, our homeland, and our 
values.'' Fulfilling this mission 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.
    Leading a unified national effort, DHS has five core missions: (1) 
Prevent terrorism and enhance security, (2) secure and manage our 
borders, (3) enforce and administer our immigration laws, (4) safeguard 
and secure cyberspace, and (5) ensure resilience to disasters. In 
addition, we must specifically focus on maturing and strengthening the 
homeland security enterprise itself.
    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 mission, see the DHS Web site at http://www.dhs.gov/our-mission.
    The regulations we have summarized below in the Department's fall 
2016 regulatory plan and agenda support the Department's responsibility 
areas. These regulations will improve the Department's ability to 
accomplish its mission. Also, the regulations we have identified in 
this year's regulatory plan continue to address legislative initiatives 
such as the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 
2007 (9/11 Act), Public Law 110-53 (Aug. 3, 2007).
    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 regulations have on small 
businesses. DHS and its components continue to emphasize the use of 
plain language in our regulatory documents to promote a better 
understanding of regulations and to promote increased public 
participation in the Department's regulations.

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 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
1615-AC03..........................  Expansion of Provisional Unlawful
                                      Presence Waivers of
                                      Inadmissibility.
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.

[[Page 94557]]

 
1651-AB05..........................  Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
                                      Procedures.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation

    Pursuant to sections 3 and 4(b) of Executive Order 13609 
``Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation'' (May 1, 2012), DHS 
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 agenda (search the 
Completed Actions sections) on www.reginfo.gov. Some of the entries on 
this list, however, are active rulemakings. You can find entries for 
these rulemakings on www.regulations.gov.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                RIN                                  Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1625-AB38..........................  Updates to Maritime Security.
1651-AA70..........................  Importer Security Filing and
                                      Additional Carrier Requirements.
1651-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 2016 regulatory plan for DHS includes regulations from 
several 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), the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the National Protection 
and Programs Directorate (NPPD), and the Transportation Security 
Administration (TSA). Below is a discussion of the regulations that 
comprise the DHS fall 2016 regulatory plan.

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. In the coming year, USCIS will promulgate several 
regulations that directly support these commitments and goals.

Regulations To Facilitate Innovation and Employment Creation

    International Entrepreneurs. USCIS has proposed to establish a 
program that would allow for consideration of parole into the United 
States, on 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. Upon reviewing the public comments 
received in response to the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), USCIS 
will develop a final rule.
    Employment Creation (EB-5) Immigrant Regulations DHS will propose 
to amend its regulations governing the employment-based, fifth 
preference (EB-5) immigrant investor category and EB-5 regional centers 
to modernize the EB-5 program based on current economic realities and 
to reflect statutory changes made to the program. DHS will propose to 
update the regulations to include the following areas: Priority date 
retention, increases to the required investment amounts, revision of 
the Targeted Employment Area requirements, clarification of the 
regional center designation and continued program participation 
requirements, and further definition of grounds for terminating 
regional centers.

Improvements to the Immigration System

    Requirements for Filing Motions and Administrative Appeals. USCIS 
will propose to revise the procedural regulations governing appeals and 
motions to reopen or reconsider before its Administrative Appeals 
Office. The rule will also propose to require that applicants and 
petitioners exhaust administrative remedies before seeking judicial 
review of an unfavorable decision. This rule will streamline the 
procedures before the Administrative Appeals Office and improve the 
efficiency of the adjudication process.

[[Page 94558]]

Regulatory Changes Involving Humanitarian Benefits

    ``T'' and ``U'' Nonimmigrants. USCIS is working on regulatory 
initiatives related to T nonimmigrants (victims of trafficking) and U 
nonimmigrants (victims of criminal activity). Through these 
initiatives, USCIS hopes to provide greater consistency in eligibility, 
application, and procedural requirements for these vulnerable groups, 
their advocates, and the community. These regulations 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 regulatory projects in this fall 2016 regulatory 
plan and in the agenda contribute to the fulfillment of those 
responsibilities.
    Seafarers' Access to Maritime Facilities. This regulatory action is 
necessary to implement section 811 of the Coast Guard Authorization Act 
of 2010, which requires facility owners and operators to ensure shore 
access for seafarers and other individuals. This regulation applies to 
owners and operators of facilities regulated by the Coast Guard under 
the Maritime Transportation Safety Act of 2002. This regulation helps 
ensure that owners and operators provide seafarers assigned to vessels 
moored at the facility, pilots, and representatives of seamen's welfare 
and labor organizations with the ability to board and depart vessels to 
access the shore through the facility in a timely manner and at no cost 
to the seafarer.
    Commercial Fishing Vessels--Implementation of 2010 and 2012 
Legislation. The Coast Guard is working to improve safety in the 
commercial fishing industry, which remains one of the most hazardous 
occupations in the United States. In 2016, the Coast Guard withdrew a 
rulemaking effort that had been superseded by statute, and instead 
proposed a rule to implement relevant mandatory provisions of the Coast 
Guard Authorization Act of 2010 and Coast Guard and Maritime 
Transportation Act of 2012. The proposed rule would add new 
requirements for safety equipment, vessel examinations, vessel safety 
standards, the documentation of maintenance, and the termination of 
unsafe operations. These requirements would affect an estimated 36,115 
existing commercial fishing vessels. This rule is intended to reduce 
the risk of future fishing vessel casualties and, if a casualty does 
occur, to minimize the adverse impacts to crew and enable them to have 
the maximum opportunity to survive and to be rescued. he Coast Guard 
provided a public comment period of 180 days, ending in December 2016, 
and will consider all comments when developing the final rule.

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 regulations 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 regulations 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, through an electronic data 
interchange system, of information to CBP pertaining to cargo to be 
brought into the United States or to be sent from the United

[[Page 94559]]

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 intends to publish a notice of proposed 
rulemaking in the next fiscal year 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. 
The Department of the Treasury retained certain regulatory authority of 
the U.S. Customs Service relating to customs revenue function (see the 
Department of the Treasury Regulatory Plan). In addition to its plans 
to continue issuing regulations to enhance border security, CBP, in the 
coming year, expects to continue to issue regulatory documents that 
will facilitate legitimate trade and implement trade benefit programs. 
For a discussion of CBP regulations regarding the customs revenue 
function, see the regulatory plan of the Department of the Treasury.

Federal Emergency Management Agency

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) mission is to 
support our citizens and first responders to ensure that as a Nation we 
work together to build, sustain, and improve our capability to prepare 
for, protect against, respond to, recover from and mitigate all 
hazards. FEMA's ethos is to serve the Nation by helping its people and 
first responders, especially when they are most in need. FEMA will 
promulgate several rulemakings to support its mission, one of which we 
highlight below.
    Updates to Floodplain Management and Protection of Wetlands 
Regulations to Implement Executive Order 13690 and the Federal Flood 
Risk Management Standard (FFRMS). The rule proposes to amend existing 
FEMA regulations to implement Executive Order 13690, ``Establishing a 
Federal Flood Risk Management Standard and a Process for Further 
Soliciting and Considering Stakeholder Input.'' FEMA is also proposing 
a supplementary policy that would further clarify how FEMA applies the 
FFRMS. FEMA published a notice of proposed rulemaking on August 22, 
2016 and will work on finalizing that rule in the coming fiscal year.

Federal Law Enforcement Training Center

    The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) does not have 
any significant regulatory actions planned for fiscal year 2017.

United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement

    U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is the principal 
criminal investigative arm of DHS 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 the coming year, ICE will focus its 
rulemaking efforts on increasing security in the area of student and 
exchange visitor programs.

Eligibility Checks of Nominated and Current Designated School Officials 
of Schools That Enroll F and M Nonimmigrant Students and of Exchange 
Visitor Program-Designated Sponsors of J Nonimmigrants

    DHS will issue a rule proposing to strengthen the mechanism for 
approving user access to one of its data-management systems, the 
Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS). DHS and the 
Department of State, rely on principal designated school officials, 
designated school officials, responsible officers, and alternate 
responsible officers (collectively, P/DSOs, DSOs and ROs/AROs) as key 
links in the process to mitigate potential threats to national security 
and to ensure compliance with immigration law by aliens admitted into 
the United States in F, J, or M nonimmigrant status. Through this rule, 
DHS would require that anyone nominated to serve as a P/DSO, DSO, or 
RO/ARO receive a favorable SEVIS Access Approval Process assessment 
prior to their appointment and subsequent approval for access to SEVIS. 
The primary benefit of this rule would be to reduce the potential for 
fraud.

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

[[Page 94560]]

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 program 
mandating that high-risk chemical facilities in the United States 
develop and implement security plans satisfying risk-based performance 
standards established by DHS.
    The CFATS regulations have been in effect since 2007. On August 18, 
2014, the Department published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking 
(ANPRM) seeking public comment on ways to make the program more 
effective. The Department will continue this rulemaking effort and 
intends to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). The NPRM 
will propose modifications to CFATS based on the public comments 
received in response to the ANPRM and on program implementation 
experience. The NPRM will also propose modifications to CFATS in order 
to align the existing regulation with the requirements of the 2014 
legislation. Through the rule, NPPD seeks to harmonize the regulation 
with its statutory authority and to make 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.
    For the coming fiscal year, TSA is prioritizing regulations related 
to requirements for surface transportation included in the 9/11 Act. 
These rulemakings will include the following ones:
    Security Training for Surface Transportation Employees. TSA will 
propose regulations requiring higher-risk public transportation 
agencies (including rail mass transit and bus systems), railroad 
carriers (freight and passenger), and over-the-road bus (OTRB) owner/
operators to conduct security training for frontline employees. This 
regulation will implement sections 1408 (public transportation), 1517 
(railroads), and 1531(e) and 1534 (OTRBs) of the 9/11 Act. In 
compliance with the definitions of frontline employees in the pertinent 
provisions of the 9/11 Act, the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 
will include identification of which employees are required to receive 
security training and the content of that training. The NPRM will also 
propose definitions for transportation security-sensitive materials, as 
required by section 1501 of the 9/11 Act.
    Surface Transportation Vulnerability Assessments and Security 
Plans. TSA will publish an advance notice of proposed rulemaking 
(ANPRM) regarding a future rulemaking that will propose requiring 
higher-risk public transportation agencies (including rail mass transit 
and bus systems), railroads (freight and passenger), and OTRB owner/
operators to conduct vulnerability assessments and develop/implement 
security plans. This regulation will propose to implement sections 1405 
(public transportation), 1512 (railroads), and 1531 (OTRBs) of the 9/11 
Act.
    Vetting of Certain Surface Transportation Employees. TSA will 
propose regulations requiring security threat assessments for security 
coordinators and other frontline employees of certain public 
transportation agencies (including rail mass transit and bus systems), 
railroads (freight and passenger), and OTRB owner/operators. The NPRM 
will also include proposed provisions to implement TSA's statutory 
requirement to recover its cost of vetting through user fees. This 
regulation will implement sections 1414 (public transportation), 1522 
(railroads), and 1531(e)(2) (over-the-road buses) of the 9/11 Act.

United States Secret Service

    The United States Secret Service does not have any significant 
regulatory actions planned for fiscal year 2017.

DHS Regulatory Plan for Fiscal Year 2017

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

DHS--OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (OS)

Proposed Rule Stage

53. 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 nine 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

[[Page 94561]]

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................................   12/00/16
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

54. 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................................   08/00/17
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 94562]]

    RIN: 1615-AA67

DHS--USCIS

55. 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.
    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................................   06/00/17
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

56. Improvement of the Employment Creation Immigrant Regulations

    Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 
undetermined.
    Legal Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1153(b)(5)
    CFR Citation: 8 CFR 204.6.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: DHS proposes to amend its regulations governing the 
employment-based, fifth preference (EB-5) immigrant entrepreneur 
category and EB-5 regional centers to modernize the EB-5 program based 
on current economic realities and to reflect statutory changes made to 
the program. DHS is proposing to update the regulations to include the 
following areas: Priority date retention, increases to the required 
investment amounts, revision of the Targeted Employment Area 
requirements, clarification of the regional center designation and 
continued program participation requirements, and further definition of 
grounds for terminating regional centers.
    Statement of Need: The proposed regulatory changes are necessary to 
reflect statutory changes and codify existing policies, more accurately 
reflect existing and future economic realities, improve operational 
efficiencies to provide stakeholders with a higher level of 
predictability and transparency in the adjudication process, and 
enhance program integrity by clarifying key eligibility requirements 
for program participation and further detailing the processes required. 
Given the complexities involved in adjudicating benefit requests in the 
EB-5 program, along with continued program integrity concerns and 
increasing adjudication processing times, DHS has decided to revise the 
existing regulations to modernize key areas of the program.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The Immigration Act (INA) authorizes the 
Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary) to administer and enforce 
the immigration and nationality laws including establishing regulations 
deemed necessary to carry out his authority, and section 102 of the 
Homeland Security Act, 6 U.S.C. 112, authorizes the Secretary to issue 
regulations. 8 U.S.C. 1103(a), INA section 103(a). INA section 
203(b)(5), 8 U.S.C. 1153(b)(5), also provides the Secretary with 
authority to make visas available to immigrants seeking to engage in a 
new commercial enterprise in which the immigrant has invested and which 
will benefit the United States economy and create full-time employment 
for not fewer than 10 U.S. workers. Further, section 610 of Public Law 
102-395 (8 U.S.C. 1153 note) created the Immigrant Investor Pilot 
Program and authorized the Secretary to set aside visas for individuals 
who invest in regional centers created for the purpose of concentrating 
pooled investment in defined economic zones, and was last amended by 
Public Law 107-273.
    Alternatives:
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: As a result of these amendments and 
resulting modernized program, DHS believes that regional centers, 
entrepreneurs, and the Federal each benefit. This rule would benefit 
regional centers by clarifying the requirements for designation and 
continued participation in the EB-5 program, making the application 
process more transparent for regional centers and streamlined to 
improve DHS operational efficiencies. The rule would benefit 
entrepreneurs seeking to participate in the program by providing the 
opportunity to mitigate the harsh consequences of unexpected changes to 
business conditions through priority date retention in limited 
circumstances. This rule would also provide a more transparent process 
for entrepreneurs

[[Page 94563]]

seeking to participate in the regional center program by providing 
increased consistency and predictability of adjudications through the 
clarified regional center continued program participation requirements. 
These changes will also streamline the adjudication process and improve 
DHS operational efficiencies, resulting in improved adjudication times. 
Finally, the Federal Government will benefit from clarifications and 
enhancements to the EB-5 program to strengthen program integrity, 
reducing the risk of fraud and national security concerns in the 
program, as well as improving operational efficiencies to reduce 
overall program costs.
    Risks:
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   01/00/17
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Lori S. MacKenzie, Division Chief, Operations 
Policy & Performance, Immigrant Investor Program, Department of 
Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 131 M 
Street NE., Washington, DC 20529-2200, Phone: 202 357-9214, Email: 
uscis.dhs.gov">lori.s.mackenzie@uscis.dhs.gov.
    Related RIN: Related to 1205-AB69
    RIN: 1615-AC07

DHS--USCIS

Final Rule Stage

57. 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 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..................   01/00/17  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State.
    Additional Information: Transferred from RIN 1115-AG19.
    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, 
Suite 1200, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529, Phone: 
202 272-1470, Fax: 202 272-1480, Email: uscis.dhs.gov">maureen.a.dunn@uscis.dhs.gov.
    RIN: 1615-AA59

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,

[[Page 94564]]

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..........................   05/00/17  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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, 
Suite 1200, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529, Phone: 
202 272-1470, Fax: 202 272-1480, Email: uscis.dhs.gov">maureen.a.dunn@uscis.dhs.gov.
    RIN: 1615-AB81

DHS--USCIS

59. International Entrepreneur

    Priority: Other Significant.
    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) proposed to 
amend its regulations implementing the Secretary of Homeland Security's 
discretionary parole authority to increase and enhance 
entrepreneurship, innovation, and job creation in the United States. 
The rule would add new regulatory provisions guiding the use of parole 
on a case-by-case basis with respect to entrepreneurs of start-up 
entities whose entry into the United States would provide a significant 
public benefit through the substantial and demonstrated potential for 
rapid business growth and job creation. Such potential would be 
indicated by, among other things, the receipt of significant capital 
investment from U.S. investors with established records of successful 
investments, or obtaining significant awards or grants from certain 
Federal, State or local government entities.
    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). This regulation explains and clarifies 
how DHS determines what provides, per the INA, a significant public 
benefit to the U.S. economy 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

[[Page 94565]]

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................................   08/31/16  81 FR 60129
NPRM Comment Period End.............   10/17/16  .......................
Final Action........................   01/00/17  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    International Impacts: This regulatory action will be likely to 
have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise be of 
international interest.
    URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Kevin Cummings, Division 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, Phone: 202 272-8377, 
Fax: 202 272-1480, Email: uscis.dhs.gov">kevin.j.cummings@uscis.dhs.gov.
    RIN: 1615-AC04

DHS--USCIS

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

    Priority: Economically 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: In December 2015, the Department of Homeland Security 
(DHS) proposed 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................................   12/31/15  80 FR 81900
NPRM Comment Period End.............   02/29/16  .......................
Final Rule..........................   11/00/16  .......................
Final Rule Effective................   01/00/17  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Organizations.
    Government Levels Affected: None.

[[Page 94566]]

    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.
    URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Kevin Cummings, Division 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, Phone: 202 272-8377, 
Fax: 202 272-1480, Email: uscis.dhs.gov">kevin.j.cummings@uscis.dhs.gov.
    Related RIN: Related to 1615-AB97
    RIN: 1615-AC05

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

Proposed Rule Stage

61. Commercial Fishing Vessels--Implementation of 2010 and 2012 
Legislation

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: Pub. L. 111-281
    CFR Citation: 46 CFR 28; 46 CFR 42.
    Legal Deadline: Other, Statutory, CGAA 2010 Requirements in effect 
since 10/15/2010.
    Abstract: The Coast Guard proposes to implement those requirements 
of 2010 and 2012 legislation that pertain to uninspected commercial 
fishing industry vessels and that took effect upon enactment of the 
legislation but that, to be implemented, require amendments to Coast 
Guard regulations affecting those vessels. The applicability of the 
regulations is being changed, and new requirements are being added to 
safety training, equipment, vessel examinations, vessel safety 
standards, the documentation of maintenance, and the termination of 
unsafe operations. This rulemaking promotes the Coast Guard's maritime 
safety mission.
    Statement of Need: The Coast Guard proposes to align its commercial 
fishing industry vessel regulations with the mandatory provisions of 
2010 and 2012 legislation passed by Congress that took effect upon 
enactment. The alignments would change the applicability of current 
regulations, and add new requirements for safety equipment, vessel 
examinations, vessel safety standards, the documentation of 
maintenance, and the termination of unsafe operations. This rule only 
proposes to implement these legislative mandates, would exercise no 
Coast Guard regulatory discretion, and would promote the Coast Guard's 
maritime safety mission.
    Summary of Legal Basis:
    Alternatives:
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: We estimate that, as a result of 
this rulemaking, owners and operators of certain commercial fishing 
vessels would incur additional annualized costs, discounted at 7 
percent, of $34.2 million. We estimate the annualized cost, discounted 
at 7 percent, to government of $5.4 million, for a total annualized 
cost of $39.7 million. For commercial fishing vessels that operate 
beyond 3 nautical miles, the cost of this rulemaking would involve 
provisions for carriage of survival craft, recordkeeping of lifesaving 
and fire equipment maintenance, and dockside safety examinations once 
every 5 years. Also, certain newly built commercial fishing vessels 
would have to undergo survey and classification. We believe that the 
rule based on Congressional mandates will address a wide range of 
causes of commercial fishing vessel accidents and supports the main 
goal of improving safety and survivability in the commercial fishing 
industry. The primary benefit of the proposed rule is an increase in 
safety and a resulting decrease in the risk of accidents and their 
consequences, primarily fatalities. We estimate an annualized benefit 
of $7.1 to $9.4 million from this rule, discounted at 7 percent.
    Risks:
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   06/21/16  81 FR 40437
NPRM Comment Period Extended........   08/15/16  81 FR 53986
NPRM Comment Period End.............   10/19/16  .......................
Second NPRM Comment Period End......   12/18/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Additional Information: Docket ID USCG-2012-0025.
    Agency Contact: Jack Kemerer, Project Manager, CG-CVC-3, Department 
of Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. 
Avenue SE., STOP 7501, Washington, DC 20593-7501, Phone: 202 372-1249, 
Email: [email protected].
    Related RIN: Related to 1625-AA77
    RIN: 1625-AB85

DHS--USCG

Final Rule Stage

62. Seafarers' Access to Maritime Facilities

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226; 33 U.S.C. 1231; Pub. L. 111-281, 
sec. 811
    CFR Citation: 33 CFR 101.112(b); 33 CFR 105.200; 33 CFR 105.237; 33 
CFR 105.405.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This regulatory action will implement section 811 of the 
Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-281), which requires 
the owner/operator of a facility regulated by the Coast Guard under the 
Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-295) (MTSA) 
to provide a system that enables seafarers and certain other 
individuals to transit between vessels moored at the facility and the 
facility gate in a timely manner at no cost to the seafarer or other 
individual. Ensuring that such access through a facility is consistent 
with the security requirements in MTSA is part of the Coast Guard's 
Ports, Waterways, and Coastal Security (PWCS) mission.
    Statement of Need: The Coast Guard's final rule would require each 
owner or operator of a facility regulated by the Coast Guard to 
implement a system that provides seafarers and other individuals with 
access between vessels moored at the facility and the facility gate, in 
a timely manner and at no cost to the seafarer or other individual. 
Generally, transiting through a facility is the only way that a 
seafarer or other individual can egress to shore beyond the facility to 
access basic shoreside businesses and services, and meet with family 
members and other personnel that do not hold a Transportation Worker 
Identification Credential. This proposed rule would help to ensure that 
no facility owner or operator denies or makes it impractical for 
seafarers or other individuals to transit through the facility, and 
would require them to document their access procedures in their 
Facility Security Plans. This final rule would implement section 811 of 
the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010.
    Summary of Legal Basis:
    Alternatives:
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: We estimate that, as a result of 
this rulemaking, owners or operators of a facility regulated by the 
Coast Guard would incur additional annualized costs, discounted at 7 
percent, of $2.82 million. We estimate the annualized cost, discounted 
at 7 percent, to government of $8,000 for a total annualized cost of 
$2.83 million.

[[Page 94567]]

Owners and operators of a facility regulated by the Coast Guard will 
incur costs to implement a system that provides seafarers and other 
individuals with access between the shore and vessels moored at the 
facility. We believe that the rule based on Congressional mandates will 
provide access through facilities for an average of 907 seafarers and 
other covered individuals that were otherwise denied access annually, 
thus ensuring the safety, health and welfare of seafarers. The rule 
will also reduce regulatory uncertainty by harmonizing regulations with 
Sec. 811 of Pub. L. 111281 and conforms to the intent of the ISPS Code.
    Risks:
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   12/29/14  79 FR 77981
NPRM Comment Period Reopened........   05/27/15  80 FR 30189
NPRM Comment Period End.............   07/01/15  .......................
Final Rule..........................   08/00/17  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    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: LCDR Kevin McDonald, Project Manager, Department of 
Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard, 2703 Martin Luther King, Jr. 
Avenue SE., Commandant (CG-FAC-2), STOP 7501, Washington, DC 20593-
7501, Phone: 202 372-1168, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 1625-AC15

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: The Trade Act of 2002 authorizes CBP to 
promulgate regulations providing for the mandatory transmission of 
electronic cargo information by way of a CBP-approved electronic data 
interchange (EDI) system before the cargo is brought into or departs 
the United States by any mode of commercial transportation. Under the 
Trade Act, the required cargo information is that which is reasonably 
necessary to ensure cargo safety and security pursuant to the laws 
enforced and administered by CBP.
    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................................   12/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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, 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

[[Page 94568]]

Passenger Information System (APIS) following 9/11, CBP began 
collecting information on aliens traveling by air or sea to the United 
States electronically from carriers in advance of arrival. For aliens 
arriving in the United States by air or sea, CBP obtains almost all of 
the information contained on the paper Form I-94 electronically and in 
advance via APIS. The few fields on the Form I-94 that are not 
collected via APIS are either already collected by the Department of 
State and transmitted to CBP or can be collected by the CBP officer 
from the individual at the time of inspection. This means that CBP no 
longer needs to collect Form I-94 information as a matter of course 
directly from aliens traveling to the United States by air or sea. At 
this time, the automated process will apply only to aliens arriving at 
air and sea ports of entry.
    Statement of Need: This rule makes the necessary changes to the 
regulations to enable CBP to transition to an automated process whereby 
CBP will create an electronic Form I-94 based on the information in its 
databases.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Section 103(a) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (INA) generally authorizes the Secretary of Homeland 
Security to establish such regulations and prescribe such forms of 
reports, entries, and other papers necessary to carry out his or her 
authority to administer and enforce the immigration and nationality 
laws and to guard the borders of the United States against illegal 
entry of aliens.
    Alternatives: CBP considered two alternatives to this rule: 
Eliminating the paper Form I-94 in the air and sea environments 
entirely and providing the paper Form I-94 to all travelers who are not 
B-1/B-2 travelers. Eliminating the paper Form I-94 option for refugees, 
applicants for asylum, parolees, and those travelers who request one 
would not result in a significant cost savings to CBP and would harm 
travelers who have an immediate need for an electronic Form I-94 or who 
face obstacles to accessing their electronic Form I-94. A second 
alternative to the rule is to provide a paper Form I-94 to any 
travelers who are not B-1/B-2 travelers. Under this alternative, 
travelers would receive and complete the paper Form I-94 during their 
inspection when they arrive in the United States. The electronic Form 
I-94 would still be automatically created during the inspection, but 
the CBP officer would need to verify that the information appearing on 
the form matches the information in CBP's systems. In addition, CBP 
would need to write the Form I-94 number on each paper Form I-94 so 
that their paper form matches the electronic record. As noted in the 
analysis, 25.1 percent of aliens are non-B-1/B-2 travelers. Filling out 
and processing this many paper Forms I-94 at airports and seaports 
would increase processing times considerably. At the same time, it 
would only provide a small savings to the individual traveler.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: With the implementation of this 
rule, CBP will no longer collect Form I-94 information as a matter of 
course directly from aliens traveling to the United States by air or 
sea. Instead, CBP will create an electronic Form I-94 for foreign 
travelers based on the information in its databases. This rule makes 
the necessary changes to the regulations to enable CBP to transition to 
an automated process. Both CBP and aliens would bear costs as a result 
of this rule. CBP would bear costs to link its data systems and to 
build a Web site so aliens can access their electronic Forms I-94. CBP 
estimates that the total cost for CBP to link data systems, develop a 
secure Web site, and fully automate the Form I-94 fully will equal 
about $1.3 million in calendar year 2012. CBP will incur costs of $0.09 
million in subsequent years to operate and maintain these systems. 
Aliens arriving as diplomats and students would bear costs when logging 
into the Web site and printing electronic I-94s. The temporary workers 
and aliens in the ``Other/Unknown'' category bear costs when logging 
into the Web site, traveling to a location with public Internet access, 
and printing a paper copy of their electronic Form I-94. Using the 
primary estimate for a traveler's value of time, aliens would bear 
costs between $36.6 million and $46.4 million from 2013 to 2016. Total 
costs for this rule for 2013 would range from $34.2 million to $40.1 
million, with a primary estimate of costs equal to $36.7 million. CBP, 
carriers, and foreign travelers would accrue benefits as a result of 
this rule. CBP would save contract and printing costs of $15.6 million 
per year of our analysis. Carriers would save a total of $1.3 million 
in printing costs per year. All aliens would save the eight-minute time 
burden for filling out the paper Form I-94 and certain aliens who lose 
the Form I-94 would save the $330 fee and 25-minute time burden for 
filling out the Form I-102. Using the primary estimate for a traveler's 
value of time, aliens would obtain benefits between $112.6 million and 
$141.6 million from 2013 to 2016. Total benefits for this rule for 2013 
would range from $110.7 million to $155.6 million, with a primary 
estimate of benefits equal to $129.5 million. Overall, this rule 
results in substantial cost savings (benefits) for foreign travelers, 
carriers, and CBP. CBP anticipates a net benefit in 2013 of between 
$59.7 million and $98.7 million for foreign travelers, $1.3 million for 
carriers, and $15.5 million for CBP. Net benefits to U.S. entities 
(carriers and CBP) in 2013 total $16.8 million. CBP anticipates the 
total net benefits to both domestic and foreign entities in 2013 range 
from $76.5 million to $115.5 million. In our primary analysis, the 
total net benefits are $92.8 million in 2013. For the primary estimate, 
annualized net benefits range from $78.1 million to $80.0 million, 
depending on the discount rate used. More information on costs and 
benefits can be found in the interim final rule.
    Risks: N/A.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule..................   03/27/13  78 FR 18457
Interim Final Rule Comment Period      04/26/13  .......................
 End.
Interim Final Rule Effective........   04/26/13  .......................
Final Action........................   12/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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


[[Page 94569]]



DHS--TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (TSA)

Prerule Stage

65. Surface Transportation Vulnerability Assessments and Security Plans

    Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 
undetermined.
    Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 114; Pub. L. 110-53, secs. 1405, 1512, 
and 1531
    CFR Citation: 49 CFR 1520; 49 CFR 1570; 49 CFR 1580; 49 CFR 1582 
(new); 49 CFR 1584 (new); . . .
    Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, August 3, 2008, Rule for freight 
railroads and passenger railroads is due no later than 12 months after 
date of enactment.
    Final, Statutory, February 3, 2009, Rule for over-the-road buses is 
due no later than 18 months after the date of enactment of the 9/11 
Act.
    According to sec. 1512 of Pub. L. 110-53, Implementing 
Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (9/11 Act), (121 
Stat. 266, Aug. 3, 2007), a final regulation for freight railroads and 
passenger railroads is due no later than 12 months after the date of 
enactment. According to sec. 1531 of the 9/11 Act, a final regulation 
for over-the-road buses is due no later than 18 months after the date 
of enactment.
    Abstract: The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) will 
propose a new regulation to address the security of higher-risk freight 
railroads, public transportation agencies, passenger railroads, and 
over-the-road buses in accordance with requirements of the Implementing 
Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (9/11 Act). The 
regulation will take into consideration any current security assessment 
and planning requirements or best practices.
    Statement of Need: Vulnerability assessments and security planning 
are important and effective tools for averting or mitigating potential 
attacks by those with malicious intent that 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 1405, 1512, and 
1531 of Pub. L. 110-53, Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 
Commission Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 266, Aug. 3, 2007).
    Alternatives:
    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 
vulnerability assessments and security planning of higher-risk surface 
transportation operations, TSA intends in this rulemaking to reduce the 
risk of a terrorist attack on this transportation sector.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM...............................   12/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: Local.
    Federalism: Undetermined.
    URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    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].
    Alex Moscoso, Lead Economist, 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: 571 227-5839, 
Email: [email protected].
    Traci Klemm, 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: 571 227-3596, Email: 
[email protected].
    Related RIN: Related to 1652-AA55, Merged with 1652-AA58, Merged 
with 1652-AA60
    RIN: 1652-AA56

DHS--TSA

Proposed Rule Stage

66. Security Training for Surface Transportation Employees

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 114; Pub. L. 110-53, secs. 1402, 1408, 
1501, 1517, 1531, and 1534
    CFR Citation: 49 CFR 1500; 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 (9/11 Act), (121 
Stat. 266, Aug. 3, 2007), 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. According to sec. 1517 of the 9/11 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 1402, 1408, 1501, 
1517, 1531, and 1534 of Pub. L. 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: Owner/operators would incur costs 
training their employees, developing a

[[Page 94570]]

training plan, maintaining training records, and participating in 
inspections for compliance. Some owner/operators would also incur 
additional costs associated with assigning security coordinators and 
reporting significant security incidents to TSA. TSA would incur costs 
associated with reviewing owner/operators' training plans, registering 
owner/operators' security coordinators, responding to owner/operators' 
reported significant security incidents, and conducting inspection for 
compliance with this rule. As part of TSA's risk-based security, 
benefits include mitigating potential attacks by heightening awareness 
of employees on the frontline. In addition, by designating security 
coordinators and reporting significant security concerns to TSA, TSA 
has a direct line for communicating threats and receiving information 
necessary to analyze trends and potential threats across all modes of 
transportation.
    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................................   11/00/16  .......................
NPRM Comment Period End.............   02/00/17  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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].
    Alex Moscoso, Lead Economist, 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: 571 227-5839, 
Email: [email protected].
    Traci Klemm, 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: 571 227-3596, Email: 
[email protected].
    Related RIN: Related to 1652-AA56, Merged with 1652-AA57, Merged 
with 1652-AA59
    RIN: 1652-AA55


DHS--TSA

67.  Vetting of Certain Surface Transportation Employees

    Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 
undetermined.
    Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
    Legal Authority: Pub. L. 110-53, secs 1411, 1414, 1512, 1520, 1522, 
and 1531
    CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
    Legal Deadline: Other, Statutory, August 3, 2008, Background and 
immigration status check for all public transportation frontline 
employees is due no later than 12 months after date of enactment.
    Other, Statutory, August 3, 2008, Background and immigration status 
check for all railroad frontline employees is due no later than 12 
months after date of enactment.
    Sections 1411 and 1520 of Pub. L. 110-53, Implementing 
Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (9/11 Act), (121 
Stat. 266, Aug. 3, 2007), require background checks of frontline public 
transportation and railroad employees not later than 1 year from the 
date of enactment. Requirement will be met through regulatory action.
    Abstract: The Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission 
Act of 2007 (9/11 Act) requires vetting of certain railroad, public 
transportation, and over-the-road bus employees. Through this 
rulemaking, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) intends to 
propose the mechanisms and procedures to conduct this required vetting. 
TSA previously intended to include vetting requirements for these 
populations in a related rulemaking called Standardized Vetting, 
Adjudication, and Redress Services (SVAR). However, TSA now plans to 
proceed with a separate rulemaking in order to provide vetting more 
expediently for these populations. This regulation is related to 1652-
AA55, Security Training for Surface Transportation Employees.
    Statement of Need: Employee vetting 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:
    Alternatives:
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: TSA is in the process of determining 
the costs and benefits of this rulemaking.
    Risks:
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   09/00/17  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
    URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    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].
    Michael J. Pickford, Lead Economist, 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 
227-2268, Email: [email protected].
    Laura Gaudreau, Attorney--Advisor, 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: 571 227-1088, Fax: 571 227-1378, 
Email: [email protected].
    Related RIN: Split from 1652-AA61, Related to 1652-AA55
    RIN: 1652-AA69


[[Page 94571]]



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

Proposed Rule Stage

68. Eligibility Checks of Nominated and Current Designated School 
Officials of Schools That Enroll F and M Nonimmigrant Students and of 
Exchange Visitor Program-Designated Sponsors of J Nonimmigrants

    Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 
undetermined.
    Legal Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101; 8 U.S.C. 1102; 8 U.S.C. 1003
    CFR Citation: 8 CFR 214.3.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The rule would improve the capability of the Student and 
Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) to oversee access to the Student and 
Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) for designated school 
officials (DSOs) at schools certified to enroll F and M nonimmigrant 
students and for responsible officers (ROs) and alternate responsible 
officers (AROs) that oversee designated sponsors' J nonimmigrant 
participants in exchange programs. Establishment of an eligibility 
check process for certain officials would improve oversight prior to 
permitting access to SEVIS and prior to appointment or continued 
eligibility as such an official. This rule would better position DHS to 
identify, intervene and prevent possible criminal activities or threats 
to national security that could result from non-compliance.
    Statement of Need: The rule would strengthen the mechanism for 
approving user access to SEVIS. DHS, as well as the Department of State 
(DOS), rely on principal designated school officials, designated school 
officials, responsible officers, and alternate responsible officers 
(collectively, P/DSOs P/DSOs and ROs/AROs) as key links in the process 
to mitigate potential threats to national security and ensure 
compliance with immigration law from aliens admitted into the United 
States in F, J, or M nonimmigrant status. Through this rule, DHS would 
require that anyone nominated to serve as a P/DSO or RO/ARO receive a 
favorable SEVIS Access Approval Process (SAAP) assessment prior to 
their appointment and subsequent approval for access to SEVIS.
    Summary of Legal Basis:
     Sections 101(a)(15)(F), (J) and (M), of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act of 1952, as amended (INA) 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(F), 
(J) and (M), which establish the F-1, J-1, and M-1 classifications (and 
associated derivative classifications).
     Section 641 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and 
Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, 8 U.S.C. 1372, which authorized 
the following:
     Creation of a program to collect current and ongoing 
information provided by schools and EVP sponsors regarding F, J, or M 
nonimmigrants during their stays in the United States;
     Use of electronic reporting technology where practicable; 
and
     DHS certification of schools to participate in F-1 or M-1 
student enrollment.
     Homeland Security Presidential Directive No. 2 (HSPD-2), 
Combating Terrorism Through Immigration Policies, which, following the 
USA PATRIOT Act, requires DHS to conduct periodic reviews of all 
institutions certified to receive nonimmigrant students and exchange 
visitor program students that include checks for compliance with 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements, and authorizes termination of 
certification for institutions that fail to comply. See 37 Weekly Comp. 
Pres. Docs. 1570, 1571-72 (October 29, 2001).
     Section 502 of the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry 
Reform Act of 2002, 8 U.S.C. 1762, which directs DHS to review 
compliance with recordkeeping and reporting requirements under 8 U.S.C. 
1372 and INA section 101(a)(15)(F), (J) and (M), 8 U.S.C. 
1101(a)(15)(F), (J) and (M), of all schools approved to receive F, J or 
M nonimmigrants within two years of enactment and every two years 
thereafter.
    Alternatives:
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: DHS is in the process of determining 
the costs and benefits which would be incurred by regulated individuals 
with access to SEVIS, as well as the costs and benefits to DHS and DOS, 
to comply with the requirements of this rule. The rule would impose new 
vetting requirements for individuals prior to permitting access to 
SEVIS or continued eligibility for such access, which include an 
application process for the individuals and an approval process for DHS 
and DOS. The primary benefit of this rule would be to reduce the 
potential for fraud.
    Risks:
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   04/00/17  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
    Agency Contact: 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].
    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, STOP 5600, 
500 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20536-5600, Phone: 703 603-3400, 
Email: [email protected].
    Brad Tuttle, Attorney Advisor, Department of Homeland Security, 
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 500 12th Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20536, Phone: 202 732-5000, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 1653-AA71

DHS--FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY (FEMA)

Final Rule Stage

69. Updates to Floodplain Management and Protection of Wetlands 
Regulations To Implement Executive Order 13690 and the Federal Flood 
Risk Management Standard

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: E.O. 11988, as amended; E.O. 13690
    CFR Citation: 44 CFR 9.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) proposes 
to amend its regulations at 44 CFR part 9 ``Floodplain Management and 
Protection of Wetlands'' to implement Executive Order 13690, which 
establishes the Federal Flood Risk Management Standard (FFRMS). 44 CFR 
part 9 describes FEMA's process for determining whether the proposed 
location for an action falls within a floodplain. In addition, for 
those projects that would fall within a floodplain, part 9 describes 
FEMA's framework for deciding whether and how to complete the action in 
the floodplain, in light of the risk of flooding. Consistent with 
Executive Order 13690 and the FFRMS, the proposed rule would change how 
FEMA defines a ``floodplain'' with respect to certain actions. 
Additionally, under the proposed rule, FEMA would use natural systems, 
ecosystem process, and nature-based approaches, where practicable, when 
developing alternatives to locating a proposed action in the 
floodplain.

[[Page 94572]]

    Statement of Need: It is the policy of the United States to improve 
the resilience of communities and Federal assets against the impacts of 
flooding. These impacts are anticipated to increase over time due to 
the effects of climate change and other threats. Losses caused by 
flooding affect the environment, our economic prosperity, and public 
health and safety, each of which affects our national security.
    The Federal Government must take action, informed by the best-
available and actionable science, to improve the Nation's preparedness 
and resilience against flooding. Executive Order 11988 of May 24, 1977, 
Floodplain Management; requires executive departments and agencies 
(agencies) to avoid, to the extent possible, the long- and short-term 
adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of 
floodplains and to avoid direct or indirect support of floodplain 
development wherever there is a practicable alternative. FEMA has 
implemented Executive Order 11988 through its regulations in 44 CFR 
part 9.
    On January 30, 2015, the President issued Executive Order 13690, 
Establishing a Federal Flood Risk Management Standard (FFRMS) and a 
Process for Further Soliciting and Considering Stakeholder Input. 
Executive Order 13690 amended Executive Order 11988 and established the 
FFRMS. The FFRMS is a flexible framework to increase resilience against 
flooding and help preserve the natural values of floodplains. Under the 
FFRMS, an agency may establish the floodplain for Federally Funded 
Projects using any of the following approaches: (1) Climate-Informed 
Science Approach (CISA): Utilizing the best-available, actionable 
hydrologic and hydraulic data and methods that integrate current and 
future changes in flooding based on climate science; (2) Freeboard 
Value Approach (FVA): Freeboard (base flood elevation + X, where X is 3 
feet for critical actions and 2 feet for other actions); (3) 0.2 
percent annual chance Flood Approach (0.2 PFA): 0.2 percent annual 
chance flood (also known as the 500-year flood); or (4) the elevation 
and flood hazard area that result from using any other method 
identified in an update to the FFRMS.
    When Executive Order 13690 was issued, FEMA evaluated the 
application of Executive Order 13690 and the FFRMS with respect to its 
existing authorities and programs. The FFRMS establishes a flexible 
standard to improve resilience against the impact of flooding to design 
for the intended life of the Federal investment. FEMA supports this 
principle. With more than $260 billion in flood damages across the 
Nation since 1980, it is necessary to take action to responsibly use 
Federal funds, and FEMA must ensure it does not needlessly make 
repeated Federal investments in the same structures after flooding 
events. In addition, the FFRMS will help support the thousands of 
communities across the Country that have strengthened their State and 
local floodplain management codes and standards to ensure that 
infrastructure and other community assets are resilient to flood risk. 
FEMA recognizes that the need to make structures resilient also 
requires a flexible approach to adapt for the needs of the Federal 
agency, local community, and the circumstances surrounding each project 
or action.
    Summary of Legal Basis:
    Alternatives: FEMA proposes to use the FFRMS-FVA to establish the 
floodplain for non-critical actions. For critical actions, FEMA would 
allow the use of the FFRMS-FVA floodplain or the FFRMS-CISA, but only 
if the elevation established under the FFRMS-CISA is higher than the 
elevation established under the FFRMS-FVA.
    FEMA considered proposing the use of the FFRMS-CISA instead of 
FFRMS-FVA to reflect the FFRMS's designation of the FFRMS-CISA as the 
preferred approach and to reflect that the FFRMS-FVA sets a general 
level of protection, whereas FFRMS-CISA uses a more site-specific 
approach to predict flood risk based on future conditions.
    FEMA also considered whether it should alter its proposal for use 
of the FFRMS-CISA in relation to the FFRMS-FVA (or FFRMS-0.2PFA). FEMA 
could choose a more protective approach in which it would determine the 
elevations established under FFRMS-CISA, FFRMS-FVA and the FFRMS-0.2PFA 
for critical actions and only allow the applicant to use the highest of 
the three elevations. This approach would ensure that applicants were 
building to the most protective level, would avoid potential 
inconsistencies with FEMA's policy to encourage adoption of freeboard 
standards by local communities, and would prevent a scenario where an 
applicant was allowed to build to a lower elevation than previously 
required for critical actions under FEMA's implementation of Executive 
Order 11988.
    Also alternatively, FEMA could choose to allow use of the FFRMS-
CISA, even if the resulting elevation is lower than the application of 
the FFRMS-FVA. This approach would give FEMA and its grantees more 
flexibility in implementing the standard, would enable FEMA and its 
grantees to build to an elevation based on the best available science 
taking criticality into account, and would provide a pathway to relief 
for those areas that experience declining flood risks.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The anticipated costs of the 
proposed rule would be from FEMA's Individual Assistance, Public 
Assistance, and Hazard Mitigation Assistance grant programs, as well as 
administrative costs. FEMA expects minimal costs associated with its 
Grants Program Directorate and Integrated Public Alert Warning System 
programs because these programs do not fund new construction or 
substantial improvement projects as defined in 44 CFR part 9. These 
projects are also by nature, typically resilient from flooding. FEMA 
facilities may also be subject to additional requirements due to the 
implementation of the proposed rule.
    FEMA estimates that the total additional grants costs as a result 
of the proposed rule would be between $906,696 and $7.8 million per 
year for FEMA and between $301,906 and $2.6 million per year for grant 
recipients due to the increased elevation or floodproofing requirements 
of FEMA Federally Funded Projects.
    In addition, FEMA expects to incur some administrative costs as a 
result of this proposed rule. FEMA estimates initial training costs of 
around $100,000 the first two years after the rule is implemented, and 
administrative and training costs of around $16,000 per year 
thereafter.
    FEMA estimates that the total annual cost of this rule after year 
two would be between $6.1 million and $39.5 million.
    FEMA estimates the quantified cost of this proposed rule over the 
next 10 years would range between $60.1 million and $394.7 million. The 
present value (PV) of these estimated costs using a 7 percent discount 
rate would range between $42.9 million and $277.3 million. The PV using 
a 3 percent discount rate would range between $52.0 million and $336.7 
million. These costs would be split between FEMA (75 percent) and 
recipients (25 percent) of FEMA grants in the floodplain.
    FEMA anticipates that the benefits of the proposed rule would 
justify the costs. FEMA is has provided qualitative benefits, including 
the reduction in damage to properties and contents from future floods, 
potential lives saved, public health and safety benefits, reduced 
recovery time from floods, and increased community resilience to 
flooding.
    FEMA believes this proposed rule would result in savings in time 
and money from a reduced recovery period after a flood and increased 
safety of

[[Page 94573]]

individuals. Generally, if properties are protected, there would be 
less damage, resulting in less cleanup time. In addition, higher 
elevations help to protect people, leading to increased safety. FEMA is 
unable to quantify these benefits, but improving the resiliency of 
bridges has significant qualitative benefits, including: Protecting 
evacuation and escape routes; limiting blockages of floodwaters passing 
under the bridge that may lead to more severe flooding upstream; and, 
avoiding the cost of replacing the bridge again if it is damaged during 
a subsequent flood. Any estimates of these savings would be dependent 
on the specific circumstances and FEMA is not able to provide a numeric 
value on these savings.
    Risks:
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   08/22/16  81 FR 57401
NPRM Comment Period End.............   10/21/16  .......................
Final Rule..........................   01/00/17  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Governmental Jurisdictions, Organizations.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State, Tribal.
    Additional Information: Docket ID FEMA-2015-0006.
    URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Kristin Fontenot, Office of Environmental and 
Historic Preservation, Department of Homeland Security, Federal 
Emergency Management Agency, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, 
Phone: 202 646-2741, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 1660-AA85

BILLING CODE 9110-9B-P

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Fall 2016 Statement of Regulatory Priorities for Fiscal Year 2017

Introduction

    As the nation's housing agency, HUD is committed to promoting 
decent affordable housing and addressing housing conditions that 
threaten the health of residents. There are still too many homes in the 
U.S. with hazards that endanger the health and safety of occupants--
hazards within a home and hazards outside of a home.\1\ HUD's 
Regulatory Plan for Fiscal Year (FY 2017) focuses on two regulatory 
actions; one to address lead-based paint hazards within homes 
subsidized by HUD and a second to require that building or 
substantially rehabilitating HUD subsidized homes be at new Federal 
Flood Risk Management Standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Language modeled on language from page 4 of HUD's 2009 
Healthy Homes Strategic Plan. http://www.hud.gov/offices/lead/library/hhi/hh_strategic_plan.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2012, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) 
revised its guidance on childhood lead poisoning in response to 
recommendations by CDC's Advisory Committee on Childhood Lead Poisoning 
Prevention (ACCLPP), which concluded that a growing number of 
scientific studies show that even low blood lead levels can cause 
lifelong health effects. CDC accepted this recommendation. The elevated 
blood lead level, established in 2012 as part of CDC's response to 
ACCLPP, is lower than CDC's former blood lead level of concern. HUD's 
lead-based paint hazard control regulations, which address lead-based 
paint hazards in pre-1978 homes subsidized by HUD are based on the 
CDC's former blood lead level of concern. With CDC's issuance of new 
guidelines, HUD recognized that it was necessary to update HUD's lead-
based paint regulations. HUD commenced working to update its 
regulations, but in the meantime, HUD revised its own guidelines for 
evaluation and control of lead-based paint hazards in housing. HUD also 
implemented CDC's recommended revised elevated blood lead level in its 
lead hazard control programs--the Lead-Based Paint Hazard Control grant 
program and the Lead Hazard Reduction Demonstration grant program--in 
the annual notices of funding availability (NOFAs) issued for these 
programs commencing in fiscal year 2013.
    On September 1, 2016, (81 FR 60304), HUD issued its proposed rule 
that would formally adopt the approach used by CDC in its definition of 
elevated blood lead level, and provides for more comprehensive testing 
and evaluation where for housing where children under the age of 6 with 
an elevated blood lead level reside.
    On January 30, 2015, President Obama issued an Executive Order 
(Executive Order 12690) establishing a flood management standard (the 
Federal Flood Risk-Management Standard) that will reduce the risk and 
cost of future flood disasters by requiring all Federal investments in 
and affecting floodplains to meet higher flood risk standards. In the 
United States, floods caused 4,586 deaths from 1959 to 2005. With 
climate change and associated sea-level rise, flooding risks have 
increased over time, and are anticipated to continue increasing. The 
National Climate Assessment (May 2014), for example, projects that 
extreme weather events, such as severe flooding, will persist 
throughout the 21st century. Severe flooding can cause significant 
damage to infrastructure, including buildings, roads, ports, industrial 
facilities, and even coastal military installations. With more than 
$260 billion in flood damage across the Nation since 1980, it is 
necessary to take action to responsibly use Federal funds, and HUD must 
ensure it does not wastefully make Federal investments in the same 
structures after repeated flooding events.
    In response to the President's Executive Order, HUD commenced work 
on a proposed rule to revise its regulations governing floodplain 
management to require, as part of the decision making process 
established to ensure compliance with applicable Executive Orders 11988 
and 13690, that HUD assisted or financed (including mortgage insurance) 
project involving new construction or substantial improvement that is 
situated in an area subject to floods be elevated or floodproofed 
between 2 and 3 feet above the base flood elevation (BFE), as 
determined by best available information. The proposed rule would also 
revise HUD's Minimum Property Standards for one-to-four unit housing 
under HUD mortgage insurance and low-rent public housing programs to 
require that the lowest floor in both newly constructed and 
substantially improved structures be built at least 2 feet above the 
BFE base flood elevation as determined by best available information. 
Building to these standards will, consistent with the executive orders, 
increase resiliency to flooding, reduce the risk of flood loss, 
minimize the impact of floods on human safety, health, and welfare, and 
promote sound, sustainable, long-term planning informed by a more 
accurate evaluation of flood risk that takes into account possible sea 
level rise and increased development associated with population growth.
    On October 28, 2016 (81 FR 74967), HUD issued its proposed rule 
that would revises its regulations governing floodplain management to 
implement the Federal Flood Risk Management Standard.
    This Statement of Regulatory Priorities highlights these two rules,

[[Page 94574]]

which are HUD priority actions to complete during FY 2017.

Regulatory Priority: Responding To Elevated Blood Lead Levels in 
Children Under the Age of 6

    Childhood lead poisoning has long been recognized as causing 
reduced intelligence, low attention span, reading and learning 
disabilities, and has been linked to juvenile delinquency, behavioral 
problems, and many other adverse health effects. Current reviews by the 
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), including by its 
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) and National 
Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) and by the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Research and 
Development have described these effects in detail. The removal of 
lead-based gasoline and paint from commerce has drastically reduced the 
number of children exposed to levels of lead associated with the most 
significant among these problems. Data from the CDC's National Center 
for Health Statistics show that mean blood lead levels among children 
ages 1 to 5 have dropped over the years. However, national statistics 
mask the fact that blood lead monitoring continues to find some 
children exposed to elevated blood lead levels due to their specific 
housing environment
    Continued progress in lead paint abatement and interim control over 
the last decade, such as through HUD's Lead Hazard Control Grant 
programs, and HUD's enforcement of the Lead Disclosure statute has 
meant further significant decreases in lead exposure among children. 
Even so, there are a considerable number of assisted housing units that 
have lead-based paint in which children under age 6 reside. In 2012, 
the CDC issued guidance revising its definition of elevated blood lead 
level in children under age 6 to be a blood lead level based on the 
distribution of blood lead levels in the national population. Since 
CDC's revision of its definition, HUD has applied the revised 
definition to funds awarded under its Lead-Based Paint Hazard Control 
grant program and its Lead Hazard Reduction Demonstration grant 
program, and has updated its Guidelines for the Evaluation and Control 
of Lead-Based Paint Hazards in Housing to reflect this definition.
    To further address this issue, as noted above, HUD issued a 
proposed rule on September 1, 2016 that would amend HUD's lead-based 
paint regulations on reducing blood lead levels in children under age 6 
who reside in federally-owned or -assisted pre-1978 housing and 
formally adopt the revised definition of ``elevated blood lead levels'' 
in children under the age of 6 in accordance with guidance of CDC, and 
establish more comprehensive testing and evaluation procedures for the 
housing where such children with an elevated blood lead level reside.
    HUD intends to complete this rulemaking in Fiscal Year 2017.

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.

Requirements for Notification, Evaluation and Reduction of Lead-Based 
Paint Hazards in Federally Owned Residential Property and Housing 
Receiving Federal Assistance; Response to Elevated Blood Lead Levels

    HUD Office: Office of Lead Hazard Control and Healthy Homes.
    Rulemaking Stage: Final Rule.
    Priority: Significant.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 3535(d), 4821, and 4851
    CFR Citation: 24 CFR 35.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This rule will amend HUD's lead-based paint regulations 
on reducing blood lead levels in children under age 6 who reside in 
federally-owned or -assisted pre-1978 housing and formally adopt the 
revised definition of ``elevated blood lead levels'' in children under 
the age of 6 in accordance with 2012 CDC guidance, and establish more 
comprehensive testing and evaluation procedures for the housing where 
such children with an elevated blood lead level reside. Since CDC's 
2012 revision of its definition of elevated blood lead level in 
children under the age of 6, and pending HUD's commencement and 
completion of rulemaking to formally adopt CDC's revised definition, 
HUD applied the revised definition to funds awarded under its Lead-
Based Paint Hazard Control grant program and its Lead Hazard Reduction 
Demonstration grant program, and HUD updated its own Guidelines for the 
Evaluation and Control of Lead-Based Paint Hazards in Housing to 
reflect this definition. CDC is continuing to consider, with respect to 
evolution of scientific and medical understanding, how best to identify 
childhood blood lead levels for which environmental interventions are 
recommended.
    Through this rulemaking, HUD intends to formally adopt, through 
regulation, the CDC's approach to the definition of ``elevated blood 
lead levels'' in children under the age of 6 and addresses the 
additional elements of the CDC guidance pertaining to assisted housing. 
The final rule takes into consideration public comments received on 
HUD's September 2016 proposed rule.
    Statement of Need: Although HUD is already applying the CDC's 2012 
revised definition of elevated blood level in its lead hazard control 
notices of funding availability and in HUD guidelines, HUD's Lead Safe 
Housing rule has not yet been updated to reflect the CDC's revised 
definition of elevated blood lead levels, and to mandate adherence to 
this definition by owners and managers of federally-owned or -assisted 
pre-1978 housing requires rulemaking.
    Alternatives: Title X of the Housing and Community Development Act 
of 1992, also known as the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard 
Reduction Act of 1992 (the Act), prescribes specific lead-based paint 
hazard evaluation and reduction activities for federally-supported 
housing. To mandate compliance with revised elevated blood lead levels 
procedures requires rulemaking. While HUD issued updated guidelines in 
2012 to encourage compliance with CDC's revised guidelines on elevated 
blood lead levels, it takes rulemaking to require compliance with CDC's 
revised definition of elevated blood lead levels in federally-supported 
housing.
    Anticipated Costs and Benefits: The costs and benefits associated 
with the units affected during the first year of hazard evaluation and 
reduction activities under the final rule include the present value of 
future benefits associated with first year hazard reduction activities. 
For example, the benefits from costs expended for first year activities 
include the present value of lifetime earnings benefits for children 
living in the affected unit during the first year, whether that child 
continues living in that unit during the second and subsequent years 
after hazard reduction activities does not affect the benefit 
calculation, because the lowered lead exposure benefits all children 
under age 6 who reside there during the effective period of the hazard 
control measures (as noted above, typically 6 or 12 or more years). The 
costs of ongoing lead-based paint maintenance in units covered by this 
rulemaking are not considered in this analysis, because it is already 
required by the original Lead Safe Housing Rule for housing covered by 
this rulemaking.

[[Page 94575]]

    Although many benefits of lead-based pain hazard reduction cannot 
be quantified or monetized, such as quality of life considerations such 
as adolescents' and adults' dissatisfaction with lower intelligence, 
fewer skills, reduced education and job potential, criminal behavior, 
unwed pregnancies, etc., HUD does not address monetized estimates of 
the cognitive benefits of preventing children under age 6 from 
developing elevated blood lead levels. Such benefits include avoiding 
the costs of medical treatment for children with elevated blood lead 
levels as well as increasing lifetime earnings associated with higher 
IQs for children with lower blood lead levels. In addition, blood lead 
levels of older children and adults living in the affected housing 
units would be expected to fall as a result of this rulemaking, 
although quantifying their blood lead changes is outside the scope of 
analysis for this rulemaking. Thus, the estimates of benefits represent 
a lower bound on the economic benefits of LBP hazard reduction because 
there are many other health impacts for both adults and children from 
lead exposure that are not quantified or monetized here. The analysis 
of net benefits reflects benefits over time associated with the costs 
incurred in the first year of hazard evaluation and reduction 
activities under the final rule. For example, the benefits of costs 
incurred in first year activities include the present value of lifetime 
earnings benefits for children living in the affected unit during that 
first year, and for children living in that unit during the second and 
subsequent years after hazard reduction activities.
    HUD's regulatory impact analysis published with its September 2016 
proposed rule more fully addresses the costs and benefits of this 
rulemaking, as of the proposed rulemaking stage.
    Risks: While this rule addresses a public health issue, but poses 
no risk to public health, safety, or the environment.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   09/01/16  81 FR 60304
Final...............................     12/00/
                                           2016
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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: Warren Friedman, Office of Lead Hazard Control and 
Healthy Homes, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 
7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410, Phone: 202 402-7698.
    RIN: 2501-AD77

Floodplain Management and Protection of Wetlands; Minimum Property 
Standards for Flood Hazard Exposure; Building to the Federal Flood Risk 
Management Standard

    HUD Office: Office of the Secretary.
    Rulemaking Stage: Final Rule.
    Priority: Significant.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 3535(d) and 4332; and Executive Order 
11991, 3 CFR, 1977 Comp., p.123
    CFR Citation: 24 CFR 50, 58, and 200.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This rule will revise HUD's regulations governing 
floodplain management to require, as part of the decision making 
process established to ensure compliance with Executive Order 11988 
(Floodplain Management) as amended by Executive Order 13690 
(Establishing a Federal Flood Risk Management Standard and a Process 
for Further Soliciting and Considering Stakeholder Input), that a HUD 
assisted or financed (including mortgage insurance) project involving 
new construction or substantial improvement that is situated in an area 
subject to floods be elevated or floodproofed between 2 and 3 feet 
above the base flood elevation (BFE), as determined by best available 
information. The revision to 24 CFR part 55 uses the framework of E.O. 
11988 which HUD has implemented for almost 40 years and does not change 
the requirements and guidance specifying which actions require 
elevation and floodproofing of structures. Specifically, the rule would 
require that non-critical actions be elevated 2 feet above the BFE. In 
addition, the rule would require that critical actions be elevated 
above the greater of the 500-year floodplain or 3 feet above the BFE. 
This rule also would enlarge the horizontal area of interest 
commensurate with the vertical increase, but the rule does not change 
the scope of actions to which the floodplain review process or 
elevation requirements in 24 CFR part 55 apply. The rule would also 
revise HUD's Minimum Property Standards for one-to-four unit housing 
under HUD mortgage insurance and low-rent public housing programs to 
require that the lowest floor in both newly constructed and 
substantially improved structures be built at least 2 feet above the 
BFE as determined by best available information. Building to these 
standards will, consistent with the executive orders, increase 
resiliency to flooding, reduce the risk of flood loss, minimize the 
impact of floods on human safety, health, and welfare, and promote 
sound, sustainable, long-term planning informed by a more accurate 
evaluation of flood risk that takes into account possible sea level 
rise and increased development associated with population growth. This 
rule also would revise a categorical exclusion available when HUD 
performs the environmental review under the National Environmental 
Policy Act and related Federal laws by making it consistent with 
changes to a similar categorical exclusion that is available to HUD 
grantees or other responsible entities when they perform these 
environmental reviews. This change will make the review standard 
identical regardless of whether HUD or a grantee is performing the 
review. Elevation standards for manufactured housing receiving mortgage 
insurance are not covered in this rule.
    Statement of Need: This rule revises HUD's floodplain management 
regulations in response to Executive Order 13690 and recommendations of 
the Mitigation Framework Leadership Group (MitFLG). Executive Order 
13690, Establishing a Federal Flood Risk Management Standard and a 
Process for Further Soliciting and Considering Stakeholder Input, 
called for a new floodplain standard established with stakeholder 
input. In addition to addressing risks identified by MitFLG associated 
with the predicted sea level rise, the standards presented in this rule 
also address a market failure of information regarding flood risk and 
moral hazard associated with flood insurance and federal disaster 
assistance. HUD is promulgating these new standards, which it must do 
through rulemaking, in order to protect HUD's investments and ensure 
uninterrupted provision of affordable housing.
    Executive Order 13690 directed Federal agencies to avoid, to the 
extent possible, adverse impacts associated with floodplain 
development. Based on evidence from the National Climate Assessment and 
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, MitFLG, consisting of 
representatives from various federal agencies, proposed the 
establishment of the Federal Flood Risk Management Standard (FFRMS). 
These standards, at least two feet of freeboard above base flood 
elevation for non-critical actions and three feet of freeboard for 
critical actions, address the Executive Order's directive of reducing 
adverse impact development in floodplains which, as many studies 
indicate, are expanding fairly rapidly.

[[Page 94576]]

The explicit standards provided in this rule are needed because 
developers, homeowners and renters do not fully internalize the risk 
and costs of potential flooding. There is evidence that many homeowners 
are either not fully aware of the risk of a flood occurring or that 
they discount the cost of a flood if it occurs. In some cases, owners 
simply underestimate the risk of flooding.
    Alternatives: In developing new floodplain management standards, 
HUD considered several alternative approaches to establishing the 
standard: Climate-informed science approach (CISA); freeboard value 
approach (FVA); and the 0.2 percent annual chance flood approach 
(0.2PFA). HUD chose the FVA over the CISA and 0.2PFA for a variety of 
reasons. First, the FVA can be applied consistently to any area 
participating in the NFIP. The FVA can be calculated using existing 
flood maps. This is not true for the CISA standard unless HUD were to 
establish criteria for every community regarding the application of 
particular climate and greenhouse gas scenarios and associated impacts. 
Rather than requiring this level of review and analysis, HUD chose the 
more direct FVA. Second, the two alternative approaches to FVA require 
expertise that may not be available to all communities. The 0.2 Percent 
Flood is not mapped in all communities and requires a significant 
degree of expertise to map over an area or for an individual site. The 
same is also true for the CISA standard, which requires not just 
historical analysis but a greater anticipation of trends and future 
conditions. Third, HUD determined that it is not practicable to 
establish the CISA or the 0.2 Percent Flood for all projects. HUD funds 
or assists tens of thousands of small projects each year. For example, 
repaving a road or rehabilitating a single family home may not 
necessitate the extra amounts of cost required by the CISA and 0.2 
Percent Flood approaches. Fourth, many states and communities already 
have success applying a freeboard approach to floodplains. Due to the 
familiarity that many communities have with freeboard, the FVA was seen 
as a very practical approach with documented history of application.
    In addition, HUD, as part of MitFLG working group, considered 
varying levels of elevation above base flood elevation, specifically 1, 
2 and 3 feet above BFE. Based on expected sea level rise and the cost 
of elevation, HUD is providing the standard recommended by MitFLG, 
which requires at least 2 feet above freeboard, or for critical 
actions, at least 3 feet above freeboard.
    Anticipated Costs and Benefits: The standards provided under this 
rule, requiring at least two feet of freeboard above base flood 
elevation, will increase the construction cost HUD's assisted and 
insured new construction and substantially improved properties located 
in the 1 percent annual chance floodplain. This rule amends HUD's 
current standard which requires elevation to at least the base flood 
elevation. Thus, the elevation standards are not new, but rather 
revised to an increased height. In addition, 20 states, plus the 
District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, already require elevation 
exceeding HUD's current standard of elevation to the base flood level 
(BFE+1). Further, four states--Indiana, Montana, New York and 
Wisconsin--already require residential structures elevated with a 
minimum of at least two of freeboard (BFE+2). Thus, the cost of 
compliance in these states would be less than those that have no 
minimum elevation requirements in the floodplain.
    Developers receiving HUD assistance who are not currently building 
to the proposed standard of 2 feet above base flood elevation (BFE+2) 
can meet the proposed standards by either elevating the lowest floor of 
the structure or by floodproofing to the new standard and limiting the 
first floor to non-residential uses. Alternatively, developers could 
choose to locate outside of the floodplain and the affected horizontal 
expansion, or reduce substantial improvement projects to less than 50 
percent of the market or pre-disaster value of the structure, which 
would no longer classify the project as ``substantial''.
    The standards to be provide in this rule are intended to protect 
HUD-assisted and insured structures and the owners and tenants in these 
units. Thus, the benefits of the rule include reduced building damage 
and decreased costs to tenants temporarily displaced due to flooding, 
including avoided search costs for temporary replacement housing and 
lost wages. The annual reduction in insurance premiums provides an 
adequate measure of the reduction in expected damages, assuming that 
the NFIP rates are calculated in order to maintain a non-negative 
balance. In this case, the premiums for catastrophic insurance would be 
slightly higher than, but similar to, the expected value of the claim 
to pay for administrative costs.
    HUD's regulatory impact analysis published with its September 2016 
proposed rule more fully addresses the costs and benefits of this 
rulemaking, as of the proposed rulemaking stage.
    Risks: While the rule addresses a rule, the rule poses no risk to 
public health, safety, or the environment.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR CITE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................     10/28/  81 FR 74967
                                           2016
Final...............................     12/00/
                                           2016
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: State, Local.
    Federalism Affected: No.
    Energy Affected: Yes.
    International Impacts: No.
    Agency Contact: Danielle Schopp, Director, Office of Environment 
and Energy, Office of Community Planning and Development, U.S. 
Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20410, Phone: (202) 708-1201.
    RIN: 2501-AD62

HUD--OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (HUDSEC)

Proposed Rule Stage

70. Floodplain Management and Protection of Wetlands; Minimum Property 
Standards for Flood Hazard Exposure; Building to the Federal Flood Risk 
Management Standard (FR-5717)

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 3535(d); 42 U.S.C. 3001, et seq., E.O. 
11990; E.O. 11988
    CFR Citation: 24 CFR 50; 24 CFR 55.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: As communities begin to recover from the devastating 
effects of Hurricane Sandy, HUD has determined that it is important to 
recognize lessons learned to employ mitigation actions that ensure that 
structures located in floodplains are built or rebuilt stronger, safer, 
and less vulnerable to future flooding events. This commitment to 
resiliency is now required of all agencies that use federal funds for 
construction under Executive Order 13690 (Establishing a Federal Flood 
Risk Management Standard) and the associated ``Guidelines for 
Implementing Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Management) and 
Executive Order 13690.''
    Based on Executive Order 13690 and the Guidelines, this proposed 
rule would require, as part of the decisionmaking process established 
to ensure compliance with Executive

[[Page 94577]]

Order 11988 (Floodplain Management) that new construction or 
substantial improvement in a floodplain be elevated or floodproofed 2 
feet above the base flood elevation for non-critical actions and 3 feet 
above the base flood elevation for critical actions based on the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency's best available data. This rule 
also proposes to revise a categorical exclusion available when HUD 
performs the environmental review by making it consistent with changes 
to a similar categorical exclusion that is available to HUD grantees or 
other responsible entities when they perform the environmental review. 
The rule is also part of HUD's commitment under the President's Climate 
Action plan.
    Statement of Need: This rule revises HUD's floodplain management 
regulations in response to Executive Order 13690 and recommendations of 
the Mitigation Framework Leadership Group (MitFLG). Executive Order 
13690, Establishing a Federal Flood Risk Management Standard and a 
Process for Further Soliciting and Considering Stakeholder Input, 
called for a new floodplain standard established with stakeholder 
input. In addition to addressing risks identified by MitFLG associated 
with the predicted sea level rise, the standards presented in this rule 
also address a market failure of information regarding flood risk and 
moral hazard associated with flood insurance and federal disaster 
assistance. HUD is promulgating these new standards, which it must do 
through rulemaking, in order to protect HUD's investments and ensure 
uninterrupted provision of affordable housing.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Executive Order 13690 directed Federal 
agencies to avoid, to the extent possible, adverse impacts associated 
with floodplain development. Based on evidence from the National 
Climate Assessment and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 
MitFLG, consisting of representatives from various federal agencies, 
proposed the establishment of the Federal Flood Risk Management 
Standard (FFRMS). These standards, at least two feet of freeboard above 
base flood elevation for non-critical actions and three feet of 
freeboard for critical actions, address the Executive Order's directive 
of reducing adverse impact development in floodplains which, as many 
studies indicate, are expanding fairly rapidly. The explicit standards 
provided in this rule are needed because developers, homeowners and 
renters do not fully internalize the risk and costs of potential 
flooding. There is evidence that many homeowners are either not fully 
aware of the risk of a flood occurring or that they discount the cost 
of a flood if it occurs. In some cases, owners simply underestimate the 
risk of flooding.
    Alternatives: In developing new floodplain management standards, 
HUD considered several alternative approaches to establishing the 
standard: Climate-informed science approach (CISA); freeboard value 
approach (FVA); and the 0.2 percent annual chance flood approach 
(0.2PFA). HUD chose the FVA over the CISA and 0.2PFA for a variety of 
reasons. First, the FVA can be applied consistently to any area 
participating in the NFIP. The FVA can be calculated using existing 
flood maps. This is not true for the CISA standard unless HUD were to 
establish criteria for every community regarding the application of 
particular climate and greenhouse gas scenarios and associated impacts. 
Rather than requiring this level of review and analysis, HUD chose the 
more direct FVA. Second, the two alternative approaches to FVA require 
expertise that may not be available to all communities. The 0.2 Percent 
Flood is not mapped in all communities and requires a significant 
degree of expertise to map over an area or for an individual site. The 
same is also true for the CISA standard, which requires not just 
historical analysis but a greater anticipation of trends and future 
conditions. Third, HUD determined that it is not practicable to 
establish the CISA or the 0.2 Percent Flood for all projects. HUD funds 
or assists tens of thousands of small projects each year. For example, 
repaving a road or rehabilitating a single family home may not 
necessitate the extra amounts of cost required by the CISA and 0.2 
Percent Flood approaches. Fourth, many states and communities already 
have success applying a freeboard approach to floodplains. Due to the 
familiarity that many communities have with freeboard, the FVA was seen 
as a very practical approach with documented history of application.
    In addition, HUD, as part of MitFLG working group, considered 
varying levels of elevation above base flood elevation, specifically 1, 
2 and 3 feet above BFE. Based on expected sea level rise and the cost 
of elevation, HUD is providing the standard recommended by MitFLG, 
which requires at least 2 feet above freeboard, or for critical 
actions, at least 3 feet above freeboard.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The standards provided under this 
rule, requiring at least two feet of freeboard above base flood 
elevation, will increase the construction cost HUD's assisted and 
insured new construction and substantially improved properties located 
in the 1 percent annual chance floodplain. This rule amends HUD's 
current standard which requires elevation to at least the base flood 
elevation. Thus, the elevation standards are not new, but rather 
revised to an increased height. In addition, 20 states, plus the 
District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, already require elevation 
exceeding HUD's current standard of elevation to the base flood level 
(BFE+0). Further, four states--Indiana, Montana, New York and 
Wisconsin--already require residential structures elevated with a 
minimum of at least two of freeboard (BFE+2). Thus, the cost of 
compliance in these states would be less than those that have no 
minimum elevation requirements in the floodplain.
    Developers receiving HUD assistance who are not currently building 
to the proposed standard of 2 feet above base flood elevation (BFE+2) 
can meet the proposed standards by either elevating the lowest floor of 
the structure or by floodproofing to the new standard and limiting the 
first floor to non-residential uses. Alternatively, developers could 
choose to locate outside of the floodplain and the affected horizontal 
expansion, or reduce substantial improvement projects to less than 50 
percent of the market or pre-disaster value of the structure, which 
would no longer classify the project as substantial.
    The standards to be provide in this rule are intended to protect 
HUD-assisted and insured structures and the owners and tenants in these 
units. Thus, the benefits of the rule include reduced building damage 
and decreased costs to tenants temporarily displaced due to flooding, 
including avoided search costs for temporary replacement housing and 
lost wages. The annual reduction in insurance premiums provides an 
adequate measure of the reduction in expected damages, assuming that 
the NFIP rates are calculated in order to maintain a non-negative 
balance. In this case, the premiums for catastrophic insurance would be 
slightly higher than, but similar to, the expected value of the claim 
to pay for administrative costs.
    HUD's regulatory impact analysis published with its September 2016 
proposed rule more fully addresses the costs and benefits of this 
rulemaking, as of the proposed rulemaking stage.
    Risks: While the rule addresses a rule, the rule poses no risk to 
public health, safety, or the environment.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   12/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 94578]]

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Danielle Schopp, Director, Office of Environment 
and Energy, Office of Community Planning and Development, Department of 
Housing and Urban Development, Office of the Secretary, 451 7th Street 
SW., Washington, DC 20410, Phone: 202 708-1201.
    RIN: 2501-AD62

HUD--HUDSEC

Final Rule Stage

71. Notification, Evaluation and Reduction of Lead-Based Paint Hazards 
in Federally Owned Residential Property and Housing Receiving Federal 
Assistance; Response To Elevated Blood Lead Level (FR-5816)

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 3535(d); 42 U.S.C. 4821; 42 U.S.C. 4851
    CFR Citation: 24 CFR 35.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This proposed rule would amend HUD's lead-based paint 
regulations on reducing blood-lead levels in children under age 6 who 
reside in federally-owned or assisted housing constructed prior to 
1978. Specifically, the rule would formally adopt the revised 
definition of elevated blood lead levels in children under the age of 6 
based on the definition issued by the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention (CDC). The rule would also establish more comprehensive 
testing and evaluation procedures for the housing where such children 
reside. In 2012, the CDC issued guidance revising its definition of 
elevated blood lead level in children under age 6 to be a blood lead 
level based on the distribution of blood lead levels in the national 
population. Since CDC revised its definition, HUD has applied it to 
funds awarded under its Lead-Based Paint Hazard Control grant program 
and its Lead Hazard Reduction Demonstration grant program, and has 
updated its Guidelines for the Evaluation and Control of Lead-Based 
Paint Hazards in Housing to reflect this definition. Through this rule, 
HUD formally adopts in regulation the CDC's definition on elevated 
blood lead levels in children under the age of 6 and addresses the 
additional elements of the CDC guidance pertaining to assisted housing.
    Statement of Need: Although HUD is already applying the CDC's 2012 
revised definition of elevated blood level in its lead hazard control 
notices of funding availability and in HUD guidelines, HUD's Lead Safe 
Housing rule has not yet been updated to reflect the CDC's revised 
definition of elevated blood lead levels, and to mandate adherence to 
this definition by owners and managers of federally-owned or -assisted 
pre-1978 housing requires rulemaking.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Codified in Title 24 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR) part 35, HUD's Lead-Based Paint regulation, commonly 
referred to as the Lead Safe Housing Rule (LSHR), is designed to reduce 
lead exposure in federally-owned and federally-assisted housing (or 
assisted housing). The LSHR implements sections 1012 and 1013 of the 
Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992, which is 
Title X of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 (Public 
Law 102-550, approved October 28, 1992), codified at 42 U.S.C. 4822. 
Under Title X, HUD has specific authority to control lead-based paint 
and lead-based paint hazards in HUD-assisted target housing. The LSHR 
aims in part to ensure that federally-owned or federally-assisted 
housing that may have lead-based paint--most housing constructed prior 
to 1978, called target housing does not have lead-based paint hazards. 
Lead-based paint hazards are lead-based paint and all residential lead-
containing dusts and soils, regardless of the source of the lead, 
which, due to their condition and location, would result in adverse 
human health effects. As reflected in the LSHR, and consistent with 
Title X, HUD's primary focus is on minimizing childhood lead exposures, 
rather than on waiting until children have elevated blood lead levels 
to undertake actions to eliminate the lead-based paint hazards. This 
rule continues HUD's efforts to spearhead major efforts in lead 
poisoning prevention by taking all actions feasible and authorized by 
law to reduce lead exposure in children.
    Alternatives: Title X of the Housing and Community Development Act 
of 1992, also known as the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard 
Reduction Act of 1992 (the Act), prescribes specific lead-based paint 
hazard evaluation and reduction activities for federally-supported 
housing. To mandate compliance with revised elevated blood lead levels 
procedures requires rulemaking. While HUD issued updated guidelines in 
2012 to encourage compliance with CDC's revised guidelines on elevated 
blood lead levels, it takes rulemaking to require compliance with CDC's 
revised definition of elevated blood lead levels in federally-supported 
housing.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The costs and benefits associated 
with the units affected during the first year of hazard evaluation and 
reduction activities under the final rule include the present value of 
future benefits associated with first year hazard reduction activities. 
For example, the benefits from costs expended for first year activities 
include the present value of lifetime earnings benefits for children 
living in the affected unit during the first year, whether that child 
continues living in that unit during the second and subsequent years 
after hazard reduction activities does not affect the benefit 
calculation, because the lowered lead exposure benefits all children 
under age 6 who reside there during the effective period of the hazard 
control measures (as noted above, typically 6 or 12 or more years). The 
costs of ongoing lead-based paint maintenance in units covered by this 
rulemaking are not considered in this analysis, because it is already 
required by the original Lead Safe Housing Rule for housing covered by 
this rulemaking.
    Although many benefits of lead-based pain hazard reduction cannot 
be quantified or monetized, such as quality of life considerations such 
as adolescents' and adults' dissatisfaction with lower intelligence, 
fewer skills, reduced education and job potential, criminal behavior, 
unwed pregnancies, etc., HUD does not address monetized estimates of 
the cognitive benefits of preventing children under age 6 from 
developing elevated blood lead levels. Such benefits include avoiding 
the costs of medical treatment for children with elevated blood lead 
levels as well as increasing lifetime earnings associated with higher 
IQs for children with lower blood lead levels. In addition, blood lead 
levels of older children and adults living in the affected housing 
units would be expected to fall as a result of this rulemaking, 
although quantifying their blood lead changes is outside the scope of 
analysis for this rulemaking. Thus, the estimates of benefits represent 
a lower bound on the economic benefits of LBP hazard reduction because 
there are many other health impacts for both adults and children from 
lead exposure that are not quantified or monetized here. The analysis 
of net benefits reflects benefits over time associated with the costs 
incurred in the first year of hazard evaluation and reduction 
activities under the final rule. For example, the benefits of costs 
incurred in first year activities include the present value of lifetime 
earnings benefits for children living in the affected unit during that 
first year, and

[[Page 94579]]

for children living in that unit during the second and subsequent years 
after hazard reduction activities.
    HUD's regulatory impact analysis published with its September 2016 
proposed rule more fully addresses the costs and benefits of this 
rulemaking, as of the proposed rulemaking stage.
    Risks: While this rule addresses a public health issue, but poses 
no risk to public health, safety, or the environment.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   09/01/16  81 FR 60304
Comment Due Deadline................   10/31/16  .......................
Final Rule..........................   03/00/17  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Warren Friedman, Office of Lean Hazard Control and 
Healthy Homes, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of 
the Secretary, 451 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20410, Phone: 202 
402-7698, TDD Phone: 800 877-8339, Fax: 202 708-0014, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 2501-AD77

BILLING CODE 4210-67-P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Statement of Regulatory Priorities

    The Department of the Interior (Interior) is the principal Federal 
steward of our Nation's public lands and resources, including many of 
our cultural treasures. Interior serves as trustee to American Indians' 
and Alaska Natives' trust assets and is responsible for relations with 
the island territories under United States jurisdiction. The Department 
of the Interior manages more than 500 million acres of Federal lands, 
including 412 park units and 563 wildlife refuges, and more than a 
billion submerged offshore acres. On public lands and the Outer 
Continental Shelf (OCS), Interior provides access for renewable and 
conventional energy development and manages the protection and 
restoration of surface-mined lands.
    Interior 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.
    Interior 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. Interior will emphasize 
regulations and policies that:
     Promote environmentally responsible, safe, and balanced 
development of renewable and conventional energy on our public lands 
and the 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

    Interior'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 Conservation Lands, and American Indian trust lands;
     Managing public lands open to multiple use;
     Managing revenues from American Indian and Federal 
minerals;
     Fulfilling trust and other responsibilities pertaining to 
American Indians and Alaska Natives; and
     Managing natural resource damage assessments.

Regulatory Policy

    Interior'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.
    Interior's mission includes protecting and providing access to our 
Nation's natural and cultural heritage and honoring our trust 
responsibilities to Indian 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, Interior 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. Interior 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, Interior 
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.
    Interior strongly encourages public participation in the regulatory 
process and will continue to actively engage the public in the 
implementation of priority initiatives. Throughout Interior, individual 
bureaus and offices are ensuring that the American people have an 
active role in managing our Nation's public lands and resources.

[[Page 94580]]

    For example, every year the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) 
establishes migratory bird hunting seasons in partnership with Flyway 
Councils composed of state fish and wildlife agencies. The FWS also 
holds a series of public meetings to provide interested parties, 
including hunters and other groups, opportunities to participate in 
establishing the upcoming season's regulations. Similarly, the Bureau 
of Land Management (BLM) uses Resource Advisory Councils to provide 
advice on the 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.'' Interior'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.
    Interior routinely meets with stakeholders to solicit feedback and 
input on ways to modernize our regulatory programs, through efforts 
such as incorporating performance based standards and removing outdated 
and unnecessary requirements. Interior bureaus continue efforts to make 
our regulations easier to comply with and understand. Our regulatory 
process ensures that bureaus share ideas 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 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 of the Interior's Final Plan for Retrospective 
Review and biannual status reports can be viewed at http://www.doi.gov/open/regsreview.

Bureaus and Offices Within the Department of the Interior

    The following sections give an overview of some of the major 
regulatory priorities of DOI bureaus and offices.
Indian Affairs
    Indian Affairs, including the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and 
the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE), provides services to 
approximately 1.9 million American Indians and Alaska Natives, and 
maintains a government-to-government relationship with the 567 
federally recognized tribes. Indian Affairs 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 American 
Indians and tribes. Indian Affair's mission is to enhance the quality 
of life, promote economic opportunity, and protect and improve the 
trust assets of Indian tribes, American Indians, 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 and businesses. In addition, Indian 
Affairs 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, Indian Affairs regulatory priorities are to:
     Develop regulatory changes necessary for improved Indian 
education.
    Indian Affairs is reviewing regulations that require the Bureau of 
Indian Education to follow adequate yearly progress standards for 23 
different states. The review will determine whether a uniform standard 
would better meet the needs of students at BIE-funded schools. With 
regard to undergraduate education, the BIE plans to finalize 
regulations that address grants to tribally controlled community 
colleges and other Indian education regulations. These reviews identify 
provisions that need to be updated to comply with applicable statutes 
and ensure that the proper regulatory framework is in place to support 
students in BIE-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 BIA 
is also simplifying language and eliminating obsolete provisions. In 
the past year, the BIA has finalized 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). In the 
coming year, the BIA also plans to finalize revisions to regulations 
regarding the Tribal Transportation Program (formerly known as Indian 
Reservation Roads) (25 CFR 170).
     Solicit comment on potential regulatory changes to Indian 
trader regulations.
    BIA is considering whether to propose an administrative rule that 
would comprehensively update 25 CFR part 140 (Licensed Indian Traders) 
in an effort to modernize the implementation of the Indian Trader 
statutes consistent with the Federal policies of tribal self-
determination and self-governance. The current regulations were 
promulgated in 1957 and have not been comprehensively updated since 
1965. BIA will solicit comments on its Indian Trader regulations 
including how the regulations could be improved, who should be 
permitted to trade on Indian land, and what may be traded on Indian 
land, in a manner more consistent with tribal self-governance and self-
determination.
Bureau of Land Management
    The Bureau of Land Management 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 or 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

[[Page 94581]]

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.
    The BLM is updating and improving the current versions of Onshore 
Oil and Gas Orders (Orders) 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 
(GAO), the Department of the Interior Office of the Inspector General, 
and the Department of the Interior's Subcommittee on Royalty 
Management. The proposed changes address findings and recommendations 
that in part formed the basis for the GAO's inclusion of Interior'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 3 decades old. The agency 
intends to finalize a 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.
     Ensuring 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 GAO recommended that BLM take necessary steps to revise its 
regulations regarding 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 during the comment 
period ending 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.
    With respect to royalties rates generally, based on comments 
received on the ANPRM, the BLM proposed an amendment to its regulations 
governing royalty rates as part of its ``Waste Prevention, Production 
Subject to Royalties, and Resource Conservation'' rulemaking, 81 FR 
6616 (Feb. 8, 2016). The proposed regulatory amendment, if adopted, 
would give the Secretary flexibility to adjust onshore oil and gas 
royalty rates in response to market conditions.
    Regarding financial measures to address risks, on June 28, 2016, 
the BLM published a rule to adjust civil monetary penalties contained 
in the Bureau of Land Management's regulations governing onshore oil 
and gas operations. This rule responded to the requirements of the 
Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 
2015. The adjustments made by this interim final rule constitute the 
initial catch-up adjustments contemplated by the Act, and are 
consistent with applicable Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
guidance. The initial adjustments will be followed by annual 
adjustments for inflation thereafter. The purpose of these adjustments 
is to maintain the deterrent effect of civil penalties found in 
existing regulations.
     Creating a competitive process for offering lands for 
solar and wind energy development.
    The BLM will finalize a rule to 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
    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 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.
    BOEM is finalizing two rules to address this goal. In consultation 
with stakeholders, a proposed rule would update, simplify, and clarify 
BOEM's current regulations for awarding renewable energy leases and 
grants. It would reorganize, simplify, and clarify BOEM's pre- and 
post-auction procedures and better describe the use of bidding credits. 
It also would deter bidder collusion and provide incentives to 
encourage a provisional winner to fulfill its obligations. The second 
is a final rule that reassigns current safety and environmental 
oversight and enforcement responsibilities for off-shore renewable 
energy projects from BOEM to the Bureau of Safety and Environmental 
Enforcement. The Secretary of the Interior and the Assistant Secretary 
for Land and Mineral Management mandated this administrative 
reassignment to ensure that safety and environmental oversight of 
offshore renewable energy activities is independent of program 
management and leasing functions. BOEM is proposing to amend the scope 
of an existing proposed rulemaking that remains in early development. 
The amended scope will incorporate changes to the offshore renewable 
regulatory framework suggested by the public and the regulated 
community and may include provisions addressing regulatory gaps and 
inconsistencies arising from the Title 30 reorganization.
     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, 
Interior exercised jurisdiction only for OCS sources operating in the 
Gulf of Mexico. In Fiscal Year 2011, Congress expanded Interior's 
authority by transferring to it responsibility for monitoring OCS air 
quality off the North Slope Borough of

[[Page 94582]]

the State of Alaska, including the Beaufort Sea, and the Chukchi Sea. 
BOEM intends to finalize updated regulations to reflect changes that 
have occurred over the past 34 years and the new regulatory 
jurisdiction.
     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 (ANPRM) in 2014, and has 
engaged with industry on the subject. BOEM has since issued a Notice to 
Lessees to its stakeholders, effective September 12, 2016, to address 
the concerns.
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement
    The Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) 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 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.
     Updating Cost Reporting and Cost Recovery Rules
    BSEE expects to finalize its proposal for expanding the existing 
requirements for reporting of actual decommissioning costs to include 
the costs of decommissioning pipelines subject to BSEE's authority. The 
Bureau will use that information to estimate future decommissioning 
costs. BSEE will also propose, and expects to finalize, updates to the 
existing regulations for recovery of the costs of services provided by 
BSEE (such as reviewing permit applications) to reflect increases in 
those costs.
Office of Natural Resources Revenue
    The Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR) will continue to 
collect, account for, and disburse revenues from Federal offshore 
energy and mineral leases and from onshore mineral leases on Federal 
and Indian lands. The program operates nationwide and is primarily 
responsible for timely and accurate collection, distribution, and 
accounting for revenues associated with mineral and energy production.
    ONRR's regulatory plan for October 2016 through March 2017 includes 
proposing new regulations to implement the provisions of the Energy 
Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct) governing the payment of advance royalty on 
coal resources produced from Federal leases. 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. Additionally, ONRR expects to issue a 
proposed rulemaking to amend ONRR's service of official correspondence 
regulations, providing necessary clarifications and a simpler process 
for the service of official correspondence.
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
    The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) 
was created by the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 
(SMCRA). Under SMCRA, OSMRE 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 OSMRE 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, OSMRE 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.
    OSMRE'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 OSMRE 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. OSMRE'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. OSMRE 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.
     Cost Recovery.
    Revise OSMRE existing permit fees and impose new fees to recover 
OSMRE's costs for permit administration and enforcement services 
provided to the coal industry. The proposed fees would be applicable to 
permits for mining on lands where regulatory jurisdiction has not been 
delegated to the States and would include OSMRE's Federal program, 
States, and Indian lands.
     Bond Requirements.

[[Page 94583]]

    Update OSMRE bonding regulations to ensure there are sufficient 
funds to complete all of the required reclamation in the reclamation 
plan if the regulatory authority has to perform the work in the event 
of forfeiture.
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 under the ESA to conserve both 
domestic and foreign animal and plant species. Accordingly, we will add 
species to, remove species from, and reclassify species on the Lists of 
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants and designate critical 
habitat for certain listed species. We will issue a comprehensive 
compensatory mitigation policy that sets standards for compensatory 
mitigation and minimum criteria that should provide better ecological 
outcomes for listed and at-risk species through effective management of 
the risks associated with compensatory mitigation. The policy will 
encourage a proactive approach that will take advantage of economies of 
scale and provide greater regulatory certainty and predictability for 
the regulated community.
     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. 
Additionally, FWS is considering whether to issue a proposed rulemaking 
to address various approaches to regulating incidental take of 
migratory birds, including issuing individual permits, general permits, 
and Federal agency authorizations. 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.
    The FWS is also refining its management objectives for bald eagles 
and golden eagles and revising the regulations pertaining to issuing 
permits for nonpurposeful take of eagles and eagle nest take. The 
revisions will add clarity to the eagle permit regulations, improve 
their implementation, and increase compliance, while providing strong 
protection for eagles.
     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 protect NWRS resources, we will issue a 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 Pittman-Robertson Wildlife 
Restoration and Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Acts (Acts).
    Under the Acts, the FWS distributes annual apportionments to States 
from trust funds derived from excise tax revenues and fuel taxes. We 
continue to direct state fish and wildlife agencies on how to use these 
funds to implement conservation projects. To strengthen our partnership 
with State conservation organizations, we are working on several rules 
to update and clarify our regulations. Planned regulatory revisions 
will help to reflect several new decisions agreed upon by state 
conservation organizations, we are working on several rules to update 
and clarify our regulations. Planned regulatory revision will help to 
reflect several new decisions agreed upon by State and Federal 
partners. We will also expand on existing regulations that prescribe 
processes that applicants and grantees must follow when applying for 
and managing grants from FWS.
     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.
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 decisionmaking 
process.
     Effective Management: Instilling a performance management 
philosophy that fosters creativity, focuses on results, and requires 
accountability at all levels.

[[Page 94584]]

     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, and Cape Lookout National Seashore would allow for 
management of off-road vehicle (ORV) use, to protect and preserve 
natural and cultural resources, and provide a variety of visitor use 
experiences while minimizing conflicts among user groups. Further, the 
rules would designate ORV routes and establish operational requirements 
and restrictions.
     Managing Disposition of Archeological Materials.
    The rule will establish definitions, standards, procedures, and 
guidelines to be followed by Federal agencies to dispose of particular 
archeological material remains that are in collections recovered during 
Federal projects and programs under certain Federal statutes. This rule 
is necessary because, at present, there is no procedure to dispose of 
material remains that are determined to be of insufficient 
archeological interest.
     Implementing the Native American Graves Protection and 
Repatriation Act (NAGPRA).
    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 Lands.
    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 Act 
of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 1211 et seq.) and the Department of Justice Service 
Animal regulations of 2011 (28 CFR 36.104).
     Managing Subsistence Collection--NPS Units--Alaska Region.
    The rule will allow qualified subsistence users to collect and use 
non-edible fish and wildlife parts and plant materials for the creation 
and subsequent disposition (use, barter, or sale) of handicrafts. The 
rule will also (1) clarify that collecting or possessing living 
wildlife is generally prohibited, and (2) limit the types of bait that 
may be used to take bears for subsistence uses.
     Managing Sale and Distribution of Printed Matter and Other 
Message Bearing Items--NPS Units Nationwide.
    The rule would allow the free distribution of message-bearing items 
that do not meet the definition of ``printed matter'' in existing 
regulations. These items include readable electronic media, clothing 
and accessories, buttons, pins, and bumper stickers. The rule would 
implement current NPS policy.

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 2017 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 2016

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

    The Department is planning to publish a rule amending the 
Department's section 504 regulations for federally assisted programs 
and activities to incorporate changes adopted by the ADA Amendments Act 
of 2008 and other legal developments (RIN 1105-AB50). In addition, the 
Civil Rights Division is including the following disability 
nondiscrimination rulemaking initiatives in the Department's Regulatory 
Plan: (1) Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability by Public 
Accommodations: Movie Captioning and Audio Description (RIN 1190-AA63); 
(2) Accessibility of Web Information and Services of State and Local 
Governments (RIN 1190-AA65); and (3) Implementation of the ADA 
Amendments Act of 2008 in the Department's section 504 Federal 
Coordination regulation (RIN 1190-AA72).

[[Page 94585]]

    The Civil Rights Division will also be revising its regulations for 
Coordination of Enforcement of Non-Discrimination in Federally Assisted 
Programs under title VI of the Civil Rights Act (RIN 1190-AA70), as 
well as revising regulations implementing section 274B of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act with respect to unfair immigration-
related employment practices (RIN 1190-AA71).
    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) Next Generation 9-1-1 Services (RIN 1190-AA62); (2) 
Accessibility of Web Information and Services of Public Accommodations 
(RIN 1190-AA61); (3) Accessibility of Equipment and Furniture (RIN 
1190-AA64), including Accessibility of Medical Equipment and Furniture 
(RIN 1190-AA66), and Accessibility of Beds in Guestrooms with Mobility 
Features in Places of Lodging (RIN 1190-AA67); and (4) Implementation 
of the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 in the Department's section 504 
regulation with respect to federally conducted programs and activities 
(RIN 1190-AA73).

Regulatory Plan Initiatives

    Captioning and Audio Description in Movie Theaters (RIN 1190-AA63). 
Title III of the ADA requires public accommodations to take ``such 
steps as may be necessary to ensure that no individual with a 
disability is treated differently because of the absence of auxiliary 
aids and services, unless the covered entity can demonstrate that 
taking such steps would cause a fundamental alteration or would result 
in an undue burden.'' 42 U.S.C. 12182(b)(2)(A)(iii). Both open and 
closed captioning and audio recordings are examples of auxiliary aids 
and services that should be provided by places of public 
accommodations, 28 CFR 36.303(b)(1)-(2). The Department stated in the 
preamble to its 1991 rule that ``[m]ovie theaters are not required . . 
. to present open-captioned films,'' 28 CFR part 36, app. C (2011), but 
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 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 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 (RIN 1190-
AA65). 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 lives of Americans. 
The ADA's expansive nondiscrimination mandate reaches public entities' 
programs, services, or activities offered on or through their 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

[[Page 94586]]

making Web sites accessible and on the existence of any other effective 
and reasonably feasible alternatives to making Web sites accessible. 
The Department received approximately 440 public comments and is in the 
process of reviewing these comments. The Department will be publishing 
separate NPRMs addressing Web site accessibility pursuant to titles II 
and III of the ADA.
    On May 9, 2016 the Department published a Supplemental Advance 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SANPRM) titled Nondiscrimination on the 
Basis of Disability; Accessibility of Web Information and Services of 
State and Local Government Entities addressing the potential 
application of technical accessibility requirements to the Web sites of 
title II entities. 81 FR 28657. Through the SANPRM, the Department 
intends to solicit additional public comment on various issues to help 
the Department shape and further its rulemaking efforts. The SANPRM 
asks 123 multipart questions, seeking public comment on a wide range of 
complex issues related to the potential technical accessibility 
requirements as well as any proposed title II web rule's costs and 
benefits.
    Implementation of the ADA Amendments Act of 2008: Federally 
Assisted Programs (Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973) (RIN 
1105-AB50). Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended 
(29 U.S.C. 794), prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in 
programs and activities receiving Federal financial assistance or in 
programs and activities conducted by an Executive agency. This rule 
would propose to revise the Department's regulation implementing 
section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act with respect to recipients of 
Federal financial assistance from the Department, 28 CFR part 42, 
subpart G, to reflect statutory amendments made by the ADA Amendments 
Act of 2008, Public Law 110-325, 122 Stat. 3553 (Sep. 25, 2008), and 
other legal developments since the current regulations were adopted.
    The ADA Amendments Act, which took effect on January 1, 2009, 
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. Specifically, these 
amended ADA requirements: (1) Clarify that the term ``disability'' 
shall be interpreted broadly and without extensive analysis; (2) add 
rules of construction to be applied when determining whether an 
impairment substantially limits a major life activity; (3) expand the 
definition of ``major life activities'' by providing a non-exhaustive 
list of ``major life activities'' that includes the operation of 
``major bodily functions;'' and (4) modify the ``regarded as'' prong of 
the definition of disability by stating that an individual may be 
``regarded as'' having an impairment even if that impairment does not 
limit or is not perceived to limit a major life activity, and 
clarifying that individuals covered only under the ``regarded as'' 
prong are not entitled to reasonable modifications. An update to 28 CFR 
part 42, subpart G, would, therefore, incorporate these changes and 
harmonize the regulation with the ADA Amendments Act and the revisions 
to title V of the Rehabilitation Act.
    Implementation of the ADA Amendments Act of 2008: Federal 
Coordination (Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973) (RIN 1190-
AA72). Executive Order 12250 delegated the authority to coordinate the 
enforcement and implementation of section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act 
by Executive agencies to the Attorney General. Pursuant to this 
authority, the Department proposes to revise its regulation 
implementing Executive Order 12250, 28 CFR part 41, to reflect 
statutory amendments to section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act made by 
the ADA Amendments Act of 2008. The proposed revisions to the 
Department's Federal Coordination regulation would be consistent with 
the proposed revisions to the Department's Federally Assisted 
regulation discussed above.
    Coordination of Enforcement of Non-Discrimination in Federally 
Assisted Programs (RIN 1190-AA70). 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.
    Implementation of Section 274B of the Immigration and Nationality 
Act (RIN 1190-AA71). 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.
Long-Term Actions
    The remaining disability nondiscrimination rulemaking initiatives 
from the 2010 ANPRMs are included in the Department's long-term 
priorities projected for fiscal years 2017 and 2018:
    Next Generation 9-1-1 (RIN 1190-AA62). 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.
    Web Site Accessibility: Public Accommodations (RIN 1190-AA61). 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

[[Page 94587]]

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, 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 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 in fiscal year 2017. 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.
    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 an NPRM pursuant to title III of the ADA on beds in 
accessible guest rooms (RIN 1190-AA67), and also a separate NPRM 
pursuant to titles II and III of the ADA that focuses solely on 
accessible medical equipment and furniture (RIN 1190-AA66). The 
remaining items of equipment and furniture addressed in the 2010 ANPRM 
will be the subject of a subsequent NPRM.
    Implementation of the ADA Amendments Act of 2008: Federally 
Conducted Programs (Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973) (RIN 
1190-AA73). As noted above, section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 
1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. 794), prohibits discrimination on the basis 
of disability in programs and activities conducted by an Executive 
agency. The Department plans to revise its 504 federally conducted 
regulation at 28 CFR part 39 to update outdated terminology and reflect 
statutory amendments to the definition of disability applicable to 
section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, as made by the ADA Amendments 
Act of 2008, Public Law 110-325, 122 Stat. 3553 (Sep. 25, 2008).
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. ATF will continue, as a priority during fiscal year 
2017, 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) (RIN 1140-AA00). The Department is also 
planning to finalize a proposed rule to codify 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 (RIN 1140-AA38). As proposed, this rule 
would clarify the administrative hearing processes for explosives 
licenses and permits.
    ATF also has begun a rulemaking process that amends 27 CFR part 447 
to update the terminology in the ATF regulations based on similar 
terminology amendments made by the Department of State on the U.S. 
Munitions List in the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, and 
the Department of Commerce on the Commerce Control List in the Export 
Administration Regulations (RIN 1140-AA49).
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

[[Page 94588]]

reviews and initiatives, DEA plans to update its regulations for the 
import and export of tableting and 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 published an NPRM 
proposing to amend these regulations and plans to finalize these 
proposals promptly (RIN 1117-AB41).
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 (RIN 1120-
AB71); improve safety in facilities through the use of less-than-lethal 
force instead of traditional weapons (RIN 1120-AB67); and provide 
effective literacy programming which serves both general and 
specialized inmate needs (RIN 1120-AB64).
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 final 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 (1125-AA68); a final regulation to 
improve the recognition and accreditation process for organizations and 
representatives that appear in immigration proceedings before EOIR (RIN 
1125-AA72); 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 (RIN 1125-AA70). 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-2003 immigration system (RIN 1125-AA71).
Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations
    Pursuant to section 6 of Executive Order 13563 ``Improving 
Regulation and Regulatory Review'' (Jan. 18, 2011), the following 
Regulatory Identifier Numbers (RINs) have been identified as associated 
with retrospective review and analysis in the Department's final 
retrospective review of regulations plan. Some of these entries on this 
list may be completed actions, which do not appear in The Regulatory 
Plan. However, more information can be found about these completed 
rulemakings in past publications of the Unified Agenda on Reginfo.gov 
in the Completed Actions section for that agency. These rulemakings can 
also be found on Regulations.gov. The final Justice Department plan can 
be found at: http://www.justice.gov/open/doj-rr-final-plan.pdf.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  RIN                                Title                             Description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1125-AA62.............................  List of Pro Bono Legal Service  The Department has published a Final
                                         Providers for Aliens in         rule amending the EOIR regulations to
                                         Immigration Proceedings.        enhance the eligibility requirements
                                                                         for organizations, private attorneys,
                                                                         and referral services to be included on
                                                                         the List of Pro Bono Legal Service
                                                                         Providers.
1125-AA71.............................  Retrospective Regulatory        Advance notice of future rulemaking
                                         Review Under E.O. 13563 of 8    concerning appeals of DHS decisions (8
                                         CFR parts 1003, 1103, 1211,     CFR part 1103), documentary
                                         1212, 1215, 1216, 1235.         requirements for 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.

[[Page 94589]]

 
1125-AA72.............................  Recognition of Organizations    This rule amends the regulations
                                         and Accreditations of           governing the requirements and
                                         Non[hyphen] Attorney            procedures for 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 Representation for     The Department has published a Final
                                         Custody and Bond Proceedings.   rule amending the 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 Dispense        DEA proposes to amend its regulations to
                                         Controlled Substances on an     clearly delineate how to transport,
                                         As-Needed and Random Basis.     dispense, and store 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 the           DEA plans to update its regulations for
                                         International Trade Data        the import and export 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 Officers'         These two related rules are a priority
                                         Benefits (PSOB) Program.        because certain key 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 proposes to 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
                                                                         proposes 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 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.


[[Page 94590]]



DOJ--CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION (CRT)

Proposed Rule Stage

72. 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:

[[Page 94591]]



------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM...............................   07/26/10  75 FR 43460
ANPRM Comment Period End............   01/21/11  .......................
Supplemental ANPRM..................   05/09/16  81 FR 28657
Supplemental ANPRM Comment Period      07/29/16  81 FR 49908
 Extended.
Supplemental ANPRM Comment Period      08/08/16  .......................
 End.
Supplemental ANPRM Extended Comment    10/07/16  .......................
 Period End.
NPRM................................   07/00/17  .......................
NPRM Comment Period End.............   09/00/17  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

DOJ--CRT

Final Rule Stage

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

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 12101, et seq.
    CFR Citation: 28 CFR 36.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: Following its advance notice of proposed rulemaking 
published on July 26, 2010, the Department plans to publish a proposed 
rule addressing the requirements for captioning and video description 
of movies exhibited in movie theatres under title III of the Americans 
with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). Title III prohibits discrimination 
on the basis of disability in the activities of places of public 
accommodation (private entities whose operations affect commerce and 
that fall into one of twelve categories listed in the ADA). 42 U.S.C. 
12181-12189. Title III makes it unlawful for places of public 
accommodation, such as movie theaters, to discriminate against 
individuals with disabilities in the full and equal enjoyment of the 
goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations 
of a place of public accommodation (42 U.S.C. 12182[a]). Moreover, 
title III prohibits places of public accommodation from affording an 
unequal or lesser service to individuals or classes of individuals with 
disabilities than is offered to other individuals (42 U.S.C. 
12182(b)(1)(A)(ii)). Title III requires places of public accommodation 
to take ``such steps as may be necessary to ensure that no individual 
with a disability is excluded, denied services, segregated or otherwise 
treated differently because of the absence of auxiliary aids and 
services, such as captioning and video description, unless the entity 
can demonstrate that taking such steps would fundamentally alter the 
nature of the good, service, facility, privilege, advantage, or 
accommodation being offered or would result in an undue burden,'' (42 
U.S.C. 12182(b)(2)(A)(iii)).
    Statement of Need: A significant-and increasing-proportion of 
Americans have hearing or vision disabilities that prevent them from 
fully and effectively understanding movies without captioning or audio 
description. For persons with hearing and vision disabilities, the 
unavailability of captioned or audio-described movies inhibits their 
ability to socialize and fully take part in family outings and deprives 
them of the opportunity to meaningfully participate in an important 
aspect of American culture. Many individuals with hearing or vision 
disabilities who commented on the Department's 2010 ANPRM remarked that 
they have not been able to enjoy a commercial movie unless they watched 
it on TV, or that when they took their children to the movies they 
could not understand what they were seeing or discuss what was 
happening with their children. Today, more and more movies are produced 
with captions and audio description. However, despite the underlying 
ADA obligation, the advancement of digital technology and the 
availability of captioned and audio-described films, many movie 
theaters are still not exhibiting captioned or audio-described movies, 
and when they do exhibit them, they are only for a few showings of a 
movie, and usually at off-times. Recently, a number of theater 
companies have committed to provide greater availability of captioning 
and audio description. In some cases, these have been nationwide 
commitments; in other cases it has only been in a particular State or 
locality. A uniform Federal ADA requirement for captioning and audio 
description is necessary to ensure that access to movies for persons 
with hearing and vision disabilities is not dictated by the 
individual's residence or the presence of litigation in their locality. 
In addition, the movie theater industry is in the process of converting 
its movie screens to use digital technology, and the Department 
believes that it will be extremely helpful to provide timely guidance 
on the ADA requirements for captioning and audio description so that 
the industry may factor this into its conversion efforts and minimize 
costs.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The summary of the legal basis of authority 
for this regulation is set forth above in the abstract.
    Alternatives: The Department will consider any public comments that 
propose achievable alternatives that will still accomplish the goal of 
providing access to movies for persons with hearing and vision 
disabilities. However, the Department believes that the baseline 
alternative of not providing such access would be inconsistent with the 
provisions of title III of the ADA.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The Department's preliminary 
analysis indicates that the proposed rule would not be ``economically 
significant,'' that is, that the rule will not have an annual effect on 
the economy of $100 million, or adversely affect in a material way the 
economy, a sector of the economy, the environment, public health or 
safety or State, local or tribal governments or communities. In the 
NPRM, the Department 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

[[Page 94592]]

 
Final Action........................   11/00/16
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20530, Phone: 800 514-0301.
    RIN: 1190-AA63

DOJ--CRT

74. 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................................   08/15/16  81 FR 53965
NPRM Comment Period End.............   09/14/16
Final Action........................   09/00/17
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 Avenue NW., 
Suite 9000, Washington, DC 20530, Phone: 202 616-5594, Fax: 202 616-
5509, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 1190-AA71

DOJ--EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW (EOIR)

Final 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 
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

[[Page 94593]]

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................................   07/28/16  81 FR 49556
NPRM Comment Period End.............   09/26/16  .......................
Final Action........................   05/00/17  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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, 
Executive Office for Immigration Review, 5107 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 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:

[[Page 94594]]



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

    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, 5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 
2600, Falls Church, VA 22041, Phone: 703 305-0470.
    RIN: 1125-AA72

DOJ--LEGAL ACTIVITIES (LA)

Proposed Rule Stage

77.  Implementation of the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 Federally 
Assisted Programs (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 72855); 11/
04/1980
    CFR Citation: 28 CFR 42, subpart G.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Department of Justice is issuing this notice of 
proposed rulemaking to revise its regulation implementing section 504 
of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as applicable to programs and 
activities receiving financial assistance from the Department, in order 
to: (1) Incorporate amendments to the statute, including the changes in 
the meaning and interpretation of the applicable definition of 
disability required by the ADA Amendments Act of 2008; (2) incorporate 
requirements stemming from judicial decisions; (3) update accessibility 
standards applicable to new construction and alteration of buildings 
and facilities; (4) update certain provisions to promote consistency 
with comparable provisions implementing title II of the Americans with 
Disabilities Act; and (5) make other nonsubstantive clarifying edits, 
including updating outdated terminology and references that currently 
exist in 28 CFR part 42, such as changing the word handicapped and 
similar variations of that word to language referencing individuals 
with disabilities, modifying the order of the regulatory provisions to 
group like provisions together, and adding some headings to make the 
regulation more user-friendly.
    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 
for federally assisted programs 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), was published in the Federal Register on August 11, 
2016. 81 FR 53203.
    Because most 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 we do not believe that the revisions to 
the Department's existing section 504 federally assisted regulations 
will have a significant economic impact.
    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.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   11/00/16  .......................
NPRM Comment Period End.............   01/00/17  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Michael Alston, Director, Office for Civil Rights, Office of 
Justice Programs, Department of Justice, 800 K Street NW., Room 2327, 
(Techworld), Washington, DC 20530, Phone: 202 307-0692.
    RIN: 1105-AB50

BILLING CODE 4410-BP-P

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Fall 2016 Statement of Regulatory Priorities

Introduction

    The Department's Fall 2016 Regulatory Agenda continues to advance 
the Department's mission to foster, promote, and develop the welfare of 
wage earners, job seekers, and retirees; improve working conditions; 
advance opportunities for profitable employment; and assure work-
related benefits and rights. These rules will provide greater 
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 veterans to thrive in 
the civilian economy, for workers to retire with dignity, for workers 
and employers to compete on a level playing field, and for people to 
work in a safe environment with the full protection of our anti-
discrimination laws.
    Since the beginning of the Obama Administration, the Department of 
Labor has completed historic rulemakings on issues that are central to 
America's workers and their families: Worker safety, wages, and 
retirement security.
    We finalized regulations to limit worker exposure to deadly silica 
dust that can lead to lung cancer, silicosis, chronic obstructive 
pulmonary disease and kidney disease, providing important new 
protections to 2.3 million workers

[[Page 94595]]

and preventing hundreds of deaths each year.
    We finalized updates to our overtime regulations to ensure that 
middle class jobs pay middle class wages, extending important overtime 
pay protections to over 4.2 million workers and raising their pay by an 
estimated $12 billion in the next 10 years.
    We issued final regulations that will enable employees of Federal 
contractors to earn seven days of paid sick and safe leave per year, 
for the first time guaranteeing these workers have paid leave to care 
for themselves, family members, or loved ones, without fear of losing 
their paychecks or their jobs.
    We finalized our Conflict of Interest Rule, establishing a 
fundamental principle of consumer protection in the American retirement 
marketplace--that retirement advisors must put their clients' interests 
before their own profits.
    Along with the Department of Education, we finalized regulations to 
implement the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act--the most 
significant legislative reform to the public workforce system in nearly 
20 years--that will expand workers' opportunities to develop the skills 
they need and provide employers with the skilled workforce they need to 
succeed in the 21st century economy.
    We finalized new regulations that establish equity and transparency 
in employer/consultant reporting requirements when employers engage 
consultants to persuade employees on their rights to organize and 
bargain collectively.
    Working with the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council, we 
finalized regulations and guidance implementing 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. The rule ensures that taxpayer dollars do not 
reward companies that break the law and that contractors who meet their 
legal responsibilities do not have to compete with those who do not.
    We updated sex discrimination regulations for Federal contractors 
for the first time in 40 years, to reflect the current state of the law 
and the reality of a modern and diverse workforce. Updated rules on 
workplace sex discrimination will mean clarity for Federal contractors 
and subcontractors and equal opportunities for both men and women 
applying for jobs with, or already working for, these employers.
    We will update and simplify the equal opportunity regulations 
implementing the National Apprenticeship Act to help employers and 
other apprenticeship sponsors attract a larger and more diverse 
applicant pool and provide greater opportunities to women, people of 
color, and other individuals regardless of disability, age, sexual 
orientation, or gender identity, to take part in Registered 
Apprenticeship programs. And, we finalized regulations clarifying how 
states can establish retirement savings arrangements to automatically 
enroll employees, and offer coverage that is consistent with Federal 
laws governing employee benefit plans.
    The 2016 Regulatory Plan highlights the Labor Department's most 
noteworthy and significant rulemaking efforts, with each addressing the 
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 Workers' Compensation Programs (OWCP), 
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, 
disability, national origin, veteran's status, 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, strong 
foundation of evidence, and extensive stakeholder outreach, are 
integral to all of our regulatory efforts. Successful rulemaking 
requires that we build a big table and keep an open mind.

Training More Workers and Job-Seekers for 21st Century Jobs

    The Department continues to implement the Workforce Innovation and 
Opportunity Act (WIOA), the first major reform to Federal job training 
programs in almost 20 years, building new partnerships, engaging 
employers, emphasizing proven strategies like apprenticeship and 
preparing people for the demands of the 21st century economy. 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.
     The Department's Civil Rights Center (CRC) will issue a 
final rule to implement the nondiscrimination provisions in section 188 
of WIOA. The rule will update nondiscrimination and equal opportunity 
provisions to be consistent with current law and address its 
application to current workforce development and workplace practices 
and issues. 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.'' \2\ The current final rule ultimately will be 
superseded by the final rule arising from the earlier NPRM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Implementation of the Nondiscrimination and Equal 
Opportunity Provisions of the Workforce Innovation Act of 2014 (RIN: 
1291-A37).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To further meet the demands of the 21st century workforce, the 
Department will also explore options to modernize and provide 
flexibilities to employers and workers, without sacrificing important 
worker protections in the permanent labor certification program.
     The permanent labor certification requirements and process 
have not been comprehensively examined or modified since 2004. ETA 
proposes to consider options to modernize the PERM program to be more 
responsive to changes in the national workforce in order to further 
align the program design with the objectives of the U.S. Immigration 
system, and needs of workers and employers, and to enhance the 
integrity of the labor certification process.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Modernizing the Permanent Labor Certification Program (PERM) 
(RIN: 1205-AB76).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     ETA also proposes to engage the public on whether the 
Schedule A of the permanent labor certification process serves as an 
effective tool for addressing current labor shortages, and how the 
Department may create a timely, coherent, and transparent methodology 
for identifying occupations that are experiencing labor shortages.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Labor Certification for Permanent Employment of Foreign 
Workers in the United States; Revising Schedule A (RIN: 1205-AB77).

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

[[Page 94596]]

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

    Workplace benefits ensure that workers have the opportunity to 
remain in the middle class if they face a health and welfare challenge, 
retire from their jobs, or experience a workplace accident or illness. 
In addition, a financially secure retirement is a fundamental pillar of 
the middle class. The Department has a regulatory program designed to 
improve health benefits and retirement security for all workers.
     EBSA plans to finalize regulations that describe how 
political subdivisions (e.g. cities and counties) may design and 
operate payroll deduction savings programs, using automatic enrollment, 
for private-sector employees without causing the political subdivisions 
or private-sector employers to establish employee pension benefit plans 
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Savings Arrangements Established by Political Subdivisions 
for Non-Governmental Employees (RIN: 1210-AB76).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     EBSA plans to finalize regulations that strengthen, 
improve and update the current disability benefit claims and appeals 
process under section 503 of ERISA.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Amendment to Claims Procedure Regulation (RIN: 1210-AB39).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EBSA will also continue to issue guidance implementing the health 
coverage provisions of Parts 6 and 7 of ERISA, including the provisions 
of COBRA, HIPAA, GINA, mental health parity, the Newborns' and Mothers' 
Health Protection Act, the Women's Health and Cancer Rights Act, and 
the Affordable Care Act group market protections. Much of this guidance 
involves joint work 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 an NPRM under the Black Lung Benefits Act 
to address how medical providers are reimbursed for covered services 
rendered to coal miners totally disabled by pneumoconiosis, 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, religion, disability, national origin, 
veteran's status, sexual orientation, or gender identity. The 
Department continues to take a robust approach to implementing its 
wage-and-hour and nondiscrimination regulations through education, 
outreach and strategic enforcement across industries. The regulations 
in this area 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 will propose revisions to its regulations implementing 
section 14(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act to reflect the changes in 
employment laws affecting workers with disabilities.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Employment of Workers with Disabilities under Special 
Certificates (RIN: 1235-AA14).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Protecting the Safety and Health of Workers
    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. We reject the false choice 
between worker safety and economic growth. Through our rulemakings, we 
are committed to protecting workers in all kinds of workplaces, 
including above- and below-ground coal and metal/nonmetal mines. 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. Our efforts are to prevent workers from having to choose 
between their lives and their livelihood.
     MSHA will build on the knowledge gained through the OSHA 
silica rulemaking process to develop regulations that would provide 
essential protections to miners from silica exposure in mines.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Respirable Crystalline Silica (RIN: 1219-AB36).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     OSHA is developing an NPRM that will look at how to 
provide stronger protections for workers exposed to infectious diseases 
in healthcare and other related high risk environments.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Infectious Diseases (RIN: 1218-AC46).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     OSHA will finalize regulations that address occupational 
exposure to beryllium in the workplace.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Occupational Exposure to Beryllium (RIN: 1218-AB76).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Building upon its history of addressing workplace violence 
in health care facilities, OSHA will solicit information from health 
care employers, workers and other experts on preventing workplace 
violence in the workplace. The request for information will seek public 
input on the impacts of violence, prevention strategies, and other 
information that will be useful to OSHA.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Preventing Violence in Healthcare (RIN: 1218-AD08).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     After more than 25 years, OSHA will update and finalize 
regulations that address slip, trip and fall hazards and establish 
requirements for personal fall protection systems. Slips, trips and 
falls are among the leading causes or work-related injuries and 
fatalities.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Walking Working Surfaces and Personal Fall Protection 
Systems (Slips, Trips, and Fall Prevention) (RIN: 1218-AA11).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 2016 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 14 
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.

[[Page 94597]]



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   Whether it is
                                                                                                    expected to
                                                                                                   significantly
             Agency               Regulatory Identifier No.           Title of rulemaking              reduce
                                            (RIN)                                                    burdens on
                                                                                                       small
                                                                                                     businesses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EBSA...........................  1210-AB47.................  Amendment of Abandoned Plan Program.     Yes.
EBSA...........................  1210-AB63.................  21st Century Initiative to Modernize    To Be
                                                              the Form 5500 Series and             Determined.
                                                              Implementing and Related
                                                              Regulations.
ETA............................  1205-AB59.................  Equal Employment Opportunity in         To Be
                                                              Apprenticeship and Training,         Determined.
                                                              Amendment of Regulations.
ETA............................  1205-AB75.................  Modernizing the Permanent Labor         To Be
                                                              Certification Program (PERM).        Determined.
OSHA...........................  1218-AC34.................  Bloodborne Pathogens................    To Be
                                                                                                   Determined.
OSHA...........................  1218-AC67.................  Standard Improvement Project--Phase     To Be
                                                              IV (SIP IV).                         Determined.
OSHA...........................  1218-AC74.................  Chemical Management and Permissible     To Be
                                                              Exposure Limits (PELs).              Determined.
OSHA...........................  1218-AC81.................  Cranes and Derricks in Construction:     Yes.
                                                              Amendments.
OSHA...........................  1218-AC82.................  Process Safety Management and           To Be
                                                              Flammable Liquids.                   Determined.
OSHA...........................  1218-AD01.................  Revocation of Obsolete PELs.........    To Be
                                                                                                   Determined.
OSHA...........................  1218-AC99.................  Powered Industrial Trucks...........    To Be
                                                                                                   Determined.
OSHA...........................  1218-AC98.................  Mechanical Power Presses Update.....    To Be
                                                                                                   Determined.
OSHA...........................  1218-AD00.................  Lock-Out/Tag-Out Update.............    To Be
                                                                                                   Determined.
OSHA...........................  1218-AD12.................  Technical Correction to 16 OSHA         To Be
                                                              Standards.                           Determined.
OWCP...........................  1240-AA11.................  Black Lung Benefits Act: Medical        To Be
                                                              Benefit Payments.                    Determined.
WHD............................  1235-AA17.................  Updating Regulations Issued Under       To be
                                                              Various Wage and Hour Division       Determined.
                                                              Statutes Consistent with Rosa's Law.
WHD............................  1235-AA18.................  Technical Updates to Regulations        To Be
                                                              Issued Under Various Wage and Hour   Determined.
                                                              Division Statutes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOL--WAGE AND HOUR DIVISION (WHD)

Proposed Rule Stage

78. Employment of Workers With Disabilities Under Special Certificates

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
    Legal Authority: 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq.; 29 U.S.C. 214; Pub. L. 113-
128
    CFR Citation: 29 CFR 525.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: Section 14(c) of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. 214(c), provides 
that the Secretary of Labor may, to the extent necessary to prevent the 
curtailment of opportunities for employment, issue certificates to 
permit the payment of subminimum wages to individuals with disabilities 
whose earring or productive capacities are affected by their 
disability. The Department is proposing to revise the regulations 
implementing section 14(c) to reflect changes in employment laws 
affecting workers with disabilities enacted since the Department's last 
update to the regulations.
    Statement of Need: For some time, WHD has been conducting a 
comprehensive review of the section 14(c) program. This review was 
designed to develop strategies to better protect workers in the 
program, to promote WHD's vision of supporting competitive and 
integrated employment of individuals with disabilities, and to assist 
with efforts to make section 14(c) employment an option of last resort 
for workers where feasible. The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity 
Act (WIOA) created a new section 511 of the Rehabilitation Act, which 
imposes certain new conditions on the payment of subminimum wages by 
section 14(c) certificate holders. The current section 14(c) 
regulations are in need of improvement. The regulations have not been 
updated since 1989 and lack comprehensive, detailed information 
regarding the issuance, renewal, and revocation of 14(c) certificates 
as well as WHD's enforcement of the program. The regulations will be 
updated as the Department considers the new requirements of WIOA, and 
suggestions from workers with disabilities and their advocates.
    Summary of Legal Basis: These regulations are authorized by section 
14(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 214.
    Alternatives: Alternatives will be developed in considering 
proposed revisions to the current regulations. The public will be 
invited to provide comments on the proposed revisions and possible 
alternatives.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The Department will prepare 
estimates of the anticipated costs and benefits associated with the 
proposed rule.
    Risks: This action does not affect public health, safety, or the 
environment.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   04/00/17  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
    Agency Contact: Melissa Smith, Director, Regulations, Legislation 
and Interpretations, Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division, 200 
Constitution Avenue NW., Room S3502, Washington, DC 20210, Phone: 202 
693-0406, Fax: 202 693-1387.
    RIN: 1235-AA14

DOL--EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING ADMINISTRATION (ETA)

Final Rule Stage

79. Equal Employment Opportunity in Apprenticeship Amendment of 
Regulations

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: Sec. 1, 50 stat 664, as amended (29 U.S.C. 50; 40 
U.S.C. 276c; 5 U.S.C. 301); Reorganization Plan No 14 of 1950, 64 stat 
1267 (5 U.S.C. app p 534)
    CFR Citation: 29 CFR 30 (revision).
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: Revisions to the equal opportunity regulatory framework 
for the National Apprenticeship Act are a critical element in the 
Department's vision to promote and expand Registered Apprenticeship 
opportunities in the 21st century while continuing to safeguard the 
welfare and safety of apprentices. In October 2008, the Agency issued a 
Final Rule updating regulations for Apprenticeship Programs and Labor 
Standards for Registration. These regulations, codified at title 29 CFR 
29, have not been updated since 1977. The companion regulations, 29 CFR 
30, Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) in Apprenticeship and Training,

[[Page 94598]]

have not been amended since 1978. The Agency proposes to update 29 CFR 
30 to ensure that the National Registered Apprenticeship System is 
consistent and in alignment with EEO law, as it has developed since 
1978, and recent revisions to 29 CFR 29. This second phase of 
regulatory updates ensures that Registered Apprenticeship is positioned 
to continue to provide economic opportunity for millions of Americans 
while keeping pace with these new requirements.
    Statement of Need: Federal regulations for Equal Employment 
Opportunity (EEO) in Apprenticeship have not been updated since 1978. 
Updates to these regulations are necessary to ensure that DOL 
regulatory requirements governing the National Registered 
Apprenticeship System are consistent with the current state of EEO law 
and recent revisions to 29 CFR 29.
    Summary of Legal Basis: These regulations are authorized by the 
National Apprenticeship Act of 1937 (29 U.S.C. 50) and the Copeland Act 
(40 U.S.C. 276(c). These regulations will set forth policies and 
procedures to promote equality of opportunity in apprenticeship 
programs registered with the U.S. Department of Labor or in State 
Apprenticeship Agencies recognized by the U.S. Department of Labor.
    Alternatives: The public was afforded an opportunity to provide 
comments on the proposed amendment to Apprenticeship EEO regulations 
when the Department published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in 
the Federal Register. A Final Rule was issued after analysis and 
incorporation of public comments to the NRPM.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The proposed changes are thought to 
raise ``novel legal or policy issues'' but are not economically 
significant within the context of Executive Order 12866 and are not a 
``major rule'' under section 804 of the Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act.
    Risks: This action does not affect the public health, safety, or 
the environment.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   11/06/15  80 FR 68908
NPRM Comment Period End.............   01/05/16  .......................
NPRM Comment Period Extended........   12/24/15  .......................
NPRM Comment Period Extended End....   01/20/16  .......................
Final Rule..........................   12/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, State, Tribal.
    Federalism: This action may have federalism implications as defined 
in E.O. 13132.
    Agency Contact: John V. Ladd, Office of Apprenticeship, Department 
of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, FP Building, Room C-
5311, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210, Phone: 202 
693-2796, Fax: 202 693-3799, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 1205-AB59

DOL--EMPLOYEE BENEFITS SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (EBSA)

Final Rule Stage

80. Amendment to Claims Procedure Regulation

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 29 U.S.C. 1135; ERISA sec. 505; 29 U.S.C. 1133
    CFR Citation: 29 CFR 2550.503-1.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: Section 503 of the Employee Retirement Income Security 
Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1133, provides that, in accordance with 
regulations promulgated by the Secretary of Labor, each employee 
benefit plan must provide ``adequate notice in writing to any 
participant or beneficiary whose claim for benefits under the plan has 
been denied.'' The notice must set forth the specific reasons for the 
denial and must be written in a manner calculated to be understood by 
the claimant. Each plan must also afford ``a reasonable opportunity'' 
for any participant or beneficiary whose claim has been denied to 
obtain ``full and fair review'' of the denial by the ``appropriate 
named fiduciary of the plan.'' The Department has issued a regulation 
pursuant to the above authority that establishes the minimum 
requirements for benefit claims procedures of employee benefit plans 
covered by title 1 of ERISA. See 29 CFR 2560.503-1. This rulemaking is 
intended to strengthen, improve, and update the current disability 
benefit claims and appeals process under the section 503 regulations.
    Statement of Need: Because of the volume and constancy of 
disability benefits litigation, the Department recognizes a need to 
revisit, reexamine, and revise the current regulations to ensure that 
disability claimants receive a fair review of denied claims as provided 
by section 503 of ERISA. The rulemaking would revise and strengthen the 
current claims procedure rules primarily by adopting certain procedural 
protections and safeguards for disability benefit claims that are 
currently applicable to claims for group health benefits pursuant to 
the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
    Summary of Legal Basis: Section 503 of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. 1133, 
requires every employee benefit plan to provide adequate notice in 
writing to any participant or beneficiary whose claim for benefits 
under the plan has been denied, setting forth the specific reasons for 
such denial, written in a manner calculated to be understood by the 
participant and to afford a reasonable opportunity to any participant 
whose claim for benefits has been denied for a full and fair review by 
the appropriate named fiduciary of the decision denying the claim. 
Section 503 also provides the Secretary of Labor with broad authority 
to prescribe regulations governing a plan's claims procedure.
    Alternatives: On November 18, 2015, the Department published in the 
Federal Register a proposed rule revising the claims procedure 
regulations for plans providing disability benefits under ERISA. The 
Department received 145 public comments in response to the proposed 
rule from plan participants, consumer groups representing disability 
benefit claimants, employer groups, individual insurers and trade 
groups representing disability insurance providers. In addition to the 
approach set forth in the proposal, the Department will consider all 
meaningful alternative rules and standards presented in these comment 
letters.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The Department expects that these 
final regulations will improve the procedural protections for workers 
who become disabled and make claims for disability benefits from ERISA-
covered employee benefit plans. This would result in some participants 
receiving benefits they might otherwise have been denied absent the 
fuller protections provided by the final regulations. In other 
circumstances, expenditures by plans may be reduced as a fuller and 
fairer disability claims processing helps facilitate participant 
acceptance of cost management efforts. Greater certainty and 
consistency in the handling of disability benefit claims and appeals 
and improved access to information about the manner in which claims and 
appeals are adjudicated may lead to efficiency gains in the system, 
both in terms of the allocation of spending at a macro-economic level 
as well as operational efficiencies among individual plans.

[[Page 94599]]

    The Department believes that these requirements have modest costs 
associated with them, since many chiefly clarify provisions of the 
current claims procedure regulations or require provision of notices to 
plan participants.
    Risks: Undetermined.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   11/18/15  80 FR 72014
NPRM Comment Period End.............   01/19/16  .......................
Final Rule..........................   12/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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-AB39

DOL--EBSA

81.  Savings Arrangements Established by Political Subdivisions 
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: The Department proposes to amend a regulation (29 CFR 
2510.3-2(h)) that describes how states may design and operate payroll 
deduction savings programs, using automatic enrollment, for private-
sector employees without causing the states or private-sector employers 
to establish employee pension benefit plans under the Employee 
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The proposed amendments would 
expand the current regulation to cover programs of political 
subdivisions of states that otherwise comply with the current 
regulation.
    Statement of Need: On November 18, 2015, the Department published 
in the Federal Register a proposed safe harbor regulation describing 
specific circumstances in which state (but not state political 
subdivisions, such as cities and counties) payroll deduction savings 
programs with automatic enrollment would not give rise to the 
establishment of employee pension benefit plans under the Employee 
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA). Several 
commenters on that proposal asserted that the scope of the safe harbor 
regulation was too narrow and requested that the Department broaden it 
beyond states to cover payroll deduction savings programs of state 
political subdivisions, such as counties and cities. These commenters 
asserted that such an expansion would promote broader access to 
workplace retirement savings opportunities for employees, especially in 
states that do not themselves establish state-level programs but do 
have political subdivisions that would be willing to do so. The 
Department agrees with commenters that there may be good reasons for 
expanding the safe harbor to cover political subdivisions. Accordingly, 
on August 30, 2016, the Department published a notice of proposed 
rulemaking soliciting further comments on whether and how the safe 
harbor should be expanded to state political subdivisions.
    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: The notice of proposed rulemaking would expand the 
safe harbor to cover payroll deduction savings programs of a limited 
number of large (in terms of population) cities and other political 
subdivisions. The Department considered three alternative criteria 
suggested by commenters that it could use to narrow the universe of 
eligible political subdivisions. The first suggested alternative 
criterion is that a political subdivision would have a population equal 
to or greater than the population of the least populous state. The 
second suggested alternative criterion is that the state in which the 
political subdivision exists does not have a state-wide retirement 
savings program for private-sector employees. The third suggested 
alternative criterion is that a political subdivision would have 
demonstrated capacity to design and operate a payroll deduction savings 
program, such as by maintaining a pension plan with substantial assets 
for employees of the political subdivision. All of these alternatives 
are under consideration. In addition, the Department will consider 
other alternatives presented by commenters.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: In analyzing benefits and costs 
associated with this proposed rule, the Department focuses on the 
direct effects, which include both benefits and costs directly 
attributable to the rule. These benefits and costs are limited, because 
as stated above, the proposed rule would merely establish a safe harbor 
describing the circumstances under which a qualified political 
subdivision with authority under state law could establish payroll 
deduction savings programs that would not give rise to ERISA-covered 
employee pension benefit plans. It does not require qualified political 
subdivisions to take any actions nor employers to provide any 
retirement savings programs to their employees. The Department also 
addresses indirect effects associated with the proposed rule, which 
include: (1) Potential benefits and costs directly associated with the 
requirements of qualified political subdivision payroll deduction 
savings programs; and (2) the potential increase in retirement savings 
and potential cost burden imposed on covered employers to comply with 
the requirements of such programs. Indirect effects vary by qualified 
political subdivisions depending on their program requirements and the 
degree to which the proposed rule might influence political 
subdivisions to design their payroll deduction savings programs.
    Risks: Undetermined.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   08/30/16  81 FR 59581
NPRM Comment Period End.............   09/29/16  .......................
Final Rule..........................   12/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    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-AB76


[[Page 94600]]



DOL--MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION (MSHA)

Proposed Rule Stage

82. Respirable Crystalline Silica

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 30 U.S.C. 811
    CFR Citation: 30 CFR 58.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: Current MSHA standards limit exposures to quartz 
(crystalline silica) in respirable dust. Overexposure to crystalline 
silica can result in some miners developing silicosis, an irreversible 
but preventable lung disease, which ultimately may be fatal. 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. 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 have not been updated since 1985; 
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 of silica, 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................................   04/00/17
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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, 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

83. Proximity Detection Systems for Mobile Machines in Underground 
Mines

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 30 U.S.C. 811
    CFR Citation: 30 CFR 75.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This final rule addresses 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, 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 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's proposed rule included an 
estimate of the anticipated cost and benefits.
    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 Extended........   11/30/15  80 FR 74740
NPRM Comment Period Extended End....   12/15/15
Reopening of Record.................   11/00/16
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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, Director, Office of Standards, 
Regulations, and Variances, Department of Labor, Mine Safety and Health 
Administration, 201 12th Street South,

[[Page 94601]]

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--OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION (OSHA)

Prerule Stage

84. Preventing Workplace Violence in Healthcare

    Priority: Other Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 is 
undetermined.
    Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
    Legal Authority: Not Yet Determined
    CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The RFI will provide OSHA's history with the issue of 
workplace violence in healthcare, including a discussion of the 
Guidelines that were initially published in 1996, a 2014 update to the 
Guidelines, and the recently published tools and strategies that were 
shared with OSHA by healthcare facilities with effective violence 
prevention programs. It will also discuss the Agency's use of 5(a)(1) 
in enforcement cases in healthcare. The RFI solicits information 
primarily from health care employers, workers and other subject matter 
experts on impacts of violence, prevention strategies, and other 
information that will be useful to the Agency if it decides to move 
forward in rulemaking. OSHA will also solicit information from 
stakeholders, including state officials, employers and workers, in the 
nine states that require certain health healthcare facilities to have 
some type of workplace violence prevention program.
    Statement of Need: Workplace violence is a widespread problem, and 
there is growing recognition that workers in healthcare occupations 
face unique risks and challenges. In 2013, the rate of serious 
workplace violence incidents (those requiring days off for an injured 
worker to recuperate) was more than four times greater in healthcare 
than in private industry on average. Healthcare accounts for nearly as 
many serious violent injuries as all other industries combined. 
Workplace violence comes at a high cost. It harms workers often both 
physically and emotionally and makes it more difficult for them to do 
their jobs.
    In 2013, 80 percent of serious violent incidents reported in 
healthcare settings were caused by interactions with patients. Other 
incidents were caused by visitors, coworkers, or other people. Some 
medical professions and settings are more at risk than others. 
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2013 psychiatric aides 
experienced the highest rate of violent injuries that resulted in days 
away from work, at approximately 590 injuries per 10,000 full-time 
employees (FTEs). This rate is more than 10 times higher than the next 
group, nursing assistants (about 55 violent injuries per 10,000 FTEs, 
and registered nurses (about 14 violent injuries per 10,000 FTEs), 
compared with a rate of 4.2 violent injuries per 10,000 FTEs in U.S. 
private industry as a whole. High-risk areas include emergency 
departments, geriatrics, and behavioral health, among others.
    Summary of Legal Basis:
    Alternatives:
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
    Risks:
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Request For Information (RFI).......   11/00/16
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
    Federalism: Undetermined.
    Agency Contact: William Perry, Director, Directorate of Standards 
and Guidance, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., FP Building, Room N-3718, 
Washington, DC 20210, Phone: 202 693-1950, Fax: 202 693-1678, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 1218-AD08

DOL--OSHA

Proposed Rule Stage

85. Infectious Diseases

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 
is undetermined.
    Legal Authority: 5 U.S.C. 533; 29 U.S.C. 657 and 658; 29 U.S.C. 
660; 29 U.S.C. 666; 29 U.S.C. 669; 29 U.S.C. 673
    CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: Employees in health care and other high-risk environments 
face long-standing infectious disease hazards such as tuberculosis 
(TB), varicella disease (chickenpox, shingles), and measles (rubeola), 
as well as new and emerging infectious disease threats, such as Severe 
Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) and pandemic influenza. Health care 
workers and workers in related occupations, or who are exposed in other 
high-risk environments, are at increased risk of contracting TB, SARS, 
Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), and other 
infectious diseases that can be transmitted through a variety of 
exposure routes. OSHA is concerned about the ability of employees to 
continue to provide health care and other critical services without 
unreasonably jeopardizing their health. OSHA is developing a standard 
to ensure that employers establish a comprehensive infection control 
program and control measures to protect employees from infectious 
disease exposures to pathogens that can cause significant disease. 
Workplaces where such control measures might be necessary include: 
Health care, emergency response, correctional facilities, homeless 
shelters, drug treatment programs, and other occupational settings 
where employees can be at increased risk of exposure to potentially 
infectious people. A standard could also apply to laboratories, which 
handle materials that may be a source of pathogens, and to 
pathologists, coroners' offices, medical examiners, and mortuaries.
    Statement of Need: OSHA is considering the need for regulatory 
action to address the risk to workers exposed to infectious diseases in 
healthcare and other related high-risk environments. Especially given 
recent events necessitating the careful treatment of individuals with 
life-threatening infectious diseases, OSHA is concerned about the risk 
posed to healthcare workers with the movement of healthcare delivery 
from the traditional hospital setting into more diverse and smaller 
workplace settings. The Agency initiated the Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) Panel process in the spring of 2014.
    Summary of Legal Basis: 5 U.S.C. 533; 29 U.S.C. 657 and 658; 29 
U.S.C. 666; 29 U.S.C. 669; 29 U.S.C. 673.
    Alternatives: OSHA offered several alternatives to the SBREFA panel 
when presenting the proposed Infectious Disease (ID) rule. OSHA 
considered a specification oriented rule rather than a performance 
oriented rule, but this type of rule would provide less flexibility and 
would likely fail to anticipate all of the potential hazards and 
necessary controls for every type and every size of facility and would 
under-protect workers. Exempting small entities from the rule was 
considered, but approximately 1.5 million of the estimated 9 million 
workers affected by the rule as outlined in the regulatory

[[Page 94602]]

framework work in very small entities, leaving these workers under-
protected. OSHA also considered changing the scope of the rule 
restricting the ID rule to workers who have occupational exposure 
during the provision of direct patient care in institutional settings 
but based on the evidence thus far analyzed, those workers performing 
other covered tasks in both institutional and non-institutional 
settings face a risk of infection because of their occupational 
exposure. Per the proposed rule, employers would be required to provide 
medical removal protection (MRP) benefits. If OSHA eliminated the 
requirement for MRP benefits, workers might be deterred from reporting 
signs and symptoms that could be indicative of infection and might work 
while sick (due to concerns about loss of pay or other such punitive 
consequences), potentially resulting in further infections to co-
workers and/or patients. OSHA also considered the option of not 
requiring employers to make vaccinations available to workers. 
Vaccination is generally considered an important component of an 
effective infection control program, as it protects inoculated workers 
from infections, lessens chances of outbreaks by minimizing 
transmission of infections from workers to other workers and patients, 
and may also lessen the duration and severity of infections, depending 
on the efficacy of the vaccine.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Undetermined.
    Risks: During provision of direct patient care and the performance 
of other covered tasks as outlined in the scope of the proposed rule, 
workers are at risk for exposure to infections agents. The peer-
reviewed literature suggests that HCWs are especially susceptible to 
exposures during the early stages of the emergence of novel infectious 
agents or novel strains of known infectious agents. While the patients 
who are the most ill with infectious diseases are most likely being 
treated in hospitals, many patients with infectious diseases are 
treated in ambulatory care settings during the early stages of the 
disease while they are asymptomatic or have mild symptoms. An 
increasing number of patients who are ill and symptomatic with an 
infectious disease are getting initial treatment at clinics that have 
urgent care or immediate care services, rather than being treated at 
hospital emergency rooms. Many patients with childhood illnesses such 
as measles, mumps and pertussis are being treated at clinics, not 
hospitals, unless they have severe cases. Currently, outbreaks of 
measles, mumps and pertussis are occurring in various countries, 
including the U.S. Workers in laboratories are tasked with the 
identification of infectious agents causing outbreaks and are similarly 
susceptible to exposures. OSHA believes that the 1998 and 2007 CDC/
HICPAC guidelines, along with other authoritative guidance documents 
(e.g., CDC/NIH, 2009), and hundreds of peer-reviewed publications, 
demonstrate a well-recognized risk of occupational exposure to 
infectious agents for workers providing direct patient care and/or 
performing other covered tasks.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Request for Information (RFI).......   05/06/10  75 FR 24835
RFI Comment Period End..............   08/04/10  .......................
Analyze Comments....................   12/30/10  .......................
Stakeholder Meetings................   07/05/11  76 FR 39041
Initiate SBREFA.....................   06/04/14  .......................
Complete SBREFA.....................   12/22/14  .......................
NPRM................................   10/00/17  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

DOL--OSHA

86. Standards Improvement Project IV

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 29 U.S.C. 655(b)
    CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1926.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: OSHA's Standards Improvement Projects (SIPs) are intended 
to remove or revise duplicative, unnecessary, and inconsistent safety 
and health standards. The Agency has published three earlier final 
standards to remove unnecessary provisions (63 FR 33450, 70 FR 1111, 76 
FR 33590), thus reducing costs or paperwork burden on affected 
employers. The Agency is initiating a fourth rulemaking effort to 
identify unnecessary or duplicative provisions or paperwork 
requirements that are focused primarily on its construction standards 
in 29 CFR 1926, as long as they do not diminish employee protections.
    Statement of Need: OSHA's Standard Improvement Projects (SIPs) are 
intended to remove or revise duplicative, unnecessary, and inconsistent 
safety and health standards. The Agency has published three earlier 
final standards to remove unnecessary provisions, thus reducing costs 
or paperwork burden on affected employers. The Agency is initiating a 
fourth rulemaking effort to identify unnecessary or duplicative 
provisions or paperwork requirements that are focused primarily on its 
construction standards in 29 CFR 1926, as long as they do not diminish 
employee protections.
    Summary of Legal Basis: OSHA is conducting Phase IV of the 
Standards Improvement Project (SIP-IV) in response to the President's 
Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulations and Regulatory Review (76 
FR 38210). SIP-IV will update three standards to align with current 
medical practice, including a reduction to the number of necessary 
employee x-rays, updates to requirements for pulmonary function 
testing, and updates to the table used for decompression of employees 
during underground construction. Additionally, the proposed revisions 
include an update to the consensus standard incorporated by reference 
for signs and devices used to protect workers near automobile traffic, 
a revision to the requirements for roll-over protective structures to 
comply with current consensus standards, updates for storage of digital 
x-rays and the method of calling emergency services to allow for use of 
current technology, and a revision to lockout/tagout requirements in 
response to a court decision, among others. OSHA is also proposing to 
remove from its standards the requirements that employers include an 
employee's social security number (SSN) on exposure monitoring, medical 
surveillance, and other records in order to protect employee privacy 
and prevent identity fraud.
    Alternatives: The main alternative OSHA considered for all of the 
proposed changes contained in the SIP-IV rulemaking was retaining the 
existing regulatory language, i.e., retaining the status quo. In each 
instance, OSHA has concluded that the benefits of the proposed 
regulatory change outweigh the costs of those changes. In a few of the 
items, such as the proposed changes

[[Page 94603]]

to the decompression requirements applicable to employees working in 
compressed air environments, OSHA has requested public comment on 
feasible alternatives to the Agency's proposal.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The Agency has estimated that one 
revision (updating the method of identifying and calling emergency 
medical services) may increase construction employers costs by about 
$28,000 per year while two provisions (reduction in the number of 
necessary employee x-rays and elimination of posting requirements for 
residential construction employers) provide estimated costs savings of 
$3.2 million annually. The Agency has not estimated or quantified 
benefits to employees from reduced exposure to x-ray radiation or to 
employers for the reduced cost of storing digital x-rays rather than x-
ray films, among others. The Agency has preliminarily concluded that 
the proposed revisions are economically feasible and do not have any 
significant economic impact on small businesses. The Preliminary 
Economic Analysis in this preamble provides an explanation of the 
economic effects of the proposed revisions.
    Risks: SIP rulemakings do not address new significant risks or 
estimate benefits and economic impacts of reducing such risks. Overall, 
SIP rulemakings are reasonably necessary under the OSH Act because they 
provide cost savings, or eliminate unnecessary requirements.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Request for Information (RFI).......   12/06/12  77 FR 72781
RFI Comment Period End..............   02/04/13  .......................
NPRM................................   10/04/16  81 FR 68504
NPRM Comment Period End.............   12/05/16  .......................
Analyze Comments....................   06/00/17  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
    Agency Contact: Dean McKenzie, Director, Directorate of 
Construction, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration, Room N-3468, FP Building, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., 
Washington, DC 20210, Phone: 202 693-2020, Fax: 202 693-1689, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 1218-AC67

DOL--OSHA

Final Rule Stage

87. Occupational Exposure to Beryllium

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Unfunded Mandates: This action may affect the private sector under 
PL 104-4.
    Legal Authority: 29 U.S.C. 655(b); 29 U.S.C. 657
    CFR Citation: 29 CFR 1910.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: In 1999 and 2001, OSHA was petitioned to issue an 
emergency temporary standard for permissible exposure limit (PEL) to 
beryllium by the United Steel Workers (formerly the Paper Allied-
Industrial, Chemical, and Energy Workers Union), Public Citizen Health 
Research Group, and others. The Agency denied the petitions but stated 
its intent to begin data gathering to collect needed information on 
beryllium's toxicity, risks, and patterns of usage. On November 26, 
2002, OSHA published a Request for Information (RFI) (67 FR 70707) to 
solicit information pertinent to occupational exposure to beryllium, 
including: Current exposures to beryllium; the relationship between 
exposure to beryllium and the development of adverse health effects; 
exposure assessment and monitoring methods; exposure control methods; 
and medical surveillance. In addition, the Agency conducted field 
surveys of selected worksites to assess current exposures and control 
methods being used to reduce employee exposures to beryllium. OSHA 
convened a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel under the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) and completed the 
SBREFA Report in January 2008. OSHA also completed a scientific peer 
review of its draft risk assessment.
    Statement of Need: Exposure to beryllium causes a disabling and 
potentially fatal chronic lung disease called Chronic Beryllium Disease 
(CBD). Exposure to beryllium has also been linked to lung cancer. OSHA 
proposed to reduce the permissible exposure limit (PEL) by 10 times to 
0.2 micrograms of beryllium per cubic meter of air ([micro]g/m\3\) over 
an 8-hour time weighted average (TWA) and a short term exposure limit 
(STEL) of 2.0 [micro]g/m\3\ over 15 minutes. The proposal also included 
important requirements such as medical surveillance, medical removal 
protection, regulated areas, training, and engineering controls.
    Summary of Legal Basis: 29 U.S.C. 655(b); 29 U.S.C. 657.
    Alternatives: OSHA also proposed regulatory alternatives to its 
proposed beryllium rule. These include: Scope alternatives to address 
exposures in the construction and maritime industries; changes to the 
proposed PEL and STEL; and changes to the proposed ancillary provisions 
for exposure assessment, personal protective clothing and equipment, 
medical surveillance, and medical removal.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The proposed rule for beryllium 
covers approximately 35,000 workers in General Industry, and OSHA 
estimated that the proposed rule when fully implemented would produce 
$575.8 million in annualized benefits over 60 years, far outweighing 
the expected cost of $37.6 million annually for workplaces in General 
Industry.
    Risks: Prevent 92 deaths from chronic beryllium disease, 4 deaths 
from lung cancer, and 50 non-fatal cases of chronic beryllium disease 
each year.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Request for Information (RFI).......   11/26/02  67 FR 70707
RFI Comment Period End..............   02/24/03  .......................
SBREFA Report Completed.............   01/23/08  .......................
Initiated Peer Review of Health        03/22/10  .......................
 Effects and Risk Assessment.
Complete Peer Review................   11/19/10  .......................
NPRM................................   08/07/15  80 FR 47565
NPRM Comment Period End.............   11/05/15  .......................
Notice of Public Hearing; Date 02/29/  12/30/15  80 FR 81475
 2016.
Notice of Public Hearing; Date         02/16/16  81 FR 7717
 Change 03/21/2016.
Final Rule..........................   01/00/17  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: William Perry, Director, Directorate of Standards 
and Guidance, Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., FP Building, Room N-3718, 
Washington, DC 20210, Phone: 202 693-1950, Fax: 202 693-1678, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 1218-AB76

BILLING CODE 4510-HL-P


[[Page 94604]]



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.''
     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

[[Page 94605]]

use of direct final rulemaking; the use of regulatory negotiation; a 
continually expanding and improved Internet page that provides 
important regulatory information, including ``effects'' reports and 
status reports (http://www.dot.gov/regulations); and the continued 
exploration and use of Internet blogs and other Web 2.0 technology to 
increase and enhance public participation in its rulemaking process.
    In addition, the Department continues to engage in a wide variety 
of activities to help cement the partnerships between its agencies and 
its customers that will produce good results for transportation 
programs and safety. The Department's agencies also have established a 
number of continuing partnership mechanisms in the form of rulemaking 
advisory committees.

The Department's Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations

    In accordance with Executive Order (E.O.) 13563 (Improving 
Regulation and Regulatory Review), the Department actively engaged in a 
special retrospective review of our existing rules to determine whether 
they need to be revised or revoked. This review was in addition to 
those reviews in accordance with section 610 of the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act, E.O. 12866, and the Department's Regulatory Policies 
and Procedures. As part of this effort, we also reviewed our processes 
for determining what rules to review and ensuring that the rules are 
effectively reviewed. As a result of the review, we identified many 
rules for expedited review and changes to our retrospective review 
process. Pursuant to section 6 of E.O. 13563, the following Regulatory 
Identifier Numbers (RINs) have been identified as associated with 
retrospective review and analysis in the Department's final 
retrospective review of regulations plan. Some of these entries on this 
list may be completed actions, which do not appear in The Regulatory 
Plan. If a retrospective review action has been completed it will no 
longer appear on the list below. However, more information can be found 
about these completed rulemakings on the Unified Agenda publications at 
Reginfo.gov in the Completed Actions section for that agency. These 
rulemakings can also be found on Regulations.gov. The final agency 
retrospective review plan can be found at http://www.dot.gov/regulations.

                                  Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Significantly  reduces costs on  small
                  RIN                           Rulemaking title                        businesses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 2105-AE29..........................  Transportation Services for       TBD.
                                         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 Right-of-Way       N.
                                         (RRR) (MAP-21).
9. 2125-AF65..........................  Buy America (RRR)...............  TBD.
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. 210 to            Y.
                                         Incorporate the Use of a New
                                         Force Application Device (RRR).
16. 2127-AL20.........................  Upgrade of LATCH Usability        ......................................
                                         Requirements (MAP-21) (RRR).
17. 2127-AL24.........................  Rapid Tire Deflation Test in      ......................................
                                         FMVSS No. 110 (RRR).
18. 2127-AL58.........................  Upgrade of Rear Impact Guard      ......................................
                                         Requirements for Trailers and
                                         Semitrailers (RRR).
19. 2130-AC40.........................  Qualification and Certification   ......................................
                                         of Locomotive Engineers;
                                         Miscellaneous Revisions (RRR).
20. 2130-AC41.........................  Hours of Service Recordkeeping;   ......................................
                                         Electronic Recordkeeping
                                         Amendments (RRR).
21. 2130-AC43.........................  Safety Glazing Standards;         ......................................
                                         Miscellaneous Revisions (RRR).
22. 2137-AE72.........................  Pipeline Safety: Gas              Y.
                                         Transmission (RRR).
23. 2137-AE80.........................  Hazardous Materials:              Y.
                                         Miscellaneous Pressure Vessel
                                         Requirements (DOT Spec
                                         Cylinders) (RRR).
24. 2137-AE81.........................  Hazardous Materials: Reverse      Y.
                                         Logistics (RRR).
25. 2137-AE86.........................  Hazardous Materials:              ......................................
                                         Requirements for the Safe
                                         Transportation of Bulk
                                         Explosives (RRR).
26. 2137-AE94.........................  Pipeline Safety: Operator         ......................................
                                         Qualification, Cost Recovery,
                                         Accident and Incident
                                         Notification, and Other Changes
                                         (RRR).
27. 2137-AF00.........................  Hazardous Materials: Adoption of  Y.
                                         Special Permits (MAP-21) (RRR).
28. 2137-AF04.........................  Hazardous Materials:              ......................................
                                         Miscellaneous Amendments (RRR).
29. 2137-AF09.........................  Hazardous Materials:              ......................................
                                         Miscellaneous Petitions for
                                         Rulemaking (RRR).
30. 2137-AF10.........................  Hazardous Materials: Revision of  ......................................
                                         the Requirements for Carriage
                                         by Aircraft (RRR).
31. 2137-AF18.........................  Hazardous Materials:              ......................................
                                         Harmonization with
                                         International Standards (RRR).
32. 2137-AF19.........................  Hazardous Materials: Revisions    ......................................
                                         to Hazardous Materials
                                         Emergency Preparedness Grants
                                         Requirements (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

[[Page 94606]]

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 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. Since that time, 
regulators have been developing and completing detailed work plans to 
address the commitments in the Forward Plan. To facilitate future 
cooperation, the RCC will continue to work 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:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                RIN                            Rulemaking title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2105-AD91..........................  Accessibility of Airports.
2105-AE06..........................  E-Cigarette.
2120-AJ38..........................  Airport Safety Management System.

[[Page 94607]]

 
2120-AJ60..........................  Small Unmanned Aircraft.
2120-AJ69..........................  Prohibition Against Certain Flights
                                      Within the Territory and Airspace
                                      of Afghanistan.
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.
2137-AF18..........................  Hazardous Materials: Harmonization
                                      with International Standards
                                      (RRR).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As we identify rulemakings arising out of our ongoing regulatory 
cooperation activities that we reasonably anticipate will lead to 
significant regulations, we will add them to our Web site report and 
subsequent Agendas and Plans.

The Department's Regulatory Process

    The Department will also continue its efforts to use advances in 
technology to improve its rulemaking management process. For example, 
the Department created an effective tracking system for significant 
rulemakings to ensure that either rules are completed in a timely 
manner or delays are identified and fixed. Through this tracking 
system, a monthly status report is generated. To make its efforts more 
transparent, the Department has made this report Internet accessible at 
http://www.dot.gov/regulations. 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 2017, 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

[[Page 94608]]

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 2017 
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 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 2017 include:

 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 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

[[Page 94609]]

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.
    The Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act authorizes 
the Federal surface transportation programs for highways, highway 
safety, and transit for the five-year period from 2016-2020. The FHWA 
has analyzed the FAST Act 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 the FAST Act and 
will update those regulations that are not consistent with the recently 
enacted legislation.
    During Fiscal Year 2017, FHWA will continue its focus on improving 
the quality and performance of our Nation's highway systems by creating 
national performance management measures and standards to be used by 
the States to meet the national transportation goals identified in 
section 1203 of MAP-21 under the following rulemaking initiatives:
     National Goals and Performance Management Measures 
(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 2017 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 2017, FMCSA plans to 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 2017, FMCSA plans to 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.
    Also in FY 2017, 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, and mitigating the effects, of motor vehicle 
crashes and related fatalities and injuries; providing safety 
performance information to aid prospective purchasers of vehicles, 
child restraints, and tires; and improving automotive fuel efficiency. 
NHTSA pursues policies that encourage the development of nonregulatory 
approaches when feasible in meeting its statutory mandates. It issues 
new standards and regulations or amendments to existing standards and 
regulations when appropriate. It ensures that regulatory alternatives 
reflect a careful assessment of the problem and a comprehensive 
analysis of the benefits, costs, and other impacts associated with the 
proposed regulatory action. Finally, it considers alternatives 
consistent with the Administration's regulatory principles.
    NHTSA plans to issue a final rule on vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) 
communications in Fiscal Year 2017. V2V communications are currently 
perceived to become a foundational aspect of vehicle automation. NHTSA 
will publish a final rule on heavy vehicle speed limiters in response 
to petitions for rulemaking and recommendations from the National 
Transportation Safety Board. In Fiscal Year 2017 NHTSA will also 
finalize rulemaking for Tire Fuel Efficiency in response to 
requirements of the Energy Independence & Security Act of 2007. In 
response to requirements in MAP-21, NHTSA plans to continue work toward 
a final rule that would require automobile manufacturers to install a 
seat belt reminder system for the front passenger and rear designated 
seating positions in passenger vehicles. The seat

[[Page 94610]]

belt reminder system is intended to increase belt usage and thereby 
improve the crash protection of vehicle occupants who would otherwise 
have been unbelted.
    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), the Passenger Rail Investment and 
Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA), and the Fixing America's Surface 
Transportation Act of 2015 (FAST Act), 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, 19 of which have been completed. The 
FAST Act requires an additional 13 rulemaking actions, 4 of which are 
complete and 6 others are in the developmental or proposal stage. 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.
    FRA is working to complete its on-going development of requirements 
related to the creation and implementation of railroad risk reduction 
programs (RIN 2130-AC11). FRA is finalizing initial rulemaking 
documents based on the recommendations of a Railroad Safety Advisory 
Committee (RSAC) working group containing the fatigue management 
provisions related to risk reduction and system safety programs. FRA is 
also in the process of producing a final regulatory action related to 
the transportation of crude oil and ethanol by rail, focusing on the 
appropriate crew size requirements when transporting such commodities. 
FRA's crew size activity will also address other freight and passenger 
operations to ensure FRA will have appropriate oversight if a railroad 
chooses to alter its standard method of operation. FRA continues its 
work to produce a rulemaking containing RSAC-supported actions that 
advance high-performing passenger rail to propose standards for 
alternative compliance with FRA's Passenger Equipment Safety Standards 
for the operation of Tier III passenger equipment (RIN 2130-AC51). 
Through RSAC, FRA is developing recommendations for proposed rules 
regarding track inspections aimed at improving rail integrity to allow 
continuous rail integrity testing and to address rail head wear. 
Finally, FRA is developing proposed rules related to the use of inward 
and outward facing locomotive-mounted cameras and other recording 
devices in response to a FAST Act mandate for such devices on passenger 
locomotives.
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 2017 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.

[[Page 94611]]

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 the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety 
(OHMS), 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 the Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), 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 2016.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/pv_obj_cache/pv_obj_id_7FD46010F0497123865B976479CFF3952E990200/filename/Pipeline%20Reauthorization%20Bill%202011.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    PHMSA will continue to work toward improving safety related to 
transportation of hazardous materials by all transportation modes, 
including pipeline, while promoting economic growth, innovation, 
competitiveness, and job creation. We will concentrate on the 
prevention of high-risk incidents identified through the findings of 
the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and PHMSA's evaluation 
of transportation incident data. PHMSA will use all available Agency 
tools to assess data; evaluate alternative safety strategies, including 
regulatory strategies as necessary and appropriate; target enforcement 
efforts; and enhance outreach, public education, and training to 
promote safety outcomes.
OHMS
    On December 4, 2015, President Barack Obama signed legislation 
entitled, ``Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act of 2015,'' or 
the ``FAST Act.'' See Public Law 114-94. The FAST Act includes the 
``Hazardous Materials Transportation Safety Improvement Act of 2015'' 
(Sections 7001 through 7311) which instructs the Secretary of 
Transportation (``Secretary'') to make specific regulatory amendments 
to the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR parts 171-180). 
PHMSA has been very effective in implementing the FAST Act provisions. 
For example, PHMSA recently issued a final rule to expand requirements 
for the use of the DOT Specification 117 tank car to all flammable 
liquids, regardless of train make-up. This change will promote 
consistency for all flammable liquid tank cars and simplify compliance 
for shippers and carriers. As a result of these actions, all 
retrofitted and newly constructed DOT Specification 117 tank cars will 
be equipped with top fittings protection, jackets, thermal protection 
systems, full height head shields, and better outlet valves. The 
expanded use of the enhanced tank car will reduce the likelihood of a 
flammable liquid release in the event of a derailment.
    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 issued a Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking on July 29, 2016 (81 FR 50067), seeking comment 
on potential revisions to its regulations that would expand the 
applicability of comprehensive oil spill response plans (OSRPs) for 
crude oil trains and require railroads to share information about high-
hazard flammable train operations with state and tribal emergency 
response commissions to improve community preparedness. PHMSA will 
continue to take regulatory actions to enhance the safe transportation 
of energy products.
    PHMSA is also looking to reduce the risk of transporting lithium 
batteries by air. The safe transport of lithium batteries by air has 
been an ongoing concern due to the unique challenges they pose to 
safety in a transportation environment. Unlike other hazardous 
materials, lithium batteries contain both a chemical and an electrical 
hazard. This combination of hazards, when involved in a fire 
encompassing significant quantities of lithium batteries, may exceed 
the fire suppression capability of the aircraft and lead to a 
catastrophic lithium battery event. PHMSA is developing regulatory 
actions that will: (1) Prohibit the transport of lithium ion cells and 
batteries as cargo on passenger aircraft; (2) require all lithium ion 
cells and batteries to be shipped at not more than a 30 percent state 
of charge on cargo-only aircraft; and (3) limits the use of alternative 
provisions for small lithium cell or battery shipments under 49 CFR 
173.185(c). These amendments will predominately affect air carriers 
(both passenger and cargo-only) and shippers offering lithium ion cells 
and batteries for transport as cargo by aircraft. The amendments will 
not restrict passengers or crew members from bringing personal items or 
electronic devices containing lithium batteries aboard aircraft in 
carry-on or checked baggage.
OPS
    President Obama signed the Protecting our Infrastructure of 
Pipelines and Enhancing Safety Act of 2016 (or the ``PIPES Act of 
2016'') on June 22, 2016. The 2016 Act reauthorizes the pipeline safety 
program and requires a number of reports and mandates. Under the 2016 
Act, PHMSA is required to take regulatory actions to establish minimum 
safety standards for underground natural gas storage facilities, and to 
update the minimum safety standards for liquefied natural gas pipeline 
facilities for permanent, small scale liquefied natural gas pipeline 
facilities. The Act also contains regulatory mandates regarding 
emergency order authority, unusually sensitive areas, and hazardous 
materials identification numbers. PHMSA is in the process of taking the 
necessary steps to address these mandates.
    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

[[Page 94612]]

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.
    Also, on April 8, 2016 [81 FR 20722], PHMSA proposed to revise the 
requirements in the Pipeline Safety Regulations to address integrity 
management principles for Gas Transmission pipelines. In particular, 
PHMSA proposed 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 2016 to 2017 DOT Regulatory Plan
                       [This chart does not account for benefits and costs that could not be monetized, which may be substantial]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      Quantifiable costs  discounted   Quantifiable benefits  discounted
          Agency/RIN No.                     Title                   Stage                  2013 $ (millions)                  2013 $ (millions)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           FAA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2120-AJ38.........................  Airport Safety          SNPRM (Analyzing        $157.5...........................  $225.9.
                                     Management System.      Comments 12/16).
2120-AJ87.........................  Pilot Professional      Published: Comment      46.8.............................  46.3.
                                     Development.            Period End 01/05/17.
2120-AK65.........................  Revision of             FR 12/16..............  3.9..............................  11.6.
                                     Airworthiness
                                     Standards for Normal,
                                     Utility, Acrobatic,
                                     and Commuter Category
                                     Airplanes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          FHWA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2125-AF53.........................  Performance Management  FR 11/16..............  21.2.............................  Breakeven Analysis.
                                     2.                                             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-AF54.........................  Performance Management  NPRM (Analyzing         15.3-21.1........................  Breakeven Analysis.
                                     3.                      Comments 08/16) FR     Note: These are preliminary
                                                             TBD.                    agency estimates only. They have
                                                                                     not been reviewed by others
                                                                                     outside of DOT. The estimates
                                                                                     could change after interagency
                                                                                     review..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          FMCSA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2126-AB11.........................  Carrier Safety Fitness  NPRM (Analyzing         TBD..............................  TBD.
                                     Determination.          Comments) FR TBD.
2126-AB66.........................  Entry Level Driver      FR 11/16..............  TBD..............................  TBD.
                                     Training.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          NHTSA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2127-AL55.........................  Light Vehicle V2V       FR 10/17..............  TBD..............................  TBD.
                                     Communications.
2127-AK92.........................  Heavy Vehicle Speed     FR 10/17..............  TBD..............................  TBD.
                                     Limiters.
2127-AK76.........................  Tire Fuel Efficiency    FR10/17...............  10.6.............................  21.5.
                                     Part 2.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           FRA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2130-AC11.........................  Risk Reduction Program  FR 12/16..............  TBD..............................  TBD.
2130-AC51.........................  Locomotive Recording    NPRM 11/16............  TBD..............................  TBD.
                                     Devices.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          PHMSA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2137-AE66.........................  Pipeline Safety:        FR 12/16..............  TBD..............................  TBD.
                                     Safety of On-Shore
                                     Liquid Hazardous
                                     Pipelines.
2137-AE72.........................  Pipeline Safety: Gas    NPRM (Analyzing         TBD..............................  TBD.
                                     Transmission (RRR).     Comments).
                                                            FR TBD................

[[Page 94613]]

 
2137-AF08.........................  Hazardous Materials:    FR 07/17..............  2.9m per year....................  Breakeven Analysis.
                                     Oil Spill Response                                                                Cost-effective if this
                                     Plans and Information                                                              requirement reduces risk by
                                     Sharing for High-                                                                  3.7%.
                                     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--FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION (FAA)

Proposed Rule Stage

88. +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. While the comments generated some 
changes to the proposal in this document, most of the proposed core 
elements of the SMS program remain in the SNPRM. The FAA now proposes 
to require an SMS be developed, implemented, maintained, and adhered to 
at any certificated airport that is: (i) Classified as a Small, Medium, 
or Large hub airport in the National Plan of Integrated Airport 
Systems; (ii) identified by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection as a 
port-of-entry, designated international airport, landing rights 
airport, or user fee airport; or (iii) identified as having more than 
100,000 total annual operations (according to best available data).
    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 explored 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. The FAA focused on airports 
with the highest passenger enplanements and largest total operations so 
that safety benefits would flow to the overwhelming majority of 
aircraft operations in the United States. The FAA also focused on 
incorporating airports with international passenger operations to 
ensure conformity with international standards and recommended 
practices. To that end, the FAA developed the following alternatives 
for additional analysis: (i) All part 139 airports (as originally 
proposed); (ii) airport operators holding a Class I airport operating 
certificate; (iii) certificated international airports regardless of 
certificate class; (iv) Large, Medium, and Small hub airports (as 
identified in the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems) and 
certificated airports with more than 100,000 total annual operations; 
and (v) Large, Medium, and Small hub airports, certificated airports 
with more than 100,000 total annual operations, and certificated 
international airports.
    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 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

[[Page 94614]]

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.
Second NPRM.........................   07/14/16  81 FR 45871
Second NPRM Comment Period End......   09/12/16
Analyzing Comments..................   12/00/16
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 exceeded 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

89. +Pilot Professional Development

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 44701(a)(5); P.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 (Public Law 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................................   10/07/16  81 FR 69908
NPRM Comment Period End.............   01/05/17
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 Boulevard, Lawndale, CA 90261, 
Phone: 310 725-7342, Email: [email protected].
    Related RIN: Related to 2120-AJ00
    RIN: 2120-AJ87

DOT--FAA

Final Rule Stage

90. +Revision of Airworthiness Standards for Normal, Utility, 
Acrobatic, and Commuter Category Airplanes (RRR)

    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: Final, 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

[[Page 94615]]

design and certification of small transport category aircraft. This 
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; and (7) address icing conditions that are currently not 
included in part 23 regulations.
    Statement of Need: The FAA's strategic vision--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.
    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................................   03/14/16  81 FR 13452
NPRM Comment Period End.............   05/13/16
Final Rule..........................   12/00/16
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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].
    Analiese Marchesseault, Department of Transportation, Phone: 202-
366-1675, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2120-AK65.

DOT--FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION (FHWA)

Final Rule Stage

91. +National Goals and Performance Management Measures 2 (MAP-21)

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: Sec. 1203 P.L. 112-141; 49 CFR 1.85
    CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
    Legal Deadline: NPRM, Statutory, April 1, 2014, NPRM.
    Section 1203 of MAP-21 requires the Secretary to promulgate a 
rulemaking within 18 months after the date of enactment.
    Abstract: This rulemaking would create national performance 
management measures and standards to be used by the States to meet the 
national transportation goals identified in section 1203 of MAP-21. 
This rulemaking would also establish the process to be used by States 
to set performance targets that reflect their performance measures. The 
FHWA anticipates issuing up to three rulemakings in this area. This 
rulemaking, number two, will cover the bridges and pavement.
    Statement of Need: The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st 
Century Act (MAP-21) transforms the Federal-aid highway program by 
establishing new requirements for performance management to ensure the 
most efficient investment of Federal transportation funds. Performance 
management refocuses attention on national transportation goals, 
increases the accountability and transparency of the Federal-aid 
highway program, and improves project decisionmaking through 
performance-based planning and programming. This rulemaking is the 
second of 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

[[Page 94616]]

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 
surpass this threshold and, as a result, the benefits of the rule would 
outweigh the costs.
    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..........................   11/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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--FHWA

92. +National Goals and Performance Management Measures 3 (MAP-21)

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: Sec. 1203, P.L. 112-141; 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................................   04/22/16  81 FR 23806
NPRM Comment Period End.............   08/20/16  .......................
Final Rule..........................   12/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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-AF54

DOT--FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION (FMCSA)

Final Rule Stage

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

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 31136
    CFR Citation: 49 CFR 380; 49 CFR 383; 49 CFR 384.

[[Page 94617]]

    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: FMCSA establishes new minimum training standards for 
certain individuals applying for their commercial driver's license 
(CDL) for the first time; an upgrade of their CDL (e.g., a Class B CDL 
holder seeking a Class A CDL); or a hazardous materials (H), passenger 
(P), or school bus (S) endorsement for the first time. These 
individuals are subject to the entry-level driver training (ELDT) 
requirements and must complete a prescribed program of instruction 
provided by an entity that is listed on FMCSA's Training Provider 
Registry (TPR). FMCSA will submit training certification information to 
State driver licensing agencies (SDLAs), who may only administer CDL 
skills tests to applicants for the Class A and B CDL, and/or the P or S 
endorsements, or knowledge test for the H endorsement, after verifying 
the information is present in the driver's record. This final rule 
responds to a Congressional mandate imposed under the Moving Ahead for 
Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21). The 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 meetings between February and May 2015.
    Statement of Need: This final rule enhances the safety of 
commercial motor vehicle (CMV) operations on our Nation's highways by 
establishing a minimum standard for entry-level driver training (ELDT) 
and increasing the number of drivers who receive ELDT. It replaces 
existing mandatory training requirements for entry-level operators of 
CMVs in interstate and intrastate operations required to possess a CDL. 
The minimum training standards established in today's rule are for 
certain individuals applying for a CDL for the first time, 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 the first 
time. These individuals are subject to the ELDT requirements and must 
complete a prescribed program of instruction provided by an entity 
listed on FMCSA's Training Provider Registry (TPR).
    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 considered several alternatives ini 
developing the NPRM, but fully evaluated the alternative adopted by the 
negotiated rulemaking committee in the NPRM analysis.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: While FMCSA believes that this final 
rule would at minimum achieve cost-neutrality, the net of quantified 
costs and benefits results in an annualized net cost of $142 million at 
a 7% discount rate. A 3.91% improvement in safety performance (that is, 
a 3.91% reduction in the frequency of crashes involving those new 
entry-level drivers who would receive additional pre-CDL training as a 
result of this final rule during the period for which the benefits of 
training are estimated to remain intact) is necessary to offset the 
$142 million (annualized at 7%) net cost of this final rule.
    Risks: A risk of a driver not receiving adequate training before 
applying for a CDL.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   03/07/16  81 FR 11944
NPRM Comment Period End.............   04/06/16  .......................
Final Rule..........................   11/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, Phone: 202 366-3740, Email: 
[email protected].
    Related RIN: Related to 2126-AB06
    RIN: 2126-AB66

DOT--NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION (NHTSA)

Proposed Rule Stage

94. +Tire Fuel Efficiency Consumer Information--Part 2

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 32304
    CFR Citation: 49 CFR 575.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This rulemaking would respond to requirements of the 
Energy Independence & Security Act of 2007 to establish a national tire 
fuel efficiency consumer information program for replacement tires 
designed for use on motor vehicles. On March 30, 2010, NHTSA published 
a final rule specifying the test procedures to be used to rate the 
performance of replacement passenger car tires for this new program (75 
FR 15893). This rulemaking would address how this information would be 
made available to consumers.
    Statement of Need: The EISA mandated the TFECIP to be finalized by 
December 2009. In 2010, NHTSA finalized a regulation to require the 
testing of replacement tires for rolling resistance (fuel efficiency), 
wet traction (safety) and treadwear (durability). In December 2014, the 
White House announced that the agency would publish the final rule by 
2017.
    Summary of Legal Basis: This rulemaking is mandated by Public Law 
110140, 121 Stat. 1492.
    Alternatives: This rule is statutorily mandated.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The agency estimates that annual net 
benefits, in millions of 2013 dollars, will range between $1.2 and 
$12.7 at a 3% discount rate, and between $0.2 and $10.9 at a 7% 
discount rate.
    Risks: The agency believes there are no significant risks related 
to this rulemaking.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second NPRM.........................   01/00/17  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    International Impacts: This regulatory action will be likely to 
have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise be of 
international interest.
    URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Mary Versailles, Office of Planning and Consumer 
Standards, Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 
20590, Phone: 202-366-2057, Email: [email protected].
    Related RIN: Related to 2127-AK83
    RIN: 2127-AK76

DOT--NHTSA

95. +Heavy Vehicle Speed Limiters

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

[[Page 94618]]

    Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30111; 49 U.S.C. 30115; 49 U.S.C. 30116; 
49 U.S.C. 30117; 49 U.S.C. 322; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95
    CFR Citation: 49 CFR 571.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This rulemaking would respond to petitions from ATA and 
Roadsafe America to require the installation of speed limiting devices 
on heavy trucks. In response to the petitions, NHTSA requested public 
comment on the subject and received thousands of comments supporting 
the petitioner[acute]s request. Based on the available safety data and 
the ancillary benefit of reduced fuel consumption, this rulemaking 
would consider a new Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard that would 
require the installation of speed limiting devices on heavy trucks. We 
believe this rule would have minimal cost, as all heavy trucks already 
have these devices installed, although some vehicles do not have the 
limit set. This rule would decrease the estimated 1,115 fatal crashes 
annually involving vehicles with a GVWR of over 11,793.4 kg (26,000 
lbs) on roads with posted speed limits of 55 mph or above.
    Statement of Need: Based on the agencies' review of the available 
data, limiting the speed of heavy vehicles would reduce the severity of 
crashes involving these vehicles and reduce the resulting fatalities 
and injuries. We expect that, as a result of the joint rulemaking, 
virtually all of these vehicles would be limited to that speed.
    Summary of Legal Basis: NHTSA's authority is the National Traffic 
and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Motor Vehicle Safety Standards must be 
practicable and meet the need for motor vehicle safety while stated in 
objective terms. FMCSA's authority is based on the Motor Carrier Act. 
They are authorized to prescribe requirements for 1 qualifications and 
maximum hours of service of employees of, and safety of operation and 
equipment of, motor carrier; and 2 qualifications and maximum hours of 
service of employees of, and standards of equipment of, a motor private 
carrier, when needed to promote safety operations.
    Alternatives: Other technologies limiting speed such as GPS, 
visions systems, vehicle infrastructure communications, or some other 
autonomous vehicle technology.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Annual net benefit estimates vary 
with changing assumptions of the speed limit that is set. At a 7% 
discount rate in millions of 2013 dollars, net benefits range between 
$1,136 and $4,964 at a speed of 60 mph. At a speed of 65 mph, that 
range is between $1,039 and $2,757. At 68 mph, that range is between 
$475 and $1,260.
    Risks: The agency believes there are no significant risks related 
to this rulemaking.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   09/07/16  81 FR 61941
NPRM Comment Period End.............   11/07/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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: Markus Price, Safety Engineer, Department of 
Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, Phone: 202-366-0098, 
Email: [email protected].
    Related RIN: Related to 2126-AB63
    RIN: 2127-AK92

DOT--NHTSA

96. +Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 150--Vehicle to 
Vehicle (V2V) Communication

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30101.
    CFR Citation: 49 CFR 571.150.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: V2V communications uses on-board dedicated short-range 
radio communication (DSRC) devices to broadcast messages about a 
vehicle's speed, heading, brake status, and other information to other 
vehicles and receive the same information from the messages, with 
extended range and `line-of-sight' capabilities. V2V's enhanced 
detection distance and ability to `see' around corners or ``through'' 
other vehicles helps V2V-equipped vehicles uniquely perceive some 
threats and warn their drivers accordingly. V2V technology can also be 
fused with vehicle-resident technologies to potentially provide greater 
benefits than either approach alone. V2V can augment vehicle-resident 
systems by acting as a complete system, extending the ability of the 
overall safety system to address other crash scenarios not covered by 
V2V communications, such as lane and road departure. Additionally, V2V 
communication is currently perceived to become a foundational aspect of 
vehicle automation.
    Statement of Need: V2V communications uses on-board dedicated 
short-range radio communication (DSRC) devices to broadcast messages 
about a vehicle's speed, heading, brake status, and other information 
to other vehicles and receive the same information from the messages, 
with extended range and line-of-sight capabilities. V2V's enhanced 
detection distance and ability to see around corners or ``through'' 
other vehicles helps V2V-equipped vehicles uniquely perceive some 
threats and warn their drivers accordingly. V2V technology can also be 
fused with vehicle-resident technologies to potentially provide greater 
benefits than either approach alone. V2V can augment vehicle-resident 
systems by acting as a complete system, extending the ability of the 
overall safety system to address other crash scenarios not covered by 
V2V communications, such as lane and road departure. Additionally, V2V 
communication is currently perceived to become a foundational aspect of 
vehicle automation.
    Summary of Legal Basis: 49 U.S.C. 30101.
    Alternatives: No other alternatives are currently endorsed by the 
agency.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Annualized monetized net benefit 
estimates over 40 years, in millions of 2014 Dollars, range between 
$20,058 and $23,487.
    Risks: Timing, Public Acceptance.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM...............................   08/20/14  79 FR 49270
ANPRM Comment Period End............   10/20/14  .......................
NPRM................................   11/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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: Gregory Powell, Department of Transportation, 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave 
SE., Washington, DC 20590, Phone: 202 366-5206, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 2127-AL55


[[Page 94619]]



DOT--FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION (FRA)

Proposed Rule Stage

97. +Locomotive Recording Devices

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 49 CFR 1.89; 49 U.S.C. 20103; 49 U.S.C. 20107; 49 
U.S.C. 20168
    CFR Citation: 49 CFR 217; 49 CFR 218; 49 CFR 229.
    Legal Deadline: NPRM, Statutory, December 4, 2017, FAST Act.
    Abstract: This rulemaking would require the installation of inward- 
and outward-facing locomotive video cameras on controlling locomotives 
of trains traveling over 30 mph. The recordings would be used to help 
determine the cause of railroad accidents in order to prevent the 
occurrence of similar accidents. They would also be used to ensure 
railroad employee compliance with applicable Federal railroad safety 
regulations and railroad rules, particularly regulations prohibiting 
the use of personal electronic devices. This rulemaking attempts to 
fulfill NTSB recommendations urging FRA to adopt regulations requiring 
locomotive-mounted audio and video recording devices. FRA is requesting 
comments regarding whether audio recording devices should be required. 
This rulemaking would amend 49 CFR parts 217, 218, and 229.
    Statement of Need: FRA is proposing to require the installation and 
use of inward- and outward-facing recording devices in train 
locomotives under section 11411 of the Fixing America's Surface 
Transportation Act (FAST Act) (Pub. L. 114-94, 129 Stat. 1686 (Dec. 4, 
2015)) (codified at 48 U.S.C. 20168) and the Federal Railroad Safety 
Act of 1970, 49 U.S.C. 20103. Section 11411 of the FAST Act requires 
FRA (as the Secretary of Transportation's delegate) to promulgate 
regulations requiring each railroad carrier that provides regularly 
scheduled intercity rail passenger or commuter rail passenger 
transportation to the public to install inward- and outward-facing 
image recording devices in all controlling locomotives of passenger 
trains. Section 20103 contains FRA's general rulemaking authority ``for 
every area of railroad safety.''
    Summary of Legal Basis: As stated above, FRA is publishing this 
proposed rule as mandated by the FAST Act and under its general 
railroad safety rulemaking authority at 49 U.S.C. 20103.
    Alternatives: TBD.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: FRA will determine the estimated 
costs and benefits associated with this proposed rule before 
publication.
    Risks: TBD.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   02/00/17  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: Local, State.
    URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Kathryn Shelton, Trial Attorney, Department of 
Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue 
SE., Washington, DC 20590, Phone: 202 493-6063, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 2130-AC51

DOT--FRA

Final Rule Stage

98. +Risk Reduction Program

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: Public Law 110-432, Div. A, 122 Stat. 4848 et 
seq.; Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008; sec. 103, 49 U.S.C. 20156 
``Railroad Safety Risk Reduction Program''
    CFR Citation: 49 CFR 237.
    Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, October 16, 2012, Final Rule.
    Abstract: This rulemaking would consider appropriate contents for 
Risk Reduction Programs and how they should be implemented and reviewed 
by FRA.
    Statement of Need: Rulemaking required by section 103 of the Rail 
Safety Improvement Act of 2008.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM...............................   12/08/10  75 FR 76345
ANPRM Comment Period End............   02/07/11  .......................
NPRM................................   02/27/15  80 FR 10950
NPRM Comment Period End.............   04/28/15  .......................
NPRM Comment Period Reopened........   07/30/15  80 FR 45500
NPRM Comment Period End.............   09/10/15  .......................
Final Rule..........................   02/00/17  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Additional Information: SB--N, IC--N, SLT--N. A comment on this 
rulemaking was received during the RRR process. Following publication 
of an ANPRM, hearings were held on July 19, 2011 (Chicago, IL) and July 
21, 2011 (Washington, DC).
    URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Kathryn Shelton, Trial Attorney, Department of 
Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue 
SE., Washington, DC 20590, Phone: 202 493-6063, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 2130-AC11

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

Final Rule Stage

99. +Pipeline Safety: Safety of Hazardous Liquid Pipelines

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 49 U.S.C. 60101 et seq.
    CFR Citation: 49 CFR 195.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: In recent years, there have been significant hazardous 
liquid pipeline accidents, most notably the 2010 crude oil spill near 
Marshall, Michigan, during which almost one million gallons of crude 
oil were spilled into the Kalamazoo River. In response to accident 
investigation findings, incident report data and trends, and 
stakeholder input, PHMSA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
(NPRM) in the Federal Register on October 13, 2015. Previously, 
Congress had enacted the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job 
Creation Act that included several provisions that are relevant to the 
regulation of hazardous liquid pipelines. Shortly after the Pipeline 
Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act was passed, the 
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) issued its accident 
investigation report on the Marshall, Michigan accident. In this 
rulemaking action, PHMSA is amending the Pipeline Safety Regulations to 
improve protection of the public, property, and the environment by 
closing regulatory gaps where appropriate, and ensuring that operators 
are increasing the detection and remediation of unsafe conditions, and 
mitigating the adverse effects of hazardous liquid pipeline failures.
    Statement of Need: PHMSA is proposing to make the following

[[Page 94620]]

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 time frames for re-
mediating 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; (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; and (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
Comment Period Extended.............   01/04/11  76 FR 303
ANPRM Comment Period End............   01/18/11  .......................
Extended Comment Period End.........   02/18/11  .......................
NPRM................................   10/13/15  80 FR 61610
NPRM Comment Period End.............   01/08/16  .......................
Final Rule..........................   12/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 A. Gale, Transportation Regulations 
Specialist, Department of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous 
Materials Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 
Washington, DC 20590, Phone: 202 366-0434, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2137-AE66

DOT--PHMSA

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

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321; 49 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.
    CFR Citation: 49 CFR 130; 49 CFR 174; 49 CFR 171; 49 CFR 172; 49 
CFR 173.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This rulemaking, developed in consultation with the 
Federal Railroad Administration, would revise PHMSA's regulations to 
expand the applicability of comprehensive oil spill response plans 
(OSRPs) based on thresholds of liquid petroleum oil that apply to an 
entire train. We are also proposing to revise the format and clarify 
requirements of a comprehensive OSRP and to require railroads to share 
information about high-hazard flammable train operations with state and 
tribal emergency response organizations (i.e., State Emergency Response 
Commissions and Tribal Emergency Response Commissions) to improve 
community preparedness. Lastly, PHMSA is proposing an update to boiling 
point testing procedures to provide regulatory flexibility and promotes 
enhanced safety in transport through accurate packing group assignment.
    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

[[Page 94621]]

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 ANPRM requested comments on both 
the path forward and the economic impacts. We have evaluated and 
accounted for comments in development of the NPRM, and once the NPRM is 
published 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................................   07/29/16  81 FR 50067
NPRM Comment Period End.............   09/27/16  .......................
Final Action........................   07/00/17  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
    Agency Contact: Victoria Lehman, Transportation 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 policies, 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.
    As part of TTB's ongoing efforts to modernize its regulations, TTB 
continuously identifies changes in the industries it regulates, as well 
as new technologies available in compliance enforcement. TTB's 
modernization efforts focus on removing outdated requirements and 
revising the regulations to facilitate industry growth and reduce 
burdens where possible, while at the same time ensuring that TTB 
collects revenue due and protects consumers from deceptive labeling and 
advertising of alcohol beverages.
    On June 21, 2016, TTB published a notice of proposed rulemaking (81 
FR 40404) to clarify and streamline import procedures, and support the 
implementation of the International Trade Data System (ITDS) and the 
filing of import information electronically in conjunction with an 
electronic import filing with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). 
The proposed amendments include providing the option for importers to 
file TTB-specific import-related data electronically when filing entry 
or entry summary data electronically with CBP, as an alternative to 
current TTB requirements that importers submit paper documents to CBP 
upon importation.
    On August 30, 2016, TTB published a final rule to amend its 
regulations governing specially denatured alcohol (SDA) and completely 
denatured alcohol (CDA) to, among other things, eliminate the need for 
industry members to submit certain formulas to TTB for approval. Under 
the authority of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (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 had been raised that the existing 
regulations may create significant roadblocks for industry members in 
getting products to the marketplace quickly and efficiently. TTB 
determined that it could amend its regulations to address these 
concerns and reduce regulatory burdens, while posing no added risk to 
the revenue. The final rule eliminates outdated formulas, reclassifies 
certain SDA formulas as CDA, and provides new general-use formulas for 
articles made

[[Page 94622]]

with SDA. TTB estimates that these changes will result in an 80 percent 
reduction in the formula approval submissions currently required from 
industry members.
    On July 1, 2016, TTB published an interim final rule (81 FR 43062) 
to implement the provisions of the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation 
Adjustment Act of 1990 (Inflation Adjustment Act), as amended by the 
Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 and the Federal Civil Penalties 
Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015. This rulemaking 
increases the maximum civil monetary penalty for violations of the 
Alcoholic Beverage Labeling Act of 1988 from $10,000 to $19,787, in 
accordance with Federal law. The increased maximum penalty will help 
maintain the deterrent effect of the penalty, which is a stated goal of 
the Inflation Adjustment Act. As authorized under the law, TTB will 
announce future cost-of-living adjustments to the penalty by publishing 
a notice in the Federal Register and updating its Web site.
    On June 21, 2016, TTB published a final rule (81 FR 40183) to adopt 
temporary regulations it had issued on June 27, 2013 (78 FR 38555) 
concerning permit and other requirements related to importers and 
manufacturers of tobacco products and processed tobacco. The regulatory 
amendments adopted in the final rule include an extension in the 
duration of new permits for importers of tobacco products and processed 
tobacco from three years to five years. Importers who wish to continue 
to engage in the business beyond the duration of the permit must renew 
their permits before expiration. Less frequent renewal reduces the 
regulatory burden on the importers. Temporary regulations issued under 
the IRC expire three years after the date of issuance, and publication 
of the final rule made permanent this extension of the duration of new 
importer permits.
    In FY 2017, TTB will continue its multi-year Regulations 
Modernization effort by prioritizing projects that will update its 
Import and Export regulations, Labeling Requirements regulations, 
Nonbeverage Products regulations, and Distilled Spirits Plant Reporting 
requirements. Priority projects also include implementing new statutory 
provisions that go into effect in FY 2017 as a result of the Protecting 
Americans from Tax Hikes Act of 2015 (PATH Act).
    This fiscal year TTB plans to give priority to the following 
regulatory matters:
    Revisions to Import and Export Regulations Related to ITDS. TTB is 
currently preparing for the implementation of ITDS and, specifically, 
the transition to an all-electronic import and export environment. 
ITDS, as described in section 405 of the Security and Accountability 
for Every Port Act of 2006 (the ``SAFE Port Act'') (Pub. L. 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 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-electronic environment is part of the 
implementation process.
    TTB completed its review of the relevant regulatory requirements 
and identified those that it intends to update. With regard to imports, 
as noted above, TTB published a notice of proposed rulemaking in June 
2016 to amend its import regulations to support the implementation of 
ITDS and incorporate needed updates. TTB also continues to operate a 
pilot program (originally announced in August 2015) for importers who 
want to gain experience with the ITDS ``single window'' functionality 
for providing data on the TTB-regulated commodities. This pilot program 
helps familiarize both TTB and the public with the new environment and 
assists TTB and the public to refine the implementation of ITDS. The 
pilot program also provides valuable information for TTB's ongoing 
efforts to amend its regulations. In FY 2017, TTB intends to publish a 
final rule on the proposed changes to its import regulations.
    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 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 follow procedures that do not adequately 
reflect current technology or take into account current industry 
business practices. In FY 2017, TTB intends to publish a notice of 
proposed rulemaking that will address electronic submission of 
information through ITDS for exports and 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 Regulations to Implement the PATH Act. On December 
18, 2015, the President signed into law the PATH Act, which is Division 
Q of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016. The PATH Act contains 
changes to certain statutory provisions that TTB administers in the IRC 
regarding excise tax due dates, bond requirements, and the definition 
of wine eligible for the hard cider tax rate. These amendments take 
effect beginning in January 2017, and TTB is currently working on two 
separate rulemaking projects to be published in FY 2017 that will 
implement these changes. First, TTB is implementing provisions that 
allow certain small alcohol beverage excise taxpayers to file tax 
returns less frequently and to qualify for an exemption from certain 
bond requirements. These provisions will reduce regulatory burdens on 
small businesses. Second, TTB is implementing changes to the definition 
of wine that is eligible for the hard cider tax rate. These changes 
will increase the allowable alcohol content and carbonation level of 
such wines and authorize the use of pears, pear juice concentrate, and 
pear products and flavorings.
    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 2017 revisions to modernize the

[[Page 94623]]

regulations concerning the labeling requirements for wine, distilled 
spirits, and malt beverages. TTB anticipates that these regulatory 
changes will assist industry in voluntary compliance, decrease industry 
burden, and result in the regulated industries being able to bring 
products to market without undue delay. TTB projects that it will 
receive over 160,000 label applications in FY 2016.
    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 2017, offers a new method of formula 
certification by incorporating quantitative standards into the 
regulations and establishing new voluntary procedures that would 
further streamline the formula review process for products that meet 
the standards. This proposal would provide adequate protection to the 
revenue because TTB would continue to receive submissions of certified 
formulas; however, TTB would not take action on certified formula 
submissions unless TTB discovered that the formulas require correction. 
By allowing for self-certification of certain nonbeverage product 
formulas, this proposal would eliminate the requirement for TTB to 
formally approve such formulas. These changes would result in 
significant cost savings for the nonbeverage alcohol industry, which 
currently must obtain formula approval from TTB, and reduce the number 
of formulas that TTB must review.
    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 
concerns the distilled spirits industry has raised about reporting, 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 because of the 
more efficient and effective processing of reports and the use of 
report data to reconcile industry member tax accounts. In FY 2017, TTB 
intends to publish a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking that 
will include new proposals to address comments received in response to 
the initial notice of proposed rulemaking and incorporate additional 
improvements identified by TTB in the interim.
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 expand economic opportunity for underserved people and 
communities by supporting the growth and capacity of a national network 
of community development lenders, investors, and financial service 
providers. 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 Capital Magnet Fund (CMF), and the CDFI Bond Guarantee Program 
(BGP).
    In FY 2017, the CDFI Fund will publish updated regulations for the 
Capital Magnet Fund and the CDFI Program to incorporate a variety of 
technical and policy changes.
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
    The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) charters, 
regulates, and supervises all national banks and Federal savings 
associations (FSAs). The agency also supervises the Federal branches 
and agencies of foreign banks. The OCC's mission is to ensure that 
national banks and FSAs operate in a safe and sound manner, provide 
fair access to financial services, treat customers fairly, and comply 
with applicable laws and regulations.
    Significant rules issued during fiscal year 2016 include:
    Margin and Capital Requirements for Covered Swap Entities (12 CFR 
part 45). The banking agencies, Farm Credit Administration (FCA), and 
Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) issued a final 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 rule implements sections 731 and 764 of the 
Dodd-Frank Act, which require the Agencies to adopt rules jointly to 
establish capital requirements and initial and variation margin 
requirements for such entities on all non-cleared swaps and non-cleared 
security-based swaps in order to offset the greater risk to such 
entities and the financial system arising from the use of swaps and 
security-based swaps that are not cleared. The Agencies also issued an 
interim final rule that exempts certain non-cleared swaps and non-
cleared security-based swaps with certain counterparties that qualify 
for an exception or exemption from clearing from the initial and 
variation margin requirements promulgated under sections 731 and 764 of 
the Dodd-Frank Act. The rule implements Title III of the Terrorism Risk 
Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2015, which exempts from the 
Agencies' swap margin rules non-cleared swaps and non-cleared security-
based swaps in which a counterparty qualifies for an exemption or 
exception from clearing under the Dodd-Frank Act. The final and interim 
final rules were issued on November 30, 2015, 81 FR 74839 and 74915 and 
the interim final rule was finalized on August 2, 2016, 81 FR 50605.
    Guidelines Establishing Standards for Recovery Planning by Certain 
Large Insured National Banks, Insured FSAs, and Insured Federal 
Branches (12 CFR part 30). The OCC issued a proposed rule setting forth 
enforceable guidelines establishing standards for recovery planning by 
insured national banks, insured FSAs, and insured Federal branches of 
foreign banks with average total consolidated assets of $50 billion or 
more (Guidelines). The Guidelines would be issued as an appendix to the 
OCC's 12 CFR part 30 safety and soundness standards regulations and 
would be enforceable by the terms of the Federal statute that 
authorizes the OCC to prescribe operational and managerial standards 
for national banks and FSAs. The proposed rule was issued on December 
17, 2015, 80 FR 78681 and the final rule was issued on October 29, 
2016, 81 FR 66791.
    Incentive-Based Compensation Arrangements (12 CFR part 42). Section 
956 of the Dodd-Frank Act requires the banking agencies, National 
Credit Union

[[Page 94624]]

Administration (NCUA), Securities and Exchange Commission (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 
guidelines 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 executive 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 June 10, 2016, 81 FR 
37669.
    Net Stable Funding Ratio (12 CFR part 50). The banking agencies 
issued 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. The proposed rule 
was issued on June 1, 2016, 81 FR 35123.
    Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996 
Amendments (12 CFR parts 4 to 5, 7, 9 to 12, 16, 18, 31, 150 to 151, 
155, 162 to 163, 194, and 197). The OCC issued a proposed rule with the 
goal of removing provisions that are outdated, unnecessary, or unduly 
burdensome. The proposal would revise certain licensing rules related 
to chartering applications, business combinations involving Federal 
mutual savings associations, and notices for changes in permanent 
capital; clarify national bank director oath requirements; revise 
certain fiduciary activity requirements for national banks and FSAs; 
remove certain financial disclosure regulations for national banks; 
remove certain unnecessary regulatory reporting, accounting, and 
management policy regulations for FSAs; update the electronic 
activities regulation for FSAs; integrate and update OCC regulations 
for national banks and FSAs relating to municipal securities dealers, 
Securities Exchange Act disclosure rules, and securities offering 
disclosure rules; update and revise recordkeeping and confirmation 
requirements for national banks' and FSAs' securities transactions; 
integrate and update regulations relating to insider and affiliate 
transactions; and make other technical and clarifying changes. The 
proposed rule was issued on March 14, 2016, 81 FR 13608.
    Expanded Examination Cycle for Certain Small Insured Depository 
Institutions and U.S. Branches and Agencies of Foreign Banks (12 CFR 
part 4). The banking agencies issued an interim final rule to implement 
section 83001 of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (the 
FAST Act). Section 83001 of the FAST Act permits a qualifying insured 
depository institution (institution) with up to $1 billion in total 
assets to be examined by its appropriate Federal banking agency no less 
than once during each 18-month period. The OCC's interim final rule 
expands eligibility for the 18-month examination cycle to qualifying 
national banks, Federal savings associations, and Federal branches and 
agencies with less than $500 million in total assets to those with less 
than $1 billion in total assets. The interim final rule was issued on 
February 29, 2016, 81 FR 10063.
    Civil Money Penalty Inflation Adjustments (12 CFR parts 19 and 
109). The OCC issued an interim final rule implementing the Federal 
Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (the 
2015 Act) (Pub. L. 114-74, title VII, section 701(b), November 2, 2015) 
and Office of Management and Budget guidance issued on February 24, 
2016. The 2015 Act amended the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation 
Adjustment Act of 1990 (codified at 28 U.S.C. 2461 note). The 2015 Act 
changed the formula for calculating inflation adjustments and required 
agencies to adjust penalties for inflation on an annual basis. The 
interim final rule was issued on July 1, 2016, 81 FR 43021.
    Appraisals for Higher-Priced Mortgage Loans Exemption Threshold (12 
CFR part 34). The OCC, the FRB, and the CFPB issued a proposed rule 
amending the official interpretations for their regulations that 
implement section 129H of the Truth in Lending Act, which establishes 
special appraisal requirements for ``higher-risk mortgages.'' The 
banking agencies, the CFPB, the NCUA and the FHFA issued joint final 
rules implementing these requirements, which exempted, among other loan 
types, transactions of $25,000 or less, and required that this loan 
amount be adjusted annually based on any annual percentage increase in 
the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers 
(CPI-W). If there is no annual percentage increase in the CPI-W, the 
OCC, the FRB and the CFPB will not adjust this exemption threshold from 
the prior year. The proposal would memorialize this as well as the 
calculation method for determining the adjustment in years following a 
year in which there is no annual percentage increase in the CPI-W. The 
proposed rule was issued on August 4, 2016, 81 FR 51394.
    Mandatory Contractual Stay Requirements for Qualified Financial 
Contracts (12 CFR parts 3, 47, and 50). The OCC issued a proposed rule 
to promote U.S. financial stability by enhancing the safety and 
soundness of the national banking system by mitigating potential 
negative impacts that could result from the disorderly resolution of 
certain systemically important national banks, FSAs, Federal branches 
and agencies, and the subsidiaries of these entities. A covered bank 
would be required to ensure that a covered qualified financial contract 
contains a contractual stay-and-transfer provision analogous to the 
statutory stay-and-transfer provision imposed under Title II of the 
Dodd-Frank Act and in the Federal Deposit Insurance Act and limits the 
exercise of default rights based on the insolvency of an affiliate of 
the covered bank. The proposed rule was issued on August 19, 2016, 81 
FR 55381.
    Regulatory priorities for fiscal year 2017 include finalizing any 
proposals listed above as well as the following rulemakings:
    Automated Valuation Models (parts 34 and 164). The banking 
agencies, NCUA, FHFA and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), 
in consultation with the Appraisal Subcommittee (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.
    Source of Strength (12 CFR part 47). The banking agencies plan to 
issue a

[[Page 94625]]

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.
    Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for Covered Trading 
Activities (12 CFR part 44). The banking agencies, the Commodity 
Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), and the SEC are planning to issue a 
proposed rule that would modify the reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements for covered trading activities under Appendix A of the 
final rule implementing section 13 of the Bank Holding Company Act of 
1956, which was added by section 619 of the Dodd-Frank Act.
    Loans in Areas Having Special Flood Hazards-Private Flood Insurance 
(12 CFR part 22). The banking agencies, the FCA, and the NCUA are 
planning to issue a proposed rule to amend their regulations regarding 
loans in areas having special flood hazards to implement the private 
flood insurance provisions of the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform 
Act of 2012 (the Biggert-Waters Act). The proposed rule was issued on 
November 7, 2016, 81 FR 78063.
    Receiverships for Uninsured National Banks (12 CFR part 51). The 
OCC is planning to issue a proposed rule addressing the conduct of 
receiverships of national banks that are not insured by the FDIC and 
for which the FDIC would not be appointed as receiver.
    Enhanced Cyber Risk Management Standards (12 CFR part 30). The 
banking agencies are considering issuing an advance notice of proposed 
rulemaking setting forth enhanced cyber risk management standards for 
the largest and most interconnected financial organizations in the 
United States.
    The banking agencies and the NCUA plan to issue interim final rules 
to clarify the applicability of recent amendments to the Financial 
Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) customer due diligence rules to the 
depository institutions under their supervision. FinCEN clarified and 
strengthened its customer due diligence requirements for covered 
financial institutions, including banks, brokers or dealers in 
securities, mutual funds, and futures commission merchants and 
introducing brokers in commodities (FinCEN Rule). As part of that 
rulemaking, FinCEN amended the elements of the anti-money laundering 
program financial institutions must implement and maintain in order to 
satisfy program requirements under 31 U.S.C. 5318(h)(1). The banking 
agencies and the NCUA are amending their anti-money laundering program 
rules to maintain consistency with the FinCEN Rule.
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 prescribe regulations pertaining to the 
customs revenue functions subject to certain exceptions. This Order 
further provided that the Secretary of the Treasury retained the sole 
authority to approve such regulations.
    During the past fiscal year, among the customs-revenue function 
regulations issued were the Customs and Border Protection's Bond 
Program final rule, the United States-Australia Free Trade Agreement 
final rule, Investigation of Claims of Evasion of Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duties interim final rule, and the North American Free 
Trade Agreement Preference Override notice of proposed rulemaking. On 
November 13, 2015, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) published 
the final rule (80 FR 70154) to the CBP regulations which amended CBP 
regulations to reflect the centralization of the continuous bond 
program at CBP's Revenue Division. The changes 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. On January 15, 2016, CBP published the United States-
Australia Free Trade Agreement final rule (81 FR 2086) to the CBP 
regulations, which finalized the implementation of the preferential 
tariff treatment and other customs-related provisions of the United 
States-Australia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act. In addition, 
on August 22, 2016, CBP and Treasury issued an interim final rule 
titled ``Investigation of Claims of Evasion of Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duties'' which amended CBP regulations implementing 
section 421 of the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 
2015. CBP and Treasury also issued on July 8, 2016, a proposed rule (81 
FR 44555) titled ``North American Free Trade Agreement Preference 
Override'' which proposed amending CBP regulations to liberalize 
provisions of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) 
preference rules of origin that relate to certain goods, including 
certain spices.
    This past fiscal year, Treasury and CBP worked 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'') (Pub. L. 109-347), is an 
electronic information exchange capability, or ``Single Window,'' 
through which businesses will transmit data required by participating 
agencies for the importation or exportation of cargo. To enhance 
Federal coordination associated with the development of the ITDS, 
Treasury and CBP issued an interim regulation (80 FR 61278) in 
connection with the establishment of the Automated Commercial 
Environment (ACE) as a CBP-authorized Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) 
System. This regulatory document informed 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). CBP issued subsequent Federal Register 
notices announcing the dates when ACE replaced the Automated Commercial 
System (ACS) as the CBP-authorized EDI system for processing commercial 
trade data.
    During fiscal year 2017, 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.

[[Page 94626]]

    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 liberalization of the NAFTA 
preference rules of origin that relate to certain goods, including 
certain spices.
    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.
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 2016, FinCEN issued the following regulatory 
actions:
    Civil Monetary Penalty Adjustment and Table. On June 30, 2016, 
FinCEN issued an Interim Final Rule amending the BSA regulations to 
adjust the maximum amount or range, as set by statute, of certain civil 
monetary penalties within its jurisdiction to account for inflation. 
The action was taken to implement the requirements of the Federal Civil 
Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, as further amended by the 
Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 
2015.
    Customer Due Diligence Requirements. On May 11, 2016, FinCEN issued 
Final 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 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. On March 10, 2016, 
FinCEN issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to address requests from 
filers for clarification of certain requirements regarding the Report 
of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts, including requirements with 
respect to employees, who have signature authority over, but no 
financial interest in, the foreign financial accounts of their 
employers.
    Amendments to the Definitions of Broker or Dealer in Securities. On 
April 4, 2016, FinCEN issued an NPRM proposing 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.
    Anti-Money Laundering Program Requirements for Banks Lacking a 
Federal Functional Regulator. On August 25, 2016, FinCEN issued 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.
    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 imposing the fifth special measure under 
section 311 of the USA PATRIOT Act against FBME. 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 U.S. 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 before the rule's effective date of August 28, 2015. On March 
31, 2016, FinCEN issued a Final Rule imposing a prohibition on U.S. 
financial institutions from opening or maintaining a correspondent 
account for, or on behalf of, FBME in place of the rule published in 
2015. On July 22, 2016, the U.S. District Court for the District of 
Columbia ordered that the implementation of the Final Rule be stayed 
until further notice from the Court.

[[Page 94627]]

    Administrative Rulings and Written Guidance. FinCEN published 4 
written guidance pieces, and provided 17 responses to requests for 
administrative rulings and written inquiries/correspondence 
interpreting the BSA and providing clarity to regulated industries.
    FinCEN's regulatory priorities for fiscal year 2017 include 
finalizing any initiatives mentioned above that are not finalized by 
fiscal year end, as well as the following in-process and potential 
projects:
    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 is considering various regulatory actions 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 and SAR Requirements for Investment 
Advisers. On August 25, 2015, FinCEN published in the Federal Register 
an 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.
    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 2017, 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, Public Law 
104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (DCIA) authorizes Federal agencies to publish 
or otherwise publicly disseminate information regarding the identity of 
persons owing delinquent nontax debts to the United States for the 
purpose of collecting the debts, provided certain criteria are met. 
Treasury proposes to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking seeking 
comments on a proposed rule that would establish the procedures Federal 
agencies must follow before promulgating their own rules to publish 
information about delinquent debtors and the standards for determining 
when use of this debt collection remedy is appropriate.
    Offset of Tax Refund Payments to Collect Past-Due Support. On 
December 30, 2015, the Fiscal Service published an Interim Final Rule, 
with request for comments, limiting the time period during which 
Treasury may recover certain tax refund offset collections from States 
to six months from the date of such collection. Previously, there was 
no time limit to recoup offset amounts that were collected from tax 
refunds to which the debtor taxpayer was not entitled. The Fiscal 
Service proposes to publish a Final Rule for this time limit for such 
recoupments in fiscal year 2017.
    Management of Federal Agency Receipts, Disbursements and Operation 
of the Cash Management Improvements Fund. The Fiscal Service plans to 
publish a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend 31 CFR 206 governing 
the collection of public money, along with a request for public 
comments. This notice will propose implementing statutory authority 
which mandates that some or all nontax payments made to the Government, 
and accompanying remittance information, be submitted electronically. 
Receipt of such items electronically offers significant efficiencies 
and cost-savings to the government, compared to the receipt of cash, 
check or money order payments.
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 2017, 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,

[[Page 94628]]

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 2017, 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 related to the employer shared responsibility 
provisions under section 4980H;
     Regulations under section 4980I of the Code relating to 
the excise tax on high cost employer-provided coverage;
     Final regulations on expatriate health plans under the 
Expatriate Health Coverage Clarification Act of 2014 for purposes of 
sections 36B, 162(m)(6), 4377, 5000A, 6055, and 6056 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 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. In addition, on December 18, 2015, the President signed the 
Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes of 2015 (the PATH Act), which added 
new section 41(h). That section allows qualified small businesses to 
elect to claim a portion of the section 41 credit against the 
employer's portion of certain payroll taxes. Treasury and the IRS plan 
to provide guidance on eligibility for the election, how and where to 
claim the election, and how the credit will be recaptured in certain 
situations.
    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 signed H.R. 
3236, Surface Transportation and Veterans Health Care Choice 
Improvement Act of 2015 (Act) (Pub. 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 file 
statements with the IRS and furnish statements to certain estate 
beneficiaries providing information regarding the value of certain 
property acquired from a decedent. Section 6662(k) provides a

[[Page 94629]]

penalty for certain recipients of property acquired from an estate 
required to file a return after July 31, 2015, who report a basis that 
is inconsistent with the value determined under section 1014(f) when 
the property is sold (or deemed sold). Treasury and the IRS published 
three notices and proposed and temporary regulations under sections 
1014, 6035, and 6662(k) providing, respectively, guidance on the 
compliance date under section 6035 and guidance regarding: (1) The 
requirement that a recipient's basis in certain property acquired from 
a decedent be consistent with the value of the property as finally 
determined for Federal estate tax purposes; and (2) the accompanying 
filing requirements for certain executors and other persons. On August 
21, 2015, Notice 2015-57 (2015-36 IRB 294) was issued delaying the due 
date for any statements required by section 6035 to February 29, 2016. 
On February 11, 2016, Treasury and IRS issued Notice 2016-19 (2016-9 
IRB 362), providing that statements required under section 6035 need 
not be filed until March 31, 2016, and on March 23, 2016, issued Notice 
2016-27 (2016-15 IRB 576), providing that statements under section 6035 
need not be filed until June 30, 2016. For statements required under 
sections 6035(a)(1) and (a)(2) that are required to be filed after June 
30, 2016, those statements are to be filed in no case at a time later 
than the earlier of (i) the date which is 30 days after the date on 
which the return under section 6018 was required to be filed (including 
extensions, if any) or (ii) the date which is 30 days after the date 
such return is filed. The IRS is in the process of finalizing the 
regulations, the applicable form, schedule, and instructions to 
facilitate compliance with sections 1014(f), 6035, and 6662(k). It is 
expected that Treasury and IRS will issue final regulations within 18 
months of July 31, 2015.
    Definition of Issue Price for Tax-Exempt Bonds. On September 16, 
2013, Treasury and the IRS published proposed regulations (78 FR 56842) 
to address certain issues involving the arbitrage investment 
restrictions under section 148 of the Code, including guidance on the 
issue price definition used in the computation of bond yield. On June 
24, 2015, Treasury and the IRS published proposed regulations (80 FR 
36301) that revised the 2013 guidance on the issue price definition. 
Treasury and the IRS plan to finalize the 2015 proposed regulations.
    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 for purposes of section 103 of the Code. Proposed 
regulations (REG-129067-15) were published in the Federal Register on 
February 23, 2016 (81 FR 8870). Treasury and the IRS are considering 
comments on the proposed regulations and expect to issue regulations on 
this issue in fiscal year 2017.

    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 (2008-1 CB 252) 
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 the fiscal year, 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 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.
    Treatment of Certain Interests in Corporations as Stock or 
Indebtedness. Section 385 of the Code grants the Secretary of the 
Treasury the authority to prescribe regulations as necessary or 
appropriate to determine whether an interest in a corporation is to be 
treated as stock or indebtedness or as part stock and part indebtedness 
for Federal income tax purposes. On April 4, 2016, Treasury and the IRS 
issued proposed regulations under section 385 that would establish 
threshold documentation requirements for determining whether certain 
related party interests in a corporation are characterized as stock or 
indebtedness for Federal tax purposes. The proposed regulations also 
would treat certain related party interests that otherwise would be 
treated as indebtedness for Federal income tax purposes as stock. 
Treasury and the IRS issued final and temporary regulations on these 
issues on October 21, 2016 (81 FR 72858).
    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, both the distributing and controlled corporations must be 
engaged in the active conduct of a trade or business immediately after 
the distribution, and the transaction must not be used as a device for 
the distribution of earnings and profits or to circumvent Congress' 
intent in repealing the General Utilities doctrine. Treasury and the 
IRS have published proposed regulations that address (a) whether the 
active trade or business requirement is met when a distribution 
involves small active businesses relative to other assets and (b) 
whether a distribution raises device concerns because either the 
distributing or controlled corporation has a substantial percentage of 
nonbusiness assets. Treasury and the IRS intend to issue final 
regulations on these issues. Treasury and the IRS also intend to issue 
additional guidance addressing: (a) When a distribution, otherwise 
qualifying under section 355, circumvents Congress' intent in repealing 
the General Utilities doctrine; and (b) the tax treatment under 
sections 355 and 361 when debt of the distributing corporation is 
issued and

[[Page 94630]]

such debt is retired using stock or securities of the controlled 
corporation, and (c) the tax treatment when cash or property is 
transferred between a distributing or controlled corporation and its 
shareholder(s) in connection with the distribution. Treasury and the 
IRS also intend to finalize proposed regulations that would define 
predecessor and successor corporations for purposes of the exception to 
tax-free treatment under section 355(e).
    Assistance to Troubled Financial Institutions. Section 597 grants 
the Secretary of the Treasury wide latitude to prescribe regulations 
determining the treatment of any transaction in which Federal financial 
assistance is provided to a bank or domestic building and loan 
association. Treasury and the IRS have issued final regulations under 
section 597. In the wake of the most recent financial crisis and 
changes in the form of government assistance that have developed since 
the final regulations were issued, Treasury and the IRS published 
proposed regulations that would reflect those changes. Treasury and the 
IRS intend to issue final regulations on these issues.
    Redetermination of the Consolidated Net Unrealized Built-in Gain 
and Net Unrealized Built-in Loss. Section 382 limits the amount of 
taxable income that can be offset by net operating loss carryovers. 
Treasury and the IRS published proposed regulations modifying the 
application of section 382 to consolidated groups, specifically 
regarding the time that recognized built-in loss is treated as reducing 
consolidated net unrealized built-in loss. Treasury and the IRS intend 
to issue final regulations on these issues.
    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 2017.
    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. On August 6, 2015, Treasury and the IRS issued Notice 
2015-54 (2015-34 IRB 210) describing regulations to be issued under 
that authority. By the end of 2016, Treasury and the IRS plan to issue 
temporary and proposed regulations implementing the guidance described 
in Notice 2015-52. Treasury and the IRS intend to finalize the 
temporary and proposed regulations in this fiscal year.
    Reporting requirements applicable to certain foreign-owned 
entities. On May 5, 2016, Treasury and the IRS issued proposed 
regulations that would require foreign-owned entities that are 
disregarded entities for tax purposes, including foreign-owned single-
member limited liability companies (LLCs), to obtain an employer 
identification number (EIN) with the IRS. These changes are intended to 
provide the IRS with improved access to information that will allow the 
United States to comply with international standards on tax and 
transparency, as well as strengthen the enforcement of U.S. tax laws. 
Treasury and the IRS intend to finalize the proposed regulations in 
this fiscal year.
    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. In addition, 
Treasury and the IRS intend to issue proposed regulations in Fiscal 
Year 2017 to provide guidance on the treatment of foreign currency gain 
or loss of a controlled foreign corporation (CFC) under the exclusion 
from foreign personal holding company income for income from 
transactions directly related to the business needs of the CFC, as well 
as related timing and other issues.
    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 2017.
    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 2017.
    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 
this fiscal year 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

[[Page 94631]]

could be subject to the accuracy-related penalty on underpayments or 
reportable transaction understatements and the reasonable cause 
exception.
    Inversion Transactions. On January 17, 2014, Treasury and the IRS 
issued temporary and proposed regulations providing guidance on the 
application of the ownership test under section 7874(a)(2)(B)(ii). On 
April 4, 2016, Treasury and the IRS issued temporary and proposed 
regulations providing further guidance on the application of sections 
7874 and 367 of the Code to inversion transactions, as well as on 
certain tax avoidance transactions that are commonly undertaken after 
an inversion transaction. In this fiscal year, Treasury and the IRS 
expect to issue additional guidance to further limit inversion 
transactions that are contrary to the purposes of section 7874 and the 
benefits of post-inversion tax avoidance transactions.
    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 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; and 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 
the aforementioned chapter 3, 4 and 61 regulations; issuing proposed 
regulations covering the compliance requirements of entities acting as 
sponsoring entities on behalf of certain foreign entities; issuing 
updated agreements for foreign financial institutions, qualified 
intermediaries (including qualified derivatives dealers), and 
withholding foreign partnerships and withholding foreign trusts; and 
issuing regulations on refunds and credits.
    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. By the end of 2016, 
Treasury and the IRS expect to issue temporary and proposed regulations 
setting forth the rules described in those notices. Treasury and the 
IRS also plan to issue proposed regulations setting forth substantial 
additional guidance under section 901(m). Treasury and the IRS expect 
to finalize the proposed regulations during this fiscal year.
    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 intend to finalize the 
proposed section 367 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 2017 fiscal year, taking into account all 
comments received.
    Certified Professional Employer Organization guidance. On May 6, 
2016, Treasury and the IRS published final, temporary, and proposed 
regulations which set forth the Federal employment tax liabilities and 
other obligations of persons certified by the IRS as certified 
professional employer organizations (CPEOs) in accordance with 
provisions enacted as part of the ABLE Act. The temporary regulations 
address the requirements relating to applying for and maintaining 
certification as a CPEO and some related definitions. In July 2016, the 
IRS opened the application process for being certified as a CPEO. 
Treasury and the IRS intend to finalize the temporary and proposed 
regulations during the 2017 fiscal year, taking into account all 
comments received.
    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 
2017.
    Guidance implementing the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015. The 
Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 repealed the current procedures governing 
audits of partnerships and replaced them with new procedures. Treasury 
and the IRS intend to publish regulations implementing these new 
procedures. Proposed regulations will provide guidance on electing out 
of the new procedures, partner reporting and adjustments, designation 
of a partnership representative, imputed underpayments, and requests 
for administrative adjustments.
    Guidance on User Fees. Treasury and the IRS intend to publish 
regulations charging (or updating) user fees for certain applications 
made by individuals to the IRS, including for an installment agreement, 
an offer in compromise, and a preparer tax identification number, as 
well as to take

[[Page 94632]]

the special enrollment examination to become an enrolled agent.
    Guidance under the Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes Act of 2015. 
On December 25, 2015, Congress passed the Protecting Americans from Tax 
Hikes Act (PATH Act). The Path Act made changes to numerous provisions 
of the Code. Treasury and the IRS intend to publish guidance 
implementing these changes, including guidance on the issuance of 
individual taxpayer identifying numbers, an update to the revenue 
procedure on acceptance agents, proposed regulations on the use of 
truncated taxpayer identification numbers on the Form W-2, and 
regulations under sections 6721 and 6722 regarding de minimis errors on 
information returns.
BILLING CODE 4810-25-P

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS (VA)

Statement of Regulatory Priorities

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

VA Regulatory Priorities

    VA's most important significant regulatory actions are identified 
and discussed in the following chart. These actions are identified as 
helping to implement VA's policies and priorities, and embody the core 
of VA's regulatory priorities.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
           RIN                    Title           Summary of rulemaking
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2900-AP66................  Diseases Associated  The Department of
                            With Exposure to     Veterans Affairs (VA)
                            Contaminated Water   proposed to amend its
                            at Camp Lejeune.     adjudication
                                                 regulations relating to
                                                 presumptive service
                                                 connection to add
                                                 certain diseases
                                                 associated with
                                                 contaminants present in
                                                 the base water supply
                                                 at U.S. Marine Corps
                                                 Base Camp Lejeune (Camp
                                                 Lejeune), North
                                                 Carolina, from August
                                                 1, 1953 to December 31,
                                                 1987. The chemical
                                                 compounds involved have
                                                 been associated by
                                                 various scientific
                                                 organizations with the
                                                 development of certain
                                                 diseases. The effect of
                                                 this rule would be to
                                                 establish that
                                                 veterans, former
                                                 reservists, and former
                                                 National Guard members,
                                                 who served at Camp
                                                 Lejeune during this
                                                 period, and who have
                                                 been diagnosed with any
                                                 of nine associated
                                                 diseases, are presumed
                                                 to have a service-
                                                 connected disability
                                                 for purposes of
                                                 entitlement to VA
                                                 benefits. In addition,
                                                 VA proposed
                                                 establishing a
                                                 presumption that these
                                                 individuals were
                                                 disabled during the
                                                 relevant period of
                                                 service, thus
                                                 establishing active
                                                 military service for
                                                 benefit purposes. Under
                                                 this presumption,
                                                 affected former
                                                 reservists and National
                                                 Guard members would
                                                 have veteran status for
                                                 purposes of entitlement
                                                 to some VA benefits.
                                                 The proposal would
                                                 implement a decision by
                                                 the Secretary of
                                                 Veterans Affairs that
                                                 service connection on a
                                                 presumptive basis is
                                                 warranted for claimants
                                                 who served at Camp
                                                 Lejeune and later
                                                 develop certain
                                                 diseases. VA plans to
                                                 finalize this proposal
                                                 after considering
                                                 public comments.
2900-AP54................  VA Homeless          The Department of
                            Providers Grant      Veterans Affairs (VA)
                            and Per Diem         is proposing to amend
                            Program.             its regulations
                                                 concerning the VA
                                                 Homeless Providers
                                                 Grant and Per Diem
                                                 Program (GPD). These
                                                 amendments would
                                                 provide GPD with
                                                 increased flexibility
                                                 to (1) respond to the
                                                 changing needs of
                                                 homeless veterans; (2)
                                                 repurpose existing and
                                                 future funds more
                                                 efficiently; and (3)
                                                 allow grant providers
                                                 the ability to add,
                                                 modify, or eliminate
                                                 components of funded
                                                 programs. We are
                                                 proposing these
                                                 amendments to better
                                                 serve our homeless
                                                 veteran population and
                                                 the grantees who serve
                                                 them.
2900-AO53................  Fiduciary            VA proposed to amend its
                            Activities.          fiduciary program
                                                 regulations, which
                                                 govern the oversight of
                                                 beneficiaries who,
                                                 because of injury,
                                                 disease, the
                                                 infirmities of advanced
                                                 age, or minority, are
                                                 unable to manage their
                                                 VA benefits and the
                                                 appointment and
                                                 oversight of
                                                 fiduciaries for these
                                                 vulnerable
                                                 beneficiaries. The
                                                 proposed amendments
                                                 would update and
                                                 reorganize regulations
                                                 consistent with current
                                                 law, VA policies and
                                                 procedures, and VA's
                                                 reorganization of its
                                                 fiduciary activities.
                                                 They would also clarify
                                                 the rights of
                                                 beneficiaries in the
                                                 program and the roles
                                                 of VA and fiduciaries
                                                 in ensuring that VA
                                                 benefits are managed in
                                                 the best interest of
                                                 beneficiaries and their
                                                 dependents.

[[Page 94633]]

 
2900-AP72................  Veterans Employment  The Department of
                            Pay for Success      Veterans Affairs (VA)
                            Program.             established a grant
                                                 program (Veterans
                                                 Employment Pay for
                                                 Success (VEPFS)) under
                                                 the authority of 38
                                                 U.S.C. 3119 to award
                                                 grants to eligible
                                                 entities to fund
                                                 projects that are
                                                 successful in
                                                 accomplishing
                                                 employment
                                                 rehabilitation for
                                                 Veterans with service-
                                                 connected disabilities.
                                                 VA will award grants on
                                                 the basis of an
                                                 eligible entity's
                                                 proposed use of a Pay
                                                 for Success (PFS)
                                                 strategy to achieve
                                                 goals. This interim
                                                 final rule established
                                                 regulations for
                                                 awarding a VEPFS grant,
                                                 including the general
                                                 process for awarding
                                                 the grant, criteria and
                                                 parameters for
                                                 evaluating grant
                                                 applications,
                                                 priorities related to
                                                 the award of a grant,
                                                 and general
                                                 requirements and
                                                 guidance for
                                                 administering a VEPFS
                                                 grant program.
2900-AP35................  Tiered Pharmacy      The Department of
                            Copayments for       Veterans Affairs (VA)
                            Medications.         proposes to amend its
                                                 regulations concerning
                                                 copayments charged to
                                                 certain veterans for
                                                 medication required on
                                                 an outpatient basis to
                                                 treat nonservice-
                                                 connected conditions.
                                                 This rulemaking would
                                                 establish three classes
                                                 of medications for
                                                 copayment purposes,
                                                 identified as Tier 1,
                                                 Tier 2, and Tier 3.
                                                 These tiers would
                                                 distinguish in part
                                                 based on whether the
                                                 medications are
                                                 available from multiple
                                                 sources or a single
                                                 source, with some
                                                 exceptions. Copayment
                                                 amounts would be fixed,
                                                 and would be dependent
                                                 upon the class of
                                                 medication. For most
                                                 veterans these
                                                 copayment amounts would
                                                 result in lower out-of-
                                                 pocket costs, thereby
                                                 encouraging greater
                                                 adherence to prescribed
                                                 medications and
                                                 reducing the risk of
                                                 fragmented care that
                                                 results when veterans
                                                 use multiple pharmacies
                                                 to fill their
                                                 prescriptions.
2900-AP57................  Repayment by VA of   The Department of
                            Educational Loans    Veterans Affairs (VA)
                            for Certain          has added to its
                            Psychiatrists        medical regulations a
                            (Clay Hunt Act).     program for the
                                                 repayment of
                                                 educational loans for
                                                 certain psychiatrists
                                                 who agree to a period
                                                 of obligated service
                                                 with VA. This program
                                                 is intended to increase
                                                 the pool of qualified
                                                 VA psychiatrists and
                                                 increase veterans'
                                                 access to mental health
                                                 care.
2900-AO88................  Per Diem Paid to     The Department of
                            States for Care of   Veterans Affairs (VA)
                            Eligible Veterans    proposed to reorganize,
                            in State Homes.      update (based on
                                                 revisions to statutory
                                                 authority), and clarify
                                                 its regulations that
                                                 govern paying per diem
                                                 to State homes
                                                 providing nursing home
                                                 and adult day health
                                                 care to eligible
                                                 veterans. The
                                                 reorganization will
                                                 improve consistency and
                                                 clarity throughout
                                                 these State home
                                                 programs. We believe
                                                 that these proposed
                                                 regulations will
                                                 clarify current law and
                                                 policy, which should
                                                 improve and simplify
                                                 the payment of per diem
                                                 to State homes, and
                                                 encourage participation
                                                 in these programs. VA
                                                 plans to finalize this
                                                 proposal after
                                                 considering public
                                                 comments.
2900-AP60................  Expanded Access to   The Department of
                            Non-VA Care          Veterans Affairs (VA)
                            Through the          revised its medical
                            Veterans Choice      regulations that
                            Program (VCP).       implement section 101
                                                 of the Veterans Access,
                                                 Choice, and
                                                 Accountability Act of
                                                 2014 (hereafter
                                                 referred to as ``the
                                                 Choice Act''), which
                                                 requires VA to
                                                 establish a program to
                                                 furnish hospital care
                                                 and medical services
                                                 through eligible non-VA
                                                 health care providers
                                                 to eligible veterans
                                                 who either cannot be
                                                 seen within the wait-
                                                 time goals of the
                                                 Veterans Health
                                                 Administration (VHA) or
                                                 who qualify based on
                                                 their place of
                                                 residence (hereafter
                                                 referred to as ``the
                                                 Veterans Choice
                                                 Program'' or ``the
                                                 Program''). These
                                                 regulatory revisions
                                                 are required by the
                                                 most recent amendments
                                                 to the Choice Act made
                                                 by the Construction
                                                 Authorization and
                                                 Choice Improvement Act
                                                 of 2014, and by the
                                                 Surface Transportation
                                                 and Veterans Health
                                                 Care Choice Improvement
                                                 Act of 2015. The
                                                 Construction
                                                 Authorization and
                                                 Choice Improvement Act
                                                 of 2014 amended the
                                                 Choice Act to define
                                                 additional criteria
                                                 that VA may use to
                                                 determine that a
                                                 veteran's travel to a
                                                 VA medical facility is
                                                 an ``unusual or
                                                 excessive burden,'' and
                                                 the Surface
                                                 Transportation and
                                                 Veterans Health Care
                                                 Choice Improvement Act
                                                 of 2015 amended the
                                                 Choice Act to cover all
                                                 veterans enrolled in
                                                 the VA health care
                                                 system, remove the 60-
                                                 day limit on an episode
                                                 of care, modify the
                                                 wait-time and 40-mile
                                                 distance eligibility
                                                 criteria, and expand
                                                 provider eligibility
                                                 based on criteria as
                                                 determined by VA.
2900-AP44................  Advanced Practice    The Department of
                            Registered Nurses.   Veterans Affairs (VA)
                                                 proposed to amend its
                                                 medical regulations to
                                                 permit full practice
                                                 authority of all VA
                                                 advanced practice
                                                 registered nurses
                                                 (APRNs) when they are
                                                 acting within the scope
                                                 of their VA employment.
                                                 This rulemaking would
                                                 increase veterans'
                                                 access to VA health
                                                 care by expanding the
                                                 pool of qualified
                                                 health care
                                                 professionals who are
                                                 authorized to provide
                                                 primary health care and
                                                 other related health
                                                 care services to the
                                                 full extent of their
                                                 education, training,
                                                 and certification,
                                                 without the clinical
                                                 supervision of
                                                 physicians. This rule
                                                 would permit VA to use
                                                 its health care
                                                 resources more
                                                 effectively and in a
                                                 manner that is
                                                 consistent with the
                                                 role of APRNs in the
                                                 non-VA health care
                                                 sector, while
                                                 maintaining the patient-
                                                 centered, safe, high-
                                                 quality health care
                                                 that veterans receive
                                                 from VA. VA will
                                                 finalize its proposal
                                                 after considering
                                                 public comments.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations
    Consistent with guidance from section 6 of Executive Order 13563, 
VA identifies rules that are to be ``modified, streamlined, expanded, 
or repealed so as to make the agency's regulatory program more 
effective or less burdensome in achieving the regulatory objectives.'' 
In addition, consistent with Executive Order 13610, initiatives that 
are discussed in those plans are identified below.

[[Page 94634]]



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Significantly reduce burdens on
              RIN                        Title                 small businesses           Summary of rulemaking
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Multiple RINs..................  Revise and            No.............................  VA is proposing to amend
                                  Streamline VA                                          VA Acquisition
                                  Acquisition                                            Regulation (VAAR) as
                                  Regulation to                                          part of a project to
                                  Adhere to Federal                                      update the VAAR. Under
                                  Acquisition.                                           this initiative all
                                                                                         parts of the regulation
                                                                                         are being reviewed and
                                                                                         updated in phased
                                                                                         increments to
                                                                                         incorporate any new
                                                                                         regulations or policies
                                                                                         and to remove any
                                                                                         procedural guidance
                                                                                         that is internal to VA.
                                                                                         This project aims to
                                                                                         streamline the VAAR to
                                                                                         implement and
                                                                                         supplement the Federal
                                                                                         Acquisition Regulation
                                                                                         (FAR) only when
                                                                                         required, and to
                                                                                         eliminate internal
                                                                                         agency guidance in
                                                                                         keeping with the FAR
                                                                                         principles concerning
                                                                                         agency acquisition
                                                                                         regulations.
2900-AO53......................  Fiduciary Activities  No.............................  VA proposes to amend its
                                                                                         fiduciary program
                                                                                         regulations, which
                                                                                         govern the oversight of
                                                                                         beneficiaries who,
                                                                                         because of injury,
                                                                                         disease, the
                                                                                         infirmities of advanced
                                                                                         age, or minority, are
                                                                                         unable to manage their
                                                                                         VA benefits, and the
                                                                                         appointment and
                                                                                         oversight of
                                                                                         fiduciaries for these
                                                                                         vulnerable
                                                                                         beneficiaries. The
                                                                                         proposed amendments
                                                                                         would update and
                                                                                         reorganize regulations
                                                                                         consistent with current
                                                                                         law, VA policies and
                                                                                         procedures, and VA's
                                                                                         reorganization of its
                                                                                         fiduciary activities.
                                                                                         They would also clarify
                                                                                         the rights of
                                                                                         beneficiaries in the
                                                                                         program and the roles
                                                                                         of VA and fiduciaries
                                                                                         in ensuring that VA
                                                                                         benefits are managed in
                                                                                         the best interest of
                                                                                         beneficiaries and their
                                                                                         dependents.
Multiple RINs..................  VA Schedule for       No.............................  VA is updating its
                                  Rating Disabilities                                    Schedule for Rating
                                  (With Specific Body                                    Disabilities (VASRD, or
                                  System).                                               Rating Schedule) to
                                                                                         better reflect modern
                                                                                         medicine. The VASRD,
                                                                                         which is part 4 of
                                                                                         title 38, Code of
                                                                                         Federal Regulations,
                                                                                         governs how claims
                                                                                         processors evaluate the
                                                                                         severity of
                                                                                         disabilities. While VA
                                                                                         has routinely updated
                                                                                         parts of the VASRD,
                                                                                         this proposal is the
                                                                                         first time VA is
                                                                                         working to update the
                                                                                         entire VASRD since
                                                                                         1945. In 2009, a formal
                                                                                         project management plan
                                                                                         was created to outline
                                                                                         how to update the
                                                                                         VASRD. A working group
                                                                                         of specialized
                                                                                         physicians (VA and non-
                                                                                         VA), stakeholders, and
                                                                                         claims processors
                                                                                         reviews each of the 15
                                                                                         body systems and
                                                                                         provides analysis to
                                                                                         assist VA in developing
                                                                                         updates. The public has
                                                                                         60 days to provide VA
                                                                                         with comments. VA will
                                                                                         introduce the proposed
                                                                                         updates to the VASRD
                                                                                         incrementally and is
                                                                                         committed to an update
                                                                                         of the entire VASRD.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


VA

Proposed Rule Stage

101. Schedule for Rating Disabilities: the Genitourinary Diseases and 
Conditions

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1155
    CFR Citation: 38 CFR 4.115; 38 CFR 4.115(a); 38 CFR 4.115(b).
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) proposes to amend 
the portion of the Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) that 
addresses the genitourinary system. The purpose of this change is to 
update current medical terminology, incorporate medical advances that 
have occurred since the last review, and provide well-defined criteria 
in accordance with actual, standard medical clinical practice. The 
proposed rule reflects the most up-to-date medical knowledge and 
clinical practice of nephrology and urology specialties, as well as 
comments from subject matter experts and the public garnered during a 
public forum held January 27-28, 2011.
    Statement of Need: VA is updating its Schedule for Rating 
Disabilities (VASRD, or Rating Schedule) to better reflect modern 
medicine. The VASRD, which is part 4 of title 38, Code of Federal 
Regulations, governs how claims processors evaluate the severity of 
disabilities. While VA has routinely updated parts of the VASRD, this 
proposal is the first time VA is working to update the entire VASRD 
since 1945. In 2009, a formal project management plan was created to 
outline how to update the VASRD. A working group of specialized 
physicians (VA and non-VA), stakeholders, and claims processors reviews 
each of the 15 body systems and provides analysis to assist VA in 
developing updates. The public has 60 days to provide VA with comments. 
VA will introduce the proposed updates to the VASRD incrementally and 
is committed to an update of the entire VASRD.
    Summary of Legal Basis: 38 U.S.C. 1155.
    Alternatives:
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
    Risks:
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   02/00/17  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Dr. Jerry Hersh, Medical Officer, Department of 
Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, Phone: 
202 461-9487, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2900-AP16


[[Page 94635]]



VA

102. Revise and Streamline VA Acquisition Regulation To Adhere to 
Federal Acquisition Regulation Principles (VAAR Case 2014-V001, Parts 
803, 814, 822)

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 40 U.S.C. 121(c); 38 U.S.C. 501; 41 U.S.C. 
1121(c)(3); . . .
    CFR Citation: 48 CFR 801; 48 CFR 802; 48 CFR 803; 48 CFR 812; 48 
CFR 814; 48 CFR 822; 48 CFR 852; 48 CFR 1.301 to 1.304; . . .
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is proposing to 
amend its VA Acquisition Regulation (VAAR) to update the VAAR to 
current FAR requirements, thresholds, definitions, and titles; it 
provides new definitions, updated VA titles and offices; it corrects 
inconsistencies, removes redundancies and duplicate material already 
covered by the FAR; it deletes outdated material or information and 
appropriately renumbers VAAR text and clauses and provisions where 
required to comport with FAR format, numbering and arrangement; and, it 
provides VA acquisition regulations necessary to implement FAR policies 
and procedures within VA, as well as additional policies, procedures, 
solicitation provisions, or contract clauses that supplement the FAR to 
satisfy VA mission needs. This proposed rule revises VAAR parts 803, 
814, and 822. Other revisions to the entirety of the affected parts are 
planned in later proposed rules when those parts are revised in full.
    Statement of Need: The needed changes include proposing to remove 
an information collection burden from the VAAR because it is based on 
an outdated practice in providing bid envelopes. We propose to add 
additional definitions to ensure a common understanding and meaning of 
terms related to debarment and suspensions in the department. We are 
proposing to update the policy governing improper business practices 
and personal conflicts of interests and to clarify the language 
regarding the prohibition of contractors from making reference in its 
commercial advertising regarding VA contracts to avoid implying that 
the Government approves or endorses products or services.
    Summary of Legal Basis: 38 U.S.C. 501, 40 U.S.C. 121(c), 41 U.S.C. 
1121(c)(3), 48 CFR 301-1.304.
    Alternatives:
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
    Risks:
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   02/00/17
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Ricky L. Clark, Senior Procurement Analyst, 
Department of Veterans Affairs, 425 I Street NW., Washington, DC 20001, 
Phone: 202 632-5276, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2900-AP50

VA

103. VA Homeless Providers Grant and Per Diem Program

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501; 38 U.S.C. 2001; 38 U.S.C. 2011; 38 
U.S.C. 2012; 38 U.S.C. 2061; 38 U.S.C. 2064
    CFR Citation: 38 CFR 61.1; 38 CFR 61.5; 38 CFR 61.33; 38 CFR 61.61.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is proposing to 
amend its regulations concerning the VA Homeless Providers Grant and 
Per Diem Program (GPD). These amendments would provide GPD with 
increased flexibility to: (1) Respond to the changing needs of homeless 
veterans; (2) repurpose existing and future funds more efficiently; and 
(3) allow grant providers the ability to add, modify, or eliminate 
components of funded programs. We are proposing these amendments to 
better serve our homeless veteran population and the grantees who serve 
them.
    Statement of Need: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) proposes 
to amend its regulations concerning the VA Homeless Providers Grant and 
Per Diem Program (GPD) to better serve our homeless veteran population 
and the grantees who serve them. For example, VA is proposing to 
increase flexibility for transitioning homeless veterans into permanent 
housing, such as by recognizing ``bridge housing'', a short-term 
housing option for veterans who have accepted a permanent housing 
placement that is not immediately available.
    Summary of Legal Basis: 38 U.S.C. 501, 2001, 2011, 2012, 2061 and 
2064.
    Alternatives:
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
    Risks:
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   01/00/17
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Guy A. Liedke, Program Specialist, Department of 
Veterans Affairs, Grant and Per Diem Field Office, 810 Vermont Avenue 
NW., Washington, DC 20420, Phone: 877 332-0334, Fax: 813 979-3569, 
Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2900-AP54

VA

104. Revise and Streamline VA Acquisition Regulation To Adhere to 
Federal Acquisition Regulation Principles (VAAR Case 2014-V005, Parts 
812, 813)

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 40 U.S.C. 121(c)
    CFR Citation: 48 CFR 1.3; 48 CFR 812; 48 CFR 813; 48 CFR 852.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is proposing to 
amend its VA Acquisition Regulation (VAAR) as part of a project to 
update the VAAR. Under this initiative, all parts of the regulation are 
being reviewed and updated in phased increments to incorporate any new 
regulations or policies and to remove any procedural guidance that is 
internal to the VA. This project aims to streamline the VAAR to 
implement and supplement the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) only 
when required, and to eliminate internal agency guidance in keeping 
with the FAR principles concerning agency acquisition regulations.
    Statement of Need: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is 
proposing to revise the VAAR to add new policy or regulatory 
requirements and to remove any guidance that is applicable only to VA's 
internal operating processes or procedures. FAR 1.302, Limitations, 
requires that agency acquisition regulations shall be limited only to 
those necessary to implement the FAR policies and procedures within the 
agency and to any additional information needed to supplement the FAR 
to satisfy the specific needs of the agency. The needed changes include 
proposing to delete paragraphs when adequately addressed in the FAR, 
add new subsections to clarify that FAR applies to specific parts, and 
to remove sections such as the section that deals with internal 
procedures for obtaining a waiver to tailor solicitations, to be 
inconsistent with customary commercial practice.
    Summary of Legal Basis: 40 U.S.C. 121(c).

[[Page 94636]]

    Alternatives:
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
    Risks:
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   02/00/17
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Ricky L. Clark, Senior Procurement Analyst, 
Department of Veterans Affairs, 425 I Street NW., Washington, DC 20001, 
Phone: 202 632-5276, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2900-AP58

VA

105. Diseases Associated With Exposure to Contaminants in the Water 
Supply at Camp Lejeune

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Legal Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501(a)
    CFR Citation: 38 CFR 3.307; 38 CFR 3.309.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has proposed to 
amend its adjudication regulations relating to presumptive service 
connection to add certain diseases associated with contaminants present 
in the base water supply at U.S. Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune (Camp 
Lejeune), North Carolina, from August 1, 1953 to December 31, 1987. The 
chemical compounds involved have been associated by various scientific 
organizations with the development of certain diseases. The proposed 
rule would establish that veterans, former reservists, and former 
National Guard members, who served at Camp Lejeune during this period, 
and who have been diagnosed with any of nine associated diseases, are 
presumed to have a service-connected disability for purposes of 
entitlement to VA benefits. In addition, VA would establish a 
presumption that these individuals were disabled during the relevant 
period of service, thus establishing active military service for 
benefit purposes. Under this presumption, affected former reservists 
and National Guard members have veteran status for purposes of 
entitlement to some VA benefits. This amendment implements a decision 
by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs that service connection on a 
presumptive basis is warranted for claimants who served at Camp Lejeune 
and later develop certain diseases. VA plans to finalize this proposal 
after considering public comments.
    Statement of Need: VA is responding to health concerns based on 
potentially service-connected exposure to contaminants in the drinking 
water at Camp Lejeune. Environmental Protection Agency standards came 
out in the early 1980s. In 1982, the Marine Corps discovered elevated 
levels of the VOCs in two of the eight on-base water supply systems at 
Camp Lejeune. These water systems served housing, administrative, and 
recreational facilities, as well as the base hospital.
    Summary of Legal Basis: 38 U.S.C. 501(a).
    Alternatives:
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
    Risks:
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   09/09/16  81 FR 62419
NPRM Comment Period End.............   10/11/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    URL For Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Eric Mandle, Policy Analyst, Regulations Staff 
(211D), Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Benefits 
Administration, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, Phone: 
202 461-9694, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2900-AP66

VA

106.  Revise and Streamline VA Acquisition Regulation To Adhere 
to Federal Acquisition Regulation Principles VAAR Case 2014-V004 (Parts 
811, 832)

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 40 U.S.C. 121(c); 48 CFR 1.3
    CFR Citation: 48 CFR 801; 48 CFR 811; 48 CFR 832; 48 CFR 852.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is proposing to 
amend its VA Acquisition Regulation (VAAR) to update the VAAR to 
current FAR requirements, thresholds, definitions, and titles; it 
provides new definitions, updated VA titles and offices; it corrects 
inconsistencies, removes redundancies and duplicate material already 
covered by the FAR; it deletes outdated material or information and 
appropriately renumbers VAAR text and clauses and provisions where 
required to comport with FAR format, numbering and arrangement; and, it 
provides VA acquisition regulations necessary to implement FAR policies 
and procedures within VA, as well as additional policies, procedures, 
solicitation provisions, or contract clauses that supplement the FAR to 
satisfy VA mission needs.
    Statement of Need: Included in the proposed changes that are needed 
are removing a significant portion of subpart 811.1, Selecting and 
Developing Requirements Documents, as it includes information that is 
redundant to the FAR. In addition, we propose to add a new section to 
implement the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Memorandum M-11-
32, dated September 14, 2011, and to encourage making payments to small 
business contractors within 15 days of receipt of invoice.
    Summary of Legal Basis: 40 U.S.C. 121(c), 48 CFR 1.3.
    Alternatives:
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
    Risks:
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   04/00/17
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Ricky L. Clark, Senior Procurement Analyst, 
Department of Veterans Affairs, 425 I Street NW., Washington, DC 20001, 
Phone: 202 632-5276, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2900-AP81

VA

107.  Revise and Streamline VA Acquisition Regulation To Adhere 
to Federal Acquisition Regulation Principles (VAAR Case 2014-V002, 
Parts 816, 828)

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 40 U.S.C. 121(c); 48 CFR 1.3
    CFR Citation: 48 CFR 816; 48 CFR 828; 48 CFR 852.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is proposing to 
amend its VA Acquisition Regulation (VAAR) to update the VAAR to 
current FAR requirements, thresholds, definitions, and titles; it 
provides new definitions, updated VA titles and offices; it corrects

[[Page 94637]]

inconsistencies, removes redundancies and duplicate material already 
covered by the FAR; it deletes outdated material or information and 
appropriately renumbers VAAR text and clauses and provisions where 
required to comport with FAR format, numbering and arrangement; and, it 
provides VAARs necessary to implement FAR policies and procedures 
within VA, as well as additional policies, procedures, solicitation 
provisions, or contract clauses that supplement the FAR to satisfy VA 
mission needs. This proposed rule revises VAAR parts 816 and 828, and 
as a result of these changes revises small portions of VAAR part 852 
(Solicitation provisions and contract clauses), as appropriate.
    Statement of Need: The proposed needed changes include adding a 
section on consignment agreements which defines and describes the 
consignment agreement acquisition method used for satisfying the need 
for immediate and on-going requirements. We propose to remove the 
section, Letters of Availability, as that procurement method is no 
longer in use in VA. Also, we propose to revise the section, Insurance 
Under Fixed-Price Contracts, to clarify the provision prescription for 
when insurance is required for solicitations when utilizing term or 
continuing fixed priced contracts for ambulance, automobile and 
aircraft service.
    Summary of Legal Basis: 40 U.S.C. 121(c), 48 CFR 1.3.
    Alternatives:
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
    Risks:
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   04/00/17
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Ricky L. Clark, Senior Procurement Analyst, 
Department of Veterans Affairs, 425 I Street NW., Washington, DC 20001, 
Phone: 202 632-5276, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2900-AP82

VA

Final Rule Stage

108. Schedule for Rating Disabilities: The Hematologic and Lymphatic 
Systems

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1155
    CFR Citation: 38 CFR 4.117.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) proposes to amend 
the portion of the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (Rating 
Schedule) that addresses the hematologic and lymphatic systems. The 
intended effect of this change is to incorporate medical advances that 
have occurred since the last review, update medical terminology, add 
medical conditions not currently in the Rating Schedule, and refine 
criteria for further clarity and ease of rater application.
    Statement of Need: VA is updating its Schedule for Rating 
Disabilities (VASRD, or Rating Schedule) to better reflect modern 
medicine. The VASRD, which is part 4 of title 38, Code of Federal 
Regulations, governs how claims processors evaluate the severity of 
disabilities. While VA has routinely updated parts of the VASRD, this 
proposal is the first time VA is working to update the entire VASRD 
since 1945. In 2009, a formal project management plan was created to 
outline how to update the VASRD. A working group of specialized 
physicians (VA and non-VA), stakeholders, and claims processors reviews 
each of the 15 body systems and provides analysis to assist VA in 
developing updates. The public has 60 days to provide VA with comments. 
VA will introduce the proposed updates to the VASRD incrementally and 
is committed to an update of the entire VASRD.
    Summary of Legal Basis: 38 U.S.C. 1155.
    Alternatives:
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
    Risks:
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   08/06/15  80 FR 46888
NPRM Comment Period End.............   10/05/15
Final Rule..........................   04/00/17
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    URL For Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Dr. Ioulia Vvedenskaya, Medical Officer, Department 
of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Benefits Administration, 810 Vermont 
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, Phone: 202 461-9882, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 2900-AO19

VA

109. Schedule for Rating Disabilities: The Endocrine System

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1155
    CFR Citation: 38 CFR 4.119.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) proposes to 
revise the portion of the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (Rating 
Schedule) that addresses the endocrine system. The intended effect of 
this change is to update medical terminology, add medical conditions 
not currently in the Rating Schedule, revise the criteria to reflect 
medical advances since the last revision in 1996, and clarify the 
criteria.
    Statement of Need: VA is updating its Schedule for Rating 
Disabilities (VASRD, or Rating Schedule) to better reflect modern 
medicine. The VASRD, which is part 4 of title 38, Code of Federal 
Regulations, governs how claims processors evaluate the severity of 
disabilities. While VA has routinely updated parts of the VASRD, this 
proposal is the first time VA is working to update the entire VASRD 
since 1945. In 2009, a formal project management plan was created to 
outline how to update the VASRD. A working group of specialized 
physicians (VA and non-VA), stakeholders, and claims processors reviews 
each of the 15 body systems and provides analysis to assist VA in 
developing updates. The public has 60 days to provide VA with comments. 
VA will introduce the proposed updates to the VASRD incrementally and 
is committed to an update of the entire VASRD.
    Summary of Legal Basis: 38 U.S.C. 1155.
    Alternatives:
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
    Risks:
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   07/08/15  80 FR 39011
NPRM Comment Period End.............   09/08/15
Final Rule..........................   02/00/17
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    URL For Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Dr. Ioulia Vvedenskaya, Medical Officer, Department 
of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Benefits Administration, 810 Vermont 
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, Phone: 202 461-9882, Email: 
[email protected].

[[Page 94638]]

    RIN: 2900-AO44

VA

110. Fiduciary Activities

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501; 38 U.S.C. 55; 38 U.S.C. 61; 38 
U.S.C. 5502; 38 U.S.C. 5506-5510; 38 U.S.C. 6101; 38 U.S.C. 6106-6108; 
38 U.S.C. 512; 38 U.S.C. 5301; 38 U.S.C. 5711; 38 U.S.C. 5504
    CFR Citation: 38 CFR 13.10 to 13.600; 38 CFR 3.850 to 3.857; 38 CFR 
3.353; 38 CFR 3.401, 3.403; 38 CFR 3.452 ; 38 CFR 3.500, 3.501.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) proposed to amend 
its fiduciary program regulations, which govern the oversight of 
beneficiaries who, because of injury, disease, the infirmities of 
advanced age, or minority, are unable to manage their VA benefits and 
the appointment and oversight of fiduciaries for these vulnerable 
beneficiaries. The proposed amendments would update and reorganize 
regulations consistent with current law, VA policies and procedures, 
and VA's reorganization of its fiduciary activities. They would also 
clarify the rights of beneficiaries in the program and the roles of VA 
and fiduciaries in ensuring that VA benefits are managed in the best 
interest of beneficiaries and their dependents.
    Statement of Need: This final rule would amend VA fiduciary 
regulations, 38 CFR part 13, and removes 3.850 through 3.857 pertaining 
to fiduciary matters, from part 3. This amendment would implement the 
statutory provisions of 38 U.S.C. 55 and 61, reflect current VA 
policies, and prescribe the rights of beneficiaries and the roles of VA 
and fiduciaries in the fiduciary program.
    Summary of Legal Basis: 38 U.S.C. chapters 55 and 61.
    Alternatives:
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
    Risks:
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   01/03/14  79 FR 430
NPRM Comment Period End.............   03/04/14
Final Action........................   03/00/17
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    URL For Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Savitri Persaud, Analyst, Pension and Fiduciary 
Service, Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Benefits 
Administration, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, Phone: 
202 632-8863, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2900-AO53

VA

111. Per Diem Paid to States for Care of Eligible Veterans in State 
Homes

    Priority: Other Significant
    Legal Authority: 38 U.S.C. 101, 501 and 1710; 38 U.S.C. 1741 to 
1743; 38 U.S.C. 1745; 38 U.S.C. 7104 and 7105; 42 U.S.C. 1395(cc)
    CFR Citation: 38 CFR 51.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) proposed to 
reorganize, update (based on revisions to statutory authority), and 
clarify its regulations that govern paying per diem to State homes 
providing nursing home and adult day health care to eligible veterans. 
The reorganization will improve consistency and clarity throughout 
these State home programs. We believe that these proposed regulations 
will clarify current law and policy, which should improve and simplify 
the payment of per diem to State homes, and encourage participation in 
these programs. VA plans to finalize this proposal after considering 
public comments.
    Statement of Need: The proposed reorganization would improve 
consistency and clarity throughout these State home programs. 
Currently, we require States to operate these programs exclusively 
using a medical supervision model. We expect that these liberalizing 
changes will result in an increase in the number of States that have 
adult day health care programs. Moreover, we proposed to eliminate the 
regulations governing per diem for State home hospitals because there 
are no longer any State home hospitals.
    Summary of Legal Basis: 38 U.S.C. 101, 501, 1710, 1741 to 1743, 
1745, 7104, 7105, and 42 U.S.C. 1395(cc).
    Alternatives:
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
    Risks:
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   06/17/15  80 FR 34793
NPRM; Correction and Clarification..   06/24/15  80 FR 36305
NPRM Comment Period End.............   08/17/15
Final Action........................   05/00/17
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    URL For Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Richard Allman, Chief Consultant, Geriatrics and 
Extended Care Services, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont 
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, Phone: 202 461-6750.
    RIN: 2900-AO88

VA

112. Schedule for Rating Disabilities; Dental and Oral Conditions

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1155
    CFR Citation: 38 CFR 4.150.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) proposes to amend 
the portion of the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD or rating 
schedule) that addresses dental and oral conditions. The purpose of 
these changes is to incorporate medical advances that have occurred 
since the last review, update current medical terminology, and provide 
clear evaluation criteria for application of this portion of the rating 
schedule. The proposed rule reflects advances in medical knowledge, 
recommendations from the Dental and Oral Conditions Work Group (``Work 
Group''), which is comprised of subject matter experts from both the 
Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) and the Veterans Health 
Administration (VHA), and comments from experts and the public gathered 
as part of a public forum. The public forum, focusing on revisions to 
the dental and oral conditions section of the VASRD, was held on 
January 25-26, 2011.
    Statement of Need: VA is updating its Schedule for Rating 
Disabilities (VASRD, or Rating Schedule) to better reflect modern 
medicine. The VASRD, which is part 4 of title 38, Code of Federal 
Regulations, governs how claims processors evaluate the severity of 
disabilities. While VA has routinely updated parts of the VASRD, this 
proposal is the first time VA is working to update the entire VASRD 
since 1945. In 2009, a formal project management plan was created to 
outline how to update the VASRD. A working group of specialized 
physicians (VA and non-VA), stakeholders, and claims processors reviews 
each of the 15 body systems and provides analysis to assist VA in 
developing updates. The public

[[Page 94639]]

has 60 days to provide VA with comments. VA will introduce the proposed 
updates to the VASRD incrementally and is committed to an update of the 
entire VASRD.
    Summary of Legal Basis: 38 U.S.C. 1155.
    Alternatives:
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
    Risks:
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   07/28/15  80 FR 44913
NPRM Comment Period End.............   09/28/15
Final Action........................   02/00/17
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Dr. Ioulia Vvedenskaya, Medical Officer, Department 
of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Benefits Administration, 810 Vermont 
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, Phone: 202 461-9882, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 2900-AP08

VA

113. Schedule for Rating Disabilities: Gynecological Conditions and 
Disorders of the Breast

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1155
    CFR Citation: 38 CFR 4.116.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) proposes to amend 
the portion of the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD or rating 
schedule) that addresses gynecological conditions and disorders of the 
breast. The purpose of these changes is to incorporate medical advances 
that have occurred since the last review, update current medical 
terminology, and provide clear evaluation criteria. The proposed rule 
reflects advances in medical knowledge, recommendations from the 
Gynecological Conditions and Disorders of the Breast Work Group (``Work 
Group''), which is comprised of subject matter experts from both the 
Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) and the Veterans Health 
Administration (VHA), and comments from experts and the public gathered 
as part of a public forum. The public forum, focusing on revisions to 
the gynecological conditions and disorders of the breast section of the 
VASRD, was held on January 24, 2012.
    Statement of Need: VA is updating its Schedule for Rating 
Disabilities (VASRD, or Rating Schedule) to better reflect modern 
medicine. The VASRD, which is part 4 of title 38, Code of Federal 
Regulations, governs how claims processors evaluate the severity of 
disabilities. While VA has routinely updated parts of the VASRD, this 
proposal is the first time VA is working to update the entire VASRD 
since 1945. In 2009, a formal project management plan was created to 
outline how to update the VASRD. A working group of specialized 
physicians (VA and non-VA), stakeholders, and claims processors reviews 
each of the 15 body systems and provides analysis to assist VA in 
developing updates. The public has 60 days to provide VA with comments. 
VA will introduce the proposed updates to the VASRD incrementally and 
is committed to an update of the entire VASRD.
    Summary of Legal Basis: 38 U.S.C. 1155.
    Alternatives:
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
    Risks:
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   02/27/15  80 FR 10637
NPRM Comment Period End.............   04/28/15
Final Action........................   02/00/17
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Dr. Ioulia Vvedenskaya, Medical Officer, Department 
of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Benefits Administration, 810 Vermont 
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, Phone: 202 461-9882, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 2900-AP13

VA

114. Schedule for Rating Disabilities: The Organs of Special Sense and 
Schedule of Ratings--Eye

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1155
    CFR Citation: 38 CFR 4.77; 38 CFR 4.78; 38 CFR 4.79.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) proposes to amend 
the portion of the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD or rating 
schedule) that addresses the organs of special sense and schedule of 
ratings--eye. The purpose of these changes is to incorporate medical 
advances that have occurred since the last review, update current 
medical terminology, and provide clear evaluation criteria. The 
proposed rule reflects advances in medical knowledge, recommendations 
from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), and comments from subject 
matter experts and the public garnered as part of a public forum. The 
public forum, focusing on revisions to the organs of special sense and 
schedule of ratings for eye disabilities, was held on January 19-20, 
2012.
    Statement of Need: VA is updating its Schedule for Rating 
Disabilities (VASRD, or Rating Schedule) to better reflect modern 
medicine. The VASRD, which is part 4 of title 38, Code of Federal 
Regulations, governs how claims processors evaluate the severity of 
disabilities. While VA has routinely updated parts of the VASRD, this 
proposal is the first time VA is working to update the entire VASRD 
since 1945. In 2009, a formal project management plan was created to 
outline how to update the VASRD. A working group of specialized 
physicians (VA and non-VA), stakeholders, and claims processors reviews 
each of the 15 body systems and provides analysis to assist VA in 
developing updates. The public has 60 days to provide VA with comments. 
VA will introduce the proposed updates to the VASRD incrementally and 
is committed to an update of the entire VASRD.
    Summary of Legal Basis: 38 U.S.C. 1155.
    Alternatives:
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
    Risks:
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   06/09/15  80 FR 32513
NPRM Comment Period End.............   08/10/15
Final Rule..........................   02/00/17
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL for public comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Dr. Gary Reynolds, Medical Officer, Department of 
Veterans

[[Page 94640]]

Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, Phone: 202 461-
9698, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2900-AP14

VA

115. Schedule for Rating Disabilities: Skin Conditions

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1155
    CFR Citation: 38 CFR 4.118.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) proposes to amend 
the portion of the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD or Rating 
Schedule) that addresses skin conditions. The purpose of these changes 
is to incorporate medical advances that have occurred since the last 
review, update current medical terminology, and provide clear 
evaluation criteria. The proposed rule reflects advances in medical 
knowledge, recommendations from the Skin Disorders Work Group (Work 
Group), which is comprised of subject matter experts from both the 
Veterans Benefits Administration and the Veterans Health 
Administration, and comments from experts and the public gathered as 
part of a public forum. The public forum, focusing on revisions to the 
skin conditions section of the VASRD, was held in January 2012.
    Statement of Need: VA is updating its Schedule for Rating 
Disabilities (VASRD, or Rating Schedule) to better reflect modern 
medicine. The VASRD, which is part 4 of title 38, Code of Federal 
Regulations, governs how claims processors evaluate the severity of 
disabilities. While VA has routinely updated parts of the VASRD, this 
proposal is the first time VA is working to update the entire VASRD 
since 1945. In 2009, a formal project management plan was created to 
outline how to update the VASRD. A working group of specialized 
physicians (VA and non-VA), stakeholders, and claims processors reviews 
each of the 15 body systems and provides analysis to assist VA in 
developing updates. The public has 60 days to provide VA with comments. 
VA will introduce the proposed updates to the VASRD incrementally and 
is committed to an update of the entire VASRD.
    Summary of Legal Basis: 38 U.S.C. 1155.
    Alternatives:
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
    Risks:
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   08/12/16  81 FR 53353
NPRM Comment Period End.............   10/11/16
Final Action........................   07/00/17
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Dr. Gary Reynolds, Medical Officer, Department of 
Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, Phone: 
202 461-9698, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2900-AP27

VA

116. Tiered Pharmacy Copayments for Medications

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Legal Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501
    CFR Citation: 38 CFR 17.110.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) adopts as a final 
rule, with changes, a proposal to amend its regulations concerning 
copayments charged to certain veterans for medication required on an 
outpatient basis to treat nonservice-connected conditions. This 
rulemaking establishes three classes of medications for copayment 
purposes, identified as Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3. These tiers are 
distinguished in part based on whether the medications are available 
from multiple sources or a single source, with some exceptions. 
Copayment amounts are fixed and would vary depending upon the class of 
medication. The following medication copayment amounts are applicable 
on the effective date of this final rule: $5 for a 30-day or less 
supply of a Tier 1 medication, $8 for a 30-day or less supply of a Tier 
2 medication, and $11 for a 30-day or less supply of a Tier 3 
medication.
    Statement of Need: This rulemaking will result in lower out-of-
pocket costs for most veterans, thereby encouraging greater adherence 
to prescribed medications and reducing the risk of fragmented care that 
results when veterans use multiple pharmacies to fill their 
prescriptions.
    Summary of Legal Basis: 38 U.S.C. 501.
    Alternatives:
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
    Risks:
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   01/05/16  81 FR 196
NPRM Comment Period End.............   03/07/16
Final Rule..........................   12/00/16
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Kristin Cunningham, Chief, Business Office (16), 
Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, 810 
Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, Phone: 202 461-1599, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 2900-AP35

VA

117. Advanced Practice Registered Nurses

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 38 U.S.C. 7301; 38 U.S.C. 7304; 38 U.S.C. 7402; 38 
U.S.C. 7403; 38 U.S.C. 501; . . .
    CFR Citation: 38 CFR 17.415.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) proposed to amend 
its medical regulations to permit full practice authority of all VA 
advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs) when they are acting within 
the scope of their VA employment. This rulemaking would increase 
veterans' access to VA health care by expanding the pool of qualified 
health care professionals who are authorized to provide primary health 
care and other related health care services to the full extent of their 
education, training, and certification, without the clinical 
supervision of physicians. This rule would permit VA to use its health 
care resources more effectively and in a manner that is consistent with 
the role of APRNs in the non-VA health care sector, while maintaining 
the patient-centered, safe, high-quality health care that veterans 
receive from VA.
    Statement of Need: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is 
proposing to amend its medical regulations to remove barriers to the 
full practice authority of all VA advanced practice registered nurses 
(APRNs) when they are acting within the scope of their VA employment. 
This rulemaking would increase veterans' access to VA health care by 
expanding the pool of qualified health care professionals who are fully 
authorized to provide comprehensive primary health care and other 
related

[[Page 94641]]

health care services to veterans. This rule would permit VA to use its 
health care resources more effectively and in a manner that is 
consistent with the non-VA health care sector, while maintaining the 
patient-centered, safe, high quality health care that veterans receive 
from VA.
    Summary of Legal Basis: 38 U.S.C. 7301, 7304, 7402 and 7403.
    Alternatives:
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
    Risks:
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   05/25/16  81 FR 33155
NPRM Comment Period End.............   07/25/16
Final Action........................   01/00/17
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Federalism: Undetermined.
    Agency Contact: David J. Shulkin, Under Secretary for Health, 
Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 
20420, Phone: 202 461-7000.
    RIN: 2900-AP44

VA

118. Expanded Access to Non-VA Care Through The Veterans Choice Program

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Legal Authority: Sec. 101 Pub. L. 113-146, 128 stat. 1754; sec. 
4005 Pub. L. 114-41, 129 stat. 443; 38 U.S.C. 501
    CFR Citation: 38 CFR 17.1505; 38 CFR 17.1510; 38 CFR 17.1525; 38 
CFR 17.1530.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) revised its 
medical regulations that implement section 101 of the Veterans Access, 
Choice, and Accountability Act of 2014 (hereafter referred to as ``the 
Choice Act''), which requires VA to establish a program to furnish 
hospital care and medical services through eligible non-VA health care 
providers to eligible veterans who either cannot be seen within the 
wait-time goals of the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) or who 
qualify based on their place of residence (hereafter referred to as the 
``Veterans Choice Program'' or ``the Program''). These regulatory 
revisions are required by the most recent amendments to the Choice Act 
made by the Construction Authorization and Choice Improvement Act of 
2014, and by the Surface Transportation and Veterans Health Care Choice 
Improvement Act of 2015.
    Statement of Need: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) amends 
its medical regulations concerning its authority for eligible veterans 
to receive care from non-VA entities and providers as required by 
certain new laws. The Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act 
of 2014 (the Choice Act) directs VA to establish a program to furnish 
hospital care and medical services through non-VA care health care 
providers. The Construction Authorization and Choice Improvement Act 
defined additional criteria to determine that a veteran's travel to a 
VA medical facility is an unusual or excessive burden, and the Surface 
Transportation and Veterans Health Care Choice Improvement Act added 
further requirements.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Pub. L. 113-146, section 101 (38 U.S.C. 
1701 note); Pub. L. 114-19, section 3(a)(2); Pub. L. 114-41, section 
4005.
    Alternatives:
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
    Risks:
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule..................   12/01/15  80 FR 74991
Interim Final Rule Effective........   12/01/15
Interim Final Rule Comment Period      03/30/16
 End.
Interim Final Rule; Correcting         04/25/16  81 FR 24026
 Amendment.
Final Rule..........................   09/00/17
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    URL for More Information: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Kristin Cunningham, Chief, Business Office (16), 
Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, 810 
Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, Phone: 202 461-1599, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 2900-AP60

VA

119. Veterans Employment Pay For Success Grant Program

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501; 38 U.S.C. 3119; 38 U.S.C. 501(a), 
ch 31; 38 U.S.C. 501(a), ch 18
    CFR Citation: 38 CFR 21.440 to 21.449.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) established a 
grant program (Veterans Employment Pay for Success (VEPFS)) under the 
authority of 38 U.S.C. 3119 to award grants to eligible entities to 
fund projects that are successful in accomplishing employment 
rehabilitation for Veterans with service-connected disabilities. VA 
will award grants on the basis of an eligible entity's proposed use of 
a Pay for Success (PFS) strategy to achieve goals. This interim final 
rule established regulations for awarding a VEPFS grant, including the 
general process for awarding the grant, criteria and parameters for 
evaluating grant applications, priorities related to the award of a 
grant, and general requirements and guidance for administering a VEPFS 
grant program.
    Statement of Need: There is a need to find new, innovative methods 
for rehabilitating Veterans with compensable service-connected 
disabilities who qualify for benefits under VA's Vocational 
Rehabilitation & Employment (VR&E) program so that they become 
employable and are ultimately able to obtain and maintain suitable 
employment. Through Pay For Success (PFS) grant programs, which may 
serve various Veteran populations including those Veterans with 
noncompensable service-connected disabilities who do not qualify for 
VR&E benefits, we hope to obtain information to establish new, 
innovative methods for rehabilitating Veterans who qualify for VR&E 
benefits. PFS offers an economical mechanism, which can save taxpayers' 
money, for exploring the resources and techniques that are available 
for rehabilitating Veterans with service-connected disabilities with 
regard to employment.
    Summary of Legal Basis: 38 U.S.C. 501, 3119.
    Alternatives:
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
    Risks:
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule..................   08/10/16  81 FR 52770
Interim Final Rule Effective........   08/10/16
Interim Final Rule Comment Period      10/11/16
 End.
Final Action........................   03/00/17
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Patrick Littlefield, Department of Veterans 
Affairs, 1800 G

[[Page 94642]]

Street NW., Washington, DC 20006, Phone: 202 256-7176, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 2900-AP72

BILLING CODE 8320-01-P

ARCHITECTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS COMPLIANCE BOARD

FY 2017 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 five rulemaking priorities for the Access 
Board in FY 2017: (A) Information and Communication Technology 
Accessibility Standards and Guidelines; (B) Americans with Disabilities 
Act (ADA) Accessibility Guidelines for Transportation Vehicles; (C) 
Medical Diagnostic Equipment Accessibility Standards; (D) Accessibility 
Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way; and 
(E) Passenger Vessel Accessibility Guidelines. The guidelines and 
standards would enable individuals with disabilities to achieve greater 
participation in our society, independent living, and economic self-
sufficiency, and would promote our national values of equity, human 
dignity, and fairness, the benefits of which are difficult to quantify.
    The rulemakings are summarized below.

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

    This rulemaking would update in a single document the accessibility 
standards for electronic and information technology covered by section 
508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. 794d) 
(Section 508), and the accessibility guidelines for telecommunications 
equipment and customer premises equipment covered by section 255 of the 
Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 255) (Section 255). Section 508 
requires the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council (FAR Council) and 
each appropriate federal department or agency to revise their 
procurement policies and directives no later than 6 months after the 
Access Board's publication of standards. The FAR Council has 
incorporated the accessibility standards for electronic and information 
technology in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (48 CFR Chapter 1). 
Under section 255, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is 
responsible for issuing implementing regulations and enforcing section 
255. The FCC has promulgated enforceable standards (47 CFR parts 6 and 
7) implementing section 255 that are consistent with the Access Board's 
accessibility guidelines for telecommunications equipment and customer 
premises equipment.
    The Access Board's 2010 ANPRM included a proposal to amend section 
220 of the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines 
(ADAAG), but, based on public comments, the ADAAG proposal is no longer 
included in this rulemaking and will be pursued separately at a later 
date.
    A.1. Statement of Need: The Access Board issued the Electronic and 
Information Technology Accessibility Standards in 2000 (65 FR 80500, 
December 21, 2000), and the Telecommunications Act Accessibility 
Guidelines for telecommunications equipment and customer premises 
equipment in 1998 (63 FR 5608, February 3, 1998). Since the standards 
and the guidelines were issued, technology has evolved and changed. 
Telecommunications products and electronic and information technology 
products have converged. For example, smartphones can perform many of 
the same functions as computers. Real time text technologies and video 
relay services are replacing TTY's (text telephones). The Access Board 
is updating the standards and guidelines together to address changes in 
technology and to make them consistent.
    A.2. Summary of the Legal Basis: Section 508 and Section 255 
require the Access Board to develop accessibility standards for 
electronic and information technology and accessibility guidelines for 
telecommunications equipment and customer premises equipment, and to 
periodically review and update the standards and guidelines to reflect 
technological advances and changes.
    Section 508 requires that when developing, procuring, maintaining, 
or using electronic and information technology, each federal department 
or agency must ensure, unless an undue burden would be imposed on the 
department or agency, that electronic and information technology 
(regardless of the type of medium) allows individuals with disabilities 
to have access to and use of information and 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

[[Page 94643]]

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 (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

[[Page 94644]]

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 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.

E. Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Accessibility Guidelines for 
Passenger Vessels (RIN: 3014-AA11)

    The rulemaking would establish accessibility guidelines to ensure 
that newly constructed and altered passenger vessels covered by the 
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) are accessible to and usable by 
individuals with disabilities. The U.S. Department of Transportation 
and U.S. Department of Justice are expected to adopt the guidelines as 
enforceable standards in separate rulemakings for the construction and 
alteration of passenger vessels covered by the ADA.
    E.1. Statement of Need: Section 504 of the ADA requires the Access 
Board to issue accessibility guidelines for the construction and 
alteration of passenger vessels covered by the law to ensure that the 
vessels are readily accessible to

[[Page 94645]]

and usable by individuals with disabilities (42 U.S.C. 12204).
    E.2. Summary of the Legal Basis: Title II of the ADA applies to 
state and local governments and title III of the ADA applies to places 
of public accommodation operated by private entities. The ADA covers 
designated public transportation services provided by state and local 
governments and specified public transportation services provided by 
private entities that are primarily engaged in the business of 
transporting people and whose operations affect commerce. (See 42 
U.S.C. 12141 to 12147 and 12184.)
    Titles II and III of the ADA require the DOT and DOJ to issue 
accessibility standards for the construction and alteration of 
passenger vessels covered by the law that are consistent with the 
guidelines issued by the Access Board. (See 42 U.S.C. 12134(c), 
12149(b), 12186(c).) The DOT has reserved a subpart in its ADA 
regulations for accessibility standards for passenger vessels in 
anticipation of the Access Board issuing these guidelines. (See 49 CFR 
part 39, subpart E.) Once DOT and DOJ issue accessibility standards for 
the construction and alteration of passenger vessels covered by the 
ADA, vessel owners and operators are then required to comply with the 
standards.
    E.3. Alternatives: In developing the proposed accessibility 
guidelines, the Access Board has received and considered extensive 
input from passenger vessel owners and operators, individuals with 
disabilities, and other interested parties for more than a decade. The 
Access Board convened an advisory committee comprised of passenger 
vessel industry trade groups, passenger vessel owners and operators, 
disability advocacy groups, and state and local government agencies to 
advise how to develop the accessibility guidelines. The committee 
submitted its report to the Access Board in 2000. In addition, over the 
years, the Access Board issued an ANPRM and three versions of draft 
accessibility guidelines and conducted in-depth case studies on various 
passenger vessels. The Access Board solicited and analyzed public 
comments on these documents in developing the proposed guidelines and 
regulatory impact analysis. All the published documents together with 
public comments are available at: http://www.access-board.gov.
    E.4. Anticipated Costs and Benefits: The proposed guidelines would 
address the discriminatory effects of architectural, transportation, 
and communication barriers encountered by individuals with disabilities 
on passenger vessels. The estimated compliance costs for certain types 
of vessels include: (1) The incremental impact of constructing a vessel 
in compliance with the guidelines; and (2) any additional costs 
attributable to the operation and maintenance of accessible features. 
For certain large cruise ships, the compliance costs would include loss 
of guest rooms and gross revenues attributed to a proposed requirement 
for a minimum number of guest rooms that provide mobility features. The 
proposed guidelines would significantly benefit individuals with 
disabilities by affording them equal opportunity to travel on passenger 
vessels for employment, transportation, public accommodation, and 
leisure. Other benefits, which are difficult to quantify, include 
equity, human dignity, and fairness values.

BILLING CODE 8150-01-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA)

Statement of Priorities

Overview

    For more than 40 years, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
(EPA) has worked to protect people's health and the environment. By 
taking advantage of the best thinking, the newest technologies and the 
most cost-effective, sustainable solutions, EPA and its Federal, 
tribal, 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' 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 40 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.
Goal 1: Addressing Climate Change and Improving Air Quality
    The Agency will continue to deploy existing regulatory tools where 
appropriate and warranted. Using the Clean Air Act, EPA will continue 
to develop standards, as appropriate, for both mobile and stationary 
sources, to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants, 
including sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and 
toxics.
    Greenhouse Gas Emissions from 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. On February 9, 2016, the 
Supreme Court stayed implementation of these standards and guidelines 
pending judicial review. The Court's decision was not on the merits of 
the rules.
    For the states that choose to continue to work to cut carbon 
pollution from power plants and seek the Agency's guidance and 
assistance, EPA will continue to provide tools and support, including 
issuing Model Trading Rules as a tool for states to use in developing 
plans that achieve carbon reductions. These Model Trading Rules were 
proposed in July 2015, and will be finalized in late 2016. The Clean 
Energy Incentive Program (CEIP), which was

[[Page 94646]]

proposed in 2016, will be finalized in 2017.
    Renewable Fuels. The Clean Air Act requires 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. In May of 2016, EPA issued a proposal to set the 
applicable volumes for all renewable fuel categories for 2017 and the 
BBD standard for 2018. EPA will finalize that rule in late 2016. EPA 
also intends to propose RFS volume requirements for 2018 and the 2019 
BBD standard in May of 2017. Also in 2016, EPA proposed to make 
numerous changes to promote the production of renewable fuels and 
clarify certain requirements under the RFS program. When finalized in 
early 2017, that action will provide substantial additional flexibility 
for ethanol flex fuel producers that accommodate current market 
realities while continuing to ensure that flex fuel quality is 
consistent with controlling pollution when used in flexible fuel 
vehicles.
    Implementing Air Quality Standards. The National Ambient Air 
Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone were strengthened in 2015, and EPA 
is developing an implementation rule to help states implement those 
standards. This rule, which will also cover ozone classifications, will 
be proposed late in 2016 and finalized in 2017.
    Emissions from Aircraft. In 2017, EPA plans to issue a proposed 
finding, under Clean Air Act section 231, to determine whether lead 
emissions from aircraft operating on leaded fuel cause or contribute to 
air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public 
health or welfare.
    Radiation Protection. In the fall of 2016, EPA will issue final 
rules to protect public health, safety and the environment from 
radiological hazards associated with uranium processing. The first of 
these rules, under Clean Air Act section 112, establishes standards or 
management practices to limit air emissions of radon from uranium 
byproduct material or tailings. The second rule, under the Uranium Mill 
Tailings Radiation Control Act, establishes groundwater restoration and 
monitoring requirements for uranium in-situ recovery, which is now the 
dominant form of uranium recovery in the United States.
Goal 2: Protecting America's Waters
    Despite considerable progress, America's waters remain at risk. 
Water quality protection programs face complex challenges: An aging 
national water infrastructure, widespread nutrient pollution, 
stormwater runoff and threats to drinking water safety. These 
challenges require both traditional and innovative strategies.
    Lead and Copper NPDWR Revisions (LCR). The Lead and Copper Rule, 
promulgated in 1991, has resulted in substantial reductions in lead in 
drinking water. This critically important rule, however, is now 25 
years old and is in need of substantive revisions to strengthen the 
rule's protections for public health. EPA has conducted extensive 
engagement with state, tribal and local government representatives, 
stakeholder groups and the public to obtain input to inform revisions 
to the LCR. Most recently, EPA received comprehensive recommendations 
from the National Drinking Water Advisory Council (NDWAC) and other 
concerned stakeholders on potential steps to strengthen the LCR.
    Credit Assistance for Water Infrastructure Projects. EPA plans to 
issue an interim final rule that establishes the guidelines for a new 
credit assistance program for water infrastructure projects and the 
process by which EPA will administer such credit assistance. The rule 
will implement a new program authorized under the Water Infrastructure 
Finance and Innovation Act of 2014 (WIFIA). WIFIA authorizes EPA to 
provide secured (direct) loans and loan guarantees to eligible water 
infrastructure projects. The interim final rule primarily clarifies 
statutory language and establishes approaches to specific procedural 
issues left to EPA's discretion. Once projects are selected by the EPA 
Administrator, individual credit agreements will be developed through 
negotiations between the project sponsors and EPA.
    Federal Baseline Water Quality Standards for Indian Reservations. 
EPA published an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) 
requesting public comment on the establishment of baseline water 
quality standards under the Clean Water Act for waters on Indian 
reservations that currently do not have EPA-approved WQS in place to 
protect water quality. The ANPRM provides information on EPA's current 
thinking and is a way to get specific and clear guidance from the full 
range of tribal governments and stakeholders. EPA will consider 
comments received on this ANPRM prior to determining whether to develop 
a proposed rule on this topic. This ANPRM effort is one of several 
initiatives the EPA is undertaking to improve how we work with tribes 
to ensure that they have access to clean and safe waters.
Goal 3: Cleaning Up Communities and Advancing Sustainable Development
    EPA's regulatory program recognizes the progress in environmental 
protection and incorporates new technologies and approaches that allow 
us to provide for an environmentally sustainable future more 
efficiently and effectively.
    CERCLA Section 108(b)--Hardrock 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 hardrock 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 
hardrock mining and mineral processing facilities.) EPA intends for 
these regulations to help ensure that businesses make financial 
arrangements to address risks from hazardous substances at their sites, 
and to 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 (EO 13650 or the EO). This Executive Order 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 Executive 
order 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

[[Page 94647]]

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 
(3) enhance state and local emergency preparedness and response in an 
effort to mitigate the effects of accidents.
Goal 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 2017, the Agency will 
continue to satisfy its overall directives under these authorities and 
highlights the following actions in this Regulatory Plan:
    Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act 
Implementation. Enacted on June 22, 2016, the Frank R. Lautenberg 
Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act amended TSCA with immediate 
effect. The Agency is working aggressively to carry out the 
requirements of the new law. Among other things, EPA is now required to 
evaluate existing chemicals purely on the basis of the health risks 
they pose--including risks to vulnerable groups like children and the 
elderly, and to workers who use chemicals daily as part of their jobs--
and then take steps to eliminate any unreasonable risks that are found. 
Based on efforts initiated prior to the enactment of the new law, EPA 
plans to propose risk management actions under TSCA section 6 related 
to several specific uses of trichloroethylene (TCE), methylene 
chloride, and n-methylpyrrolidone (NMP) to protect the human health and 
the environment from the risks presented by those chemicals.
    In addition, EPA is now required to systematically prioritize and 
evaluate chemicals on a specific and enforceable schedule. Within a few 
years, EPA's chemicals program will have to assess at least 20 
chemicals at a time, beginning another chemical review as soon as one 
is completed. The new law provides a consistent source of funding for 
EPA to carry out its new responsibilities. EPA will now be able to 
collect up to $25 million a year in user fees from chemical 
manufacturers and processers, supplemented by Congressional budgeting, 
to pay for these improvements. The Agency initiated stakeholder 
discussions in August 2016 and is developing regulations that will 
identify how EPA will carry out the various provisions of the new law.
    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, with an initial 
emphasis on PCB-containing fluorescent ballasts in schools and 
daycares.
    Strengthening Pesticide Applicator Safety. As part of EPA's effort 
to enhance the pesticide worker safety program, the Agency is also 
developing final revisions to the existing regulation concerning the 
certification of applicators of restricted-use pesticides. This 
rulemaking 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 rule 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 rule 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

[[Page 94648]]

important insects and support pesticide registration decisions under 
FIFRA.
Goal 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.
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/.

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


                              2016--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%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modernization of the Accidental Release Prevention                    2014       $274.7       $274.7       $158.3       $158.3       $116.4       $116.4
 Regulations Under Clean Air Act.............................
Health and Environmental Standards for Uranium and Thorium            2014          Not          Not          6.6         13.4          Not          Not
 Mill Tailings (40 CFR 192): Revisions \1\...................                 Monetized    Monetized                               Computed     Computed
Technical and Regulatory Support to Develop the NESHAP                2014          Not          Not         15.8         17.9          Not          Not
 Subpart W Standard for Radon Emissions for Radon Emissions                   Monetized    Monetized                               Computed     Computed
 From Operating Uranium Mills (40 CFR 61.250) \2\............
Pesticides; Certification of Pesticide Applicators...........         2014         20.8         21.2         48.8         48.8       (28.0)       (27.6)
                                                              ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Aggregate Estimates \4\..................................         2014        295.5        295.9        229.6        238.4         88.4         88.8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Discount Rate = 7%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modernization of the Accidental Release Prevention                    2014        274.7        274.7        161.0        161.0        113.7        113.7
 Regulations Under Clean Air Act.............................

[[Page 94649]]

 
Health and Environmental Standards for Uranium and Thorium            2014          Not          Not          4.1          8.3          Not          Not
 Mill Tailings (40 CFR 192): Revisions \1\...................                 Monetized    Monetized                               Computed     Computed
Technical and Regulatory Support to develop the NESHAP                2014          Not          Not         15.8         17.9          Not          Not
 Subpart W Standard for Radon Emissions for Radon Emissions                   Monetized    Monetized                               Computed     Computed
 From Operating Uranium Mills (40 CFR 61.250) \2\............
Pesticides; Certification of Pesticide Applicators \3\.......         2014          Not          Not          Not          Not          Not          Not
                                                                               Reported     Reported     Reported     Reported     Reported     Reported
                                                              ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Aggregate Estimates \4\..................................         2014        274.7        274.7        180.9        187.2        113.7        113.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ National net benefits for Health and Environmental Standards for Uranium and Thorium Mill Tailings (40 CFR 192) Revisions were not computed because
  most categories of benefits, including health and ecosystem benefits, were not monetized.
\2\ The Economic Impact Analysis for the NESHAP Subpart W Standard does not monetize benefits such as the value of reduced cancer risk, so net benefits
  were not computed.
\3\ The Economic Analysis for the Certification of Pesticide Applicators did not estimate annual costs using a 7% discount rate. Using a 7% discount
  rate is expected to have little effect on annualized costs as most of the costs recur annually.
\4\ Aggregate Net Benefits are estimated by summing the column of net benefits reported for each discount rate.

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:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Rulemaking title             Regulatory Identifier No. (RIN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Financial Responsibility Requirements    2050-AG61
 Under CERCLA Section 108(b) for
 Classes of Facilities in the Hard Rock
 Mining Industry.
Modernization of the Accidental Release  2050-AG82
 Prevention Regulations Under Clean Air
 Act.
Trichloroethylene (TCE); Rulemaking      2070-AK11
 Under TSCA Section 6(a); Vapor
 Degreasing.
N-Methylpyrrolidone (NMP) and Methylene  2070-AK07
 Chloride; Rulemaking Under TSCA
 Section 6(a).
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs);        2070-AK12
 Reassessment of Use Authorizations for
 PCBs in Small Capacitors in
 Fluorescent Light Ballasts in Schools
 and Daycares.
National Primary Drinking Water          2040-AF15
 Regulations for Lead and Copper:
 Regulatory Revisions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Rulemaking title             Regulatory Identifier No. (RIN)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
N-Methylpyrrolidone (NMP) and Methylene  2070-AK07
 Chloride; Rulemaking Under TSCA
 Section 6(a).
------------------------------------------------------------------------


EPA--OFFICE OF WATER (OW)

Prerule Stage

120. Federal Baseline Water Quality Standards for Indian Reservations

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
    Legal Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1313(c)(4)(B)
    CFR Citation: 40 CFR 131.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: EPA published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking 
(ANPRM) requesting public comment on the establishment of baseline 
water quality standards (WQS) under the Clean Water Act (CWA) for 
waters on Indian reservations that currently do not have EPA-approved 
WQS in place to protect water quality. EPA will consider comments 
received on this ANPRM prior to determining whether to develop a 
proposed rule on this topic. This ANPRM effort is one of several 
initiatives the EPA is undertaking that recognize the importance of 
protecting waters on which tribes rely.
    Statement of Need: Currently, fewer than 50 of over 300 tribes with

[[Page 94650]]

reservations have WQS effective under the CWA. Virtually all of the 
reservations with existing coverage have WQS established by tribes that 
have obtained treatment in a manner similar to a state (TAS) under CWA 
section 518, however, many tribes face obstacles on this pathway to 
WQS. The resulting gap in EPA-approved WQS in Indian reservation waters 
is not insignificant. Tribal reservations without CWA-effective WQS 
account for as much land area and population as the state of North 
Dakota. Federal baseline WQS would define water quality goals for 
unprotected reservation waters and serve as the foundation for CWA 
actions to protect human health and the environment.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The CWA establishes the basis for the water 
quality standards (WQS) regulation and program. CWA section 303 
addresses the development of state and authorized tribal WQS that serve 
the CWA objective for waters of the United States. The core components 
of WQS are designated uses, water quality criteria that support the 
uses, and antidegradation requirements. Designated uses establish the 
environmental objectives for a water body and water quality criteria 
define the conditions sufficient to achieve those environmental 
objectives. The antidegradation requirements provide a framework for 
maintaining and protecting water quality that has already been 
achieved. The CWA creates a partnership between states and authorized 
tribes, and EPA, by assigning states and authorized tribes the primary 
role of adopting WQS (CWA sections 101(b) and 303), and EPA the 
oversight role of reviewing and approving or disapproving state and 
authorized tribal WQS (CWA section 303(c)). Absent state or authorized 
tribal adoption or submission of new or revised WQS, section 
303(c)(4)(B) of the CWA gives EPA the authority to determine that new 
or revised WQS are necessary to meet the requirements of the Act. Once 
the Administrator makes such a determination, EPA must promptly propose 
regulations setting forth new or revised WQS for the waters of the 
United States involved, and must then promulgate such WQS, unless a 
state or authorized tribe adopts and EPA approves such WQS first.
    Alternatives: To Be Determined.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: To Be Determined.
    Risks: To Be Determined.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM...............................   09/29/16  81 NFR 66900
ANPRM Comment Period End............   12/28/16
NPRM................................      To Be  Determined
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, State, Tribal.
    Federalism: Undetermined.
    URL for More Information: http://tcots.epa.gov/oita/tconsultation.nsf/.
    Agency Contact: Danielle Anderson, Environmental Protection Agency, 
Office of Water, 4305T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 
20460, Phone: 202 564-1631, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2040-AF62

EPA--OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION (OAR)

Proposed Rule Stage

121. Renewables Enhancement and Growth Support Rule

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7429 Clean Air Act
    CFR Citation: 40 CFR 80.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This action proposes to make numerous changes to promote 
the production of renewable fuels and clarify certain requirements 
under the RFS program. This action would propose to allow for 
feedstocks partially converted at a facility other than a renewable 
fuel production facility to be fully converted at a renewable fuel 
production facility into finished renewable fuel. These partially 
converted feedstocks are referred to as biointermediate feedstocks. 
Further, this action would also propose to add new registration, 
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for certain renewable fuel 
production facilities using carbon capture and storage (CCS) if the EPA 
were to allow CCS as a lifecycle GHG emissions reduction technology in 
the context of the RFS program. Additionally, this action also proposes 
to require obligated parties to report a breakdown of their gasoline, 
diesel, and heating oil production; provide an additional RIN-
generating pathway that is an extension of an existing pathway; and 
make numerous technical corrections. Finally, this action would 
implement fuel quality specifications for blends containing 16 to 83 
volume percent ethanol. This action would provide substantial 
additional flexibility for ethanol flex fuel (EFF) producers that 
accommodate current market realities while continuing to ensure EFF 
quality is consistent with controlling pollution when used in flexible 
fuel vehicles.
    Statement of Need: This action proposes various changes to our fuel 
and renewable fuel regulations to remove barriers to the production and 
use of renewable fuels. First, this action would resolve several 
outstanding issues and provide clarification on certain Renewable Fuel 
Standard (RFS) requirements. Second, this action would propose to allow 
for a feedstock partially converted at one facility (referred to as a 
biointermediate) to be fully converted into finished renewable fuel at 
another facility. Finally, this action would provide production 
flexibilities and carry over gasoline fuel quality standards to 
gasoline-ethanol blends containing 16 to 83 volume percent ethanol 
(referred to as ethanol flex fuel (EFF)). The increased flexibility 
provided by this rule for biointermediates and EFF could result in the 
increased production and use of renewable fuels in support of the RFS 
program.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Statutory authority for this action comes 
from Clean Air Act sections 203 to 205, 208, 211, and 301.
    Alternatives: This action to proposes to establish fuel quality 
standards for EFF that are equivalent to those already in place for 
gasoline. Producers would demonstrate compliance based on their ability 
to affect fuel quality and certain types of producers would be able to 
use natural gasoline as a blendstock to produce EFF. Alternatively, EPA 
also considered a simplified approach that would restrict EFF 
blendstocks to gasoline, blendstocks for oxygenate blending (BOBs), and 
denatured fuel ethanol. EPA is seeking comment on this alternative 
approach.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The two main areas where this 
proposal would have economic impacts are the proposed provisions for 
EFF and gasoline produced at blender pumps, and the proposed provisions 
for biointermediates. The proposal would provide significant additional 
regulatory flexibility, streamlined compliance provisions, and the 
opportunity for increased biofuel production at reduced cost. The cost 
savings are anticipated to far outweigh the minor costs imposed for 
demonstrating compliance. In most cases, the associated costs would 
only apply to those parties that elect to take advantage of the 
proposed flexibilities because the potential economic benefits

[[Page 94651]]

outweigh the costs. This proposal contains minor additional 
registration, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements that would 
apply to some parties in the biofuel production and distribution system 
that do not take advantage of the proposed flexibilities as well as 
those that do.
    Risks: This proposed rule does not affect the level of protection 
provided to human health or the environment by applicable air quality 
standards. This action does not relax the control measures on sources 
regulated by the fuel programs and RFS regulations and therefore will 
not cause emissions increases from these sources.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   11/00/16
Final Rule..........................   12/00/17
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Sectors Affected: 325199 All Other Basic Organic Chemical 
Manufacturing; 325193 Ethyl Alcohol Manufacturing; 454310 Fuel Dealers; 
221210 Natural Gas Distribution; 424690 Other Chemical and Allied 
Products Merchant Wholesalers; 325110 Petrochemical Manufacturing; 
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: Nick Parsons, Environmental Protection Agency, 
Office of Air and Radiation, N19, Ann Arbor, MI 48105, Phone: 734 214-
4479, Email: [email protected].
    Paul Argyropoulos, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air 
and Radiation, 6401A, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 
20460, Phone: 202 564-1123, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2060-AS66

EPA--OAR

122. Implementation of the 2015 National Ambient Air Quality Standards 
for Ozone: Nonattainment Area Classifications and State Implementation 
Plan Requirements

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 23 U.S.C. 101 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q
    CFR Citation: 40 CFR 50 to 51.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This proposed rule will address a range of implementation 
requirements for the 2015 National Ambient Air Quality Standards 
(NAAQS) for ozone, including the nonattainment area classification 
system, and the timing of State Implementation Plan (SIP) submissions. 
It will also discuss and outline relevant guidance on meeting the Clean 
Air Act's requirements pertaining to attainment demonstrations, 
reasonable further progress, reasonably available control measures, 
nonattainment new source review, and emission inventories. Other issues 
addressed in this proposed rule are the potential revocation of the 
2008 ozone NAAQS and anti-backsliding requirements that would apply if 
the 2008 NAAQS are revoked. The items covered in this rulemaking have 
been covered in similar rulemakings for two prior 8-hour ozone NAAQS 
(1997 and 2008).
    Statement of Need: This rule is needed to clarify and establish 
implementation requirements for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, including the 
nonattainment area classification system, and those elements that 
states must include in their state implementation plans (SIPs) to bring 
nonattainment areas into compliance with the 2015 ozone NAAQS. There is 
no court-ordered deadline for this final rule. However, the CAA 
requires that EPA promulgate area designations no later than 2 years 
from the date of promulgation of the revised ozone NAAQS, and this rule 
is needed to establish the air quality thresholds to classify areas 
designated nonattainment, in this case by October 1, 2017.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The CAA requires states to plan for the 
attainment and maintenance the NAAQS. EPA establishes implementing 
regulations that states follow to fulfill these CAA requirements.
    Alternatives: The EPA plans to solicit comments on a number of 
proposals, including nonattainment area classification thresholds, SIP 
submission requirements for states with nonattainment areas and states 
in the Ozone Transport Region, milestone compliance demonstrations, 
plan submission and implementation deadlines for attainment planning 
and emissions control requirements, flexible new source emissions 
offsets for preconstruction permitting, clarification of emissions 
inventory and emissions statement requirements, and state demonstration 
requirements under CAA section 179B. The rule also includes 
alternatives for treatment of outstanding state planning requirements 
for the previous ozone NAAQS.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The annual information collection 
burden for ozone-related state planning averaged over the first 3 years 
is estimated to be a total of 41,800 labor hours per year at an annual 
labor cost of $2.5 million (present value) over the 3-year period, or 
approximately $107,000 per state for the 23 anticipated state 
respondents. There are no capital or operating and maintenance costs 
associated with the proposed rule requirements.
    Risks: Ozone concentrations that exceed the National Ambient Air 
Quality Standards (NAAQS) to can cause adverse public health and 
welfare effects, as discussed in the October 26, 2015 Final Rule for 
NAAQS for Ozone (80 FR 65292).
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   11/00/16
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State, Tribal.
    Agency Contact: Robert Lingard, Environmental Protection Agency, 
Office of Air and Radiation, C539-01, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, 
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, Phone: 919 541-5272, Email: 
[email protected].
    Lynn Dail, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and 
Radiation, C539-01, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, Phone: 919 541-
2363, Fax: 919 541-0824, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2060-AS82

EPA--OAR

123.  Renewable Fuel Volume Standards for 2018 and Biomass 
Based Diesel Volume (BBD) for 2019

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: Clean Air Act
    CFR Citation: 40 CFR 80.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The Clean Air Act requires EPA to promulgate regulations 
that specify the annual standards 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

[[Page 94652]]

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.
    Statement of Need: The Clean Air Act Section 211(o) requires the 
Agency set annual renewable fuel standards.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Clean Air Act section 211(o).
    Alternatives: Alternatives will be assessed as the proposal is 
developed.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Costs and benefits will be analyzed 
as the proposal is developed.
    Risks: Risk information will be developed as the proposal is 
developed.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   06/00/17
Final Rule..........................   12/00/17
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: David Korotney, Environmental Protection Agency, 
Office of Air and Radiation, N27, Ann Arbor, MI 48105, Phone: 734 214-
4507, Email: [email protected].
    Paul Argyropoulos, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air 
and Radiation, 6401A, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 
20460, Phone: 202 564-1123, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2060-AT04

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

Proposed Rule Stage

124. 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: NYD.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: Section 6(a) 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 
chemical substances, 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 proposes that the use of TCE in 
vapor degreasing presents unreasonable risks to human health, and is 
initiating rulemaking under TSCA section 6 to address the risks of TCE 
when used as a spotting agent in dry cleaning and in commercial and 
consumer aerosol spray degreasers. A separate Regulatory Agenda entry 
(RIN 2070-AK11) addresses the EPA's consideration of a rulemaking to 
address the risks associated with TCE when used in vapor degreasing 
operations.
    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 
chemical substances, 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................................   12/00/16
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
    Federalism: This action may have federalism implications as defined 
in EO 13132.
    Sectors Affected: 325 Chemical Manufacturing; 334 Computer and 
Electronic Product Manufacturing; 335 Electrical Equipment, Appliance, 
and Component Manufacturing; 332 Fabricated Metal Product 
Manufacturing; 337 Furniture and Related Product Manufacturing; 333 
Machinery Manufacturing; 339 Miscellaneous Manufacturing; 928 National 
Security and International Affairs; 32411 Petroleum Refineries; 326 
Plastics and Rubber Products Manufacturing; 331 Primary Metal 
Manufacturing; 323 Printing and Related Support Activities; 811 Repair 
and Maintenance; 488 Support Activities for Transportation; 314 Textile 
Product Mills; 336 Transportation Equipment Manufacturing; 493 
Warehousing and Storage; 321 Wood Product Manufacturing.
    URL for More Information: https://www.epa.gov/chemical-data-under-toxic-substance-control-act-tsca.
    Agency Contact: Toni Krasnic, Environmental Protection Agency, 
Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, 7405M, 1200 
Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 202 564-0984, 
Email: [email protected].
    Joel Wolf, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Chemical 
Safety and Pollution Prevention, 7404T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., 
Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 202 564-2228, Fax: 202 566-0471, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 2070-AK03

EPA--OCSPP

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

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2605 Toxic Substances Control Act
    CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: Section 6 of the Toxic Substances Control Act provides 
authority of EPA to ban or restrict the manufacture (including import), 
processing, distribution in commerce, and use of chemical, as well as 
any manner or method of disposal of chemicals. EPA identified N-
methylpyrrolidone (NMP) and methylene chloride for risk evaluation as 
part of its TSCA Work Plan for

[[Page 94653]]

Chemical Assessments. NMP and methylene chloride are uses 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, EPA identified risks of concern from paint and coating removal. 
EPA proposes that the use of NMP and methylene chloride in paint and 
coating presents unreasonable risks to human health, and is initiating 
rulemaking under TSCA section 6 to address these risks.
    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................................   12/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Federalism: This action may have federalism implications as defined 
in EO 13132.
    International Impacts: This regulatory action will be likely to 
have international trade and investment effects, or otherwise be of 
international interest.
    Sectors Affected: 336411 Aircraft Manufacturing; 811121 Automotive 
Body, Paint, and Interior Repair and Maintenance; 325 Chemical 
Manufacturing; 238330 Flooring Contractors; 711510 Independent Artists, 
Writers, and Performers; 712110 Museums; 238320 Painting and Wall 
Covering Contractors; 811420 Reupholstery and Furniture Repair; 336611 
Ship Building and Repairing.
    URL for More Information: https://www.epa.gov/chemical-data-under-toxic-substance-control-act-tsca.
    Agency Contact: Niva Kramek, Environmental Protection Agency, 
Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, 7506P, 1200 
Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 703 605-1193, 
Fax: 703 305-5884, Email: [email protected].
    Joel Wolf, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Chemical 
Safety and Pollution Prevention, 7404T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., 
Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 202 564-2228, Fax: 202 566-0471, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 2070-AK07

EPA--OCSPP

126. Trichloroethylene (TCE); Rulemaking Under TSCA Section 6(A); Vapor 
Degreasing

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 
is undetermined.
    Legal Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2605 Toxic Substances Control Act
    CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: Section 6(a) 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 
chemical substances, 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 
vapor degreasing. EPA proposes that the use of TCE in vapor degreasing 
presents unreasonable risks to human health, and is initiating 
rulemaking under TSCA section 6 to address these risks. A separate 
Regulatory Agenda entry (RIN 2070-AK03) covers the EPA's consideration 
of a rulemaking to address the risks associated with TCE when used as a 
spotting agent in dry cleaning and in commercial and consumer aerosol 
spray degreasers.
    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 
chemical substances, 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: Significant adverse human health effects have been found in 
occupational settings and in consumer and residential settings.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   01/00/17  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Federalism: This action may have federalism implications as defined 
in EO 13132.
    Sectors Affected: 33641 Aerospace Product and Parts Manufacturing; 
336411 Aircraft Manufacturing; 325199 All Other Basic Organic Chemical 
Manufacturing; 33299 All Other Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing; 
325998 All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product and Preparation 
Manufacturing; 332999 All Other Miscellaneous Fabricated Metal Product 
Manufacturing; 333999 All Other Miscellaneous General Purpose Machinery 
Manufacturing; 33999 All Other Miscellaneous Manufacturing; 339999 All 
Other Miscellaneous

[[Page 94654]]

Manufacturing; 32799 All Other Nonmetallic Mineral Product 
Manufacturing; 326299 All Other Rubber Product Manufacturing; 325220 
Artificial and Synthetic Fibers and Filaments Manufacturing; 334512 
Automatic Environmental Control Manufacturing for Residential, 
Commercial, and Appliance Use; 332722 Bolt, Nut, Screw, Rivet, and 
Washer Manufacturing; 334416 Capacitor, Resistor, Coil, Transformer, 
and Other Inductor Manufacturing; 311812 Commercial Bakeries; 323111 
Commercial Printing (except Screen and Books); 811310 Commercial and 
Industrial Machinery and Equipment (except Automotive and Electronic) 
Repair and Maintenance; 81131 Commercial and Industrial Machinery and 
Equipment (except Automotive and Electronic) Repair and Maintenance; 
339114 Dental Equipment and Supplies Manufacturing; 332813 
Electroplating, Plating, Polishing, Anodizing, and Coloring; 332912 
Fluid Power Valve and Hose Fitting Manufacturing; 333511 Industrial 
Mold Manufacturing; 333413 Industrial and Commercial Fan and Blower and 
Air Purification Equipment Manufacturing; 337127 Institutional 
Furniture Manufacturing; 334515 Instrument Manufacturing for Measuring 
and Testing Electricity and Electrical Signals; 332111 Iron and Steel 
Forging; 331210 Iron and Steel Pipe and Tube Manufacturing from 
Purchased Steel; 339910 Jewelry and Silverware Manufacturing; 332431 
Metal Can Manufacturing; 332812 Metal Coating, Engraving (except 
Jewelry and Silverware), and Allied Services to Manufacturers; 332119 
Metal Crown, Closure, and Other Metal Stamping (except Automotive); 
332811 Metal Heat Treating; 332215 Metal Kitchen Cookware, Utensil, 
Cutlery, and Flatware (except Precious) Manufacturing; 339 
Miscellaneous Manufacturing; 33634 Motor Vehicle Brake System 
Manufacturing; 336310 Motor Vehicle Gasoline Engine and Engine Parts 
Manufacturing; 335312 Motor and Generator Manufacturing; 928110 
National Security; 331410 Nonferrous Metal (except Aluminum) Smelting 
and Refining; 336413 Other Aircraft Parts and Auxiliary Equipment 
Manufacturing; 424690 Other Chemical and Allied Products Merchant 
Wholesalers; 333318 Other Commercial and Service Industry Machinery 
Manufacturing; 334419 Other Electronic Component Manufacturing; 332618 
Other Fabricated Wire Product Manufacturing; 333249 Other Industrial 
Machinery Manufacturing; 334519 Other Measuring and Controlling Device 
Manufacturing; 3399 Other Miscellaneous Manufacturing; 332313 Plate 
Work Manufacturing; 332913 Plumbing Fixture Fitting and Trim 
Manufacturing; 325612 Polish and Other Sanitation Good Manufacturing; 
332721 Precision Turned Product Manufacturing; 332216 Saw Blade and 
Handtool Manufacturing; 334511 Search, Detection, Navigation, Guidance, 
Aeronautical, and Nautical System and Instrument Manufacturing; 332994 
Small Arms, Ordnance, and Ordnance Accessories Manufacturing; 325611 
Soap and Other Detergent Manufacturing; 331512 Steel Investment 
Foundries; 339112 Surgical and Medical Instrument Manufacturing.
    URL for More Information: https://www.epa.gov/chemical-data-under-toxic-substance-control-act-tsca.
    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].
    Joel Wolf, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Chemical 
Safety and Pollution Prevention, 7404T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., 
Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 202 564-2228, Fax: 202 566-0471, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 2070-AK11.

EPA--OCSPP

127. Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBS); Reassessment of Use 
Authorizations for PCBS in Small Capacitors in Fluorescent Light 
Ballasts in Schools and Daycares

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Unfunded Mandates: This action may affect State, local or tribal 
governments.
    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 use of PCBs in small capacitors. In particular, the 
reassessment of the use authorization will focus on the use of liquid 
PCBs in small capacitors in fluorescent light ballasts. A separate 
Regulatory Agenda entry (RIN 2070-AJ38) addresses the proposed 
reassessment of other PCB use authorizations.
    Statement of Need: Since the commercial manufacture of PCBs in the 
United States ceased in the 1970s, PCB-containing equipment is at least 
30 years old and may be nearing the end of its expected useful life. 
Several international treaties have recognized the hazards of PCBs and 
the risks they pose to human health and the environment. EPA has 
recently learned that there was widespread use of PCBs at levels at or 
above 50 ppm, prior to the 1979 TSCA ban, in the formulation of caulk 
used in schools and other commercial buildings. In the current 
regulations PCBs are excluded from the TSCA ban only if found below 50 
ppm. Thus, many schools and other building owners are now facing an 
unauthorized use of PCBs that has been present in their buildings for 
many years. This ANPR will solicit comment as to whether the current 
threshold of 50 ppm should be revised so that PCBs in caulk found at 
other levels could be authorized for use and, if so, under what 
conditions. EPA is required to make a finding that the authorized use 
will not present an unreasonable risk to human health and the 
environment. Needless to say, many changes have taken place in the 
industry sectors that use such equipment, and EPA believes that the 
balance of risks and benefits from the continued use of remaining 
equipment containing PCBs may have changed enough to consider amending 
the current regulations.
    Summary of Legal Basis: TSCA section 6(e)(2)(A) provides that ``no 
person may manufacture, process, or distribute in commerce or use any 
polychlorinated biphenyl in a manner other than in a totally enclosed 
manner'' after January 1, 1978. However, TSCA section 6(e)(2)(B) 
provides EPA with the authority to issue regulations allowing the use 
and distribution in commerce of PCBs in a manner other than a totally 
enclosed manner if the EPA Administrator finds that the use and 
distribution in commerce ``will not present an unreasonable risk of 
injury to health or the environment.'' EPA published the first 
regulations addressing the use of equipment containing PCBs on May 31, 
1979.
    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: 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

[[Page 94655]]

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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   01/00/17  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, 
Organizations.
    Government Levels Affected: State, Local, Tribal.
    Federalism: This action may have federalism implications as defined 
in EO 13132.
    Sectors Affected: 31-33 Manufacturing; 811 Repair and Maintenance; 
92 Public Administration.
    URL for More Information: http://www.epa.gov/pcbs.
    Agency Contact: Peter Gimlin, Environmental Protection Agency, 
Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, 7404T, 1200 
Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 202 566-0515, 
Fax: 202 566-0473, Email: [email protected].
    Erik Winchester, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of 
Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, 7404T, Washington, DC 20460, 
Phone: 202 564-6450, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2070-AK12

EPA--OCSPP

128.  Procedures for Evaluating Existing Chemical Risks Under 
the Toxic Substances Control Act

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq. Toxic Substances Control 
Act
    CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
    Legal Deadline: Final, Statutory, June 22, 2017.
    Abstract: On June 22, 2016, President Obama signed into law the 
Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act which 
amends the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA), the Nation's primary 
chemicals management law. A summary of the new law, which includes much 
needed improvements to TSCA, is available at https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/frank-r-lautenberg-chemical-safety-21st-century-act. This particular rulemaking effort 
involves the revised TSCA section 6(b)(4), which requires EPA to 
promulgate a final rule within 1 year of enactment to establish EPA's 
process for evaluating the risk of existing chemical substances and 
determining whether they present an unreasonable risk of injury to 
health or the environment, without consideration of costs or other non-
risk factors, including an unreasonable risk to a potentially exposed 
or susceptible subpopulation identified as relevant to the risk 
evaluation by the Administrator, under the conditions of use.
    Statement of Need: As required by statute, the EPA must establish 
EPA's process for evaluating the risk of existing chemical substances 
and determining whether they present an unreasonable risk of injury to 
health or the environment, without consideration of costs or other non-
risk factors, including an unreasonable risk to a potentially exposed 
or susceptible subpopulation identified as relevant to the risk 
evaluation by the Administrator, under the conditions of use.
    Summary of Legal Basis: This particular rulemaking effort involves 
the revised TSCA section 6(b)(4), which requires EPA to promulgate a 
final rule within 1 year of enactment to establish EPA's process for 
evaluating the risk of existing chemical substances and determining 
whether they present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the 
environment, without consideration of costs or other non-risk factors, 
including an unreasonable risk to a potentially exposed or susceptible 
subpopulation identified as relevant to the risk evaluation by the 
Administrator, under the conditions of use.
    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: This will be a procedural rule related to risk evaluations. 
It is not intended to address any particular risk.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   12/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
    Federalism: Undetermined.
    Sectors Affected: 325 Chemical Manufacturing.
    URL for More Information: https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca.
    Agency Contact: Susanna Blair, Environmental Protection Agency, 
Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, Mail Code 7401M, 
Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 202 564-4371, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 2070-AK20

EPA--OCSPP

129.  Procedures for Prioritization of Chemicals for Risk 
Evaluation Under the Toxic Substances Control Act

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2605 Toxic Substances Control Act
    CFR Citation: 40 CFR NYD.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: On June 22, 2016, President Obama signed into law the 
Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act which 
amends the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA), the Nation's primary 
chemicals management law. A summary of the new law, which includes much 
needed improvements to TSCA, is available at https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/frank-r-lautenberg-chemical-safety-21st-century-act. This particular rulemaking effort 
involves the revised TSCA section 6(b)(1), which requires that EPA 
promulgate a final rule within 1 year of enactment to establish a risk-
based screening process, including criteria for designating chemical 
substances as high-priority substances for risk evaluations or low-
priority substances for which risk evaluations are not warranted at the 
time. As required by statute, the process to designate the priority of 
chemical substances must include a consideration of the hazard and 
exposure potential of a chemical substance or a category of chemical 
substances (including consideration of persistence and bioaccumulation, 
potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations and storage near 
significant sources of drinking water), the conditions of use or 
significant changes in the conditions of use of the chemical substance, 
and the volume or significant changes in the volume of the chemical 
substance manufactured or processed.
    Statement of Need: As required by statute, the process to designate 
the priority of chemical substances must include a consideration of the 
hazard

[[Page 94656]]

and exposure potential of a chemical substance or a category of 
chemical substances (including consideration of persistence and 
bioaccumulation, potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations and 
storage near significant sources of drinking water), the conditions of 
use or significant changes in the conditions of use of the chemical 
substance, and the volume or significant changes in the volume of the 
chemical substance manufactured or processed.
    Summary of Legal Basis: This action is mandated by the Frank R. 
Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act which amended the 
Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA), on June 22, 2016. This particular 
rulemaking effort involves the revised TSCA section 6(b)(1), which 
requires that EPA promulgate a final rule within 1 year of enactment to 
establish a risk-based screening process, including criteria for 
designating chemical substances as high-priority substances for risk 
evaluations or low-priority substances for which risk evaluations are 
not warranted at the time.
    Alternatives: Alternatives will not 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: This action will not address any particular risk. It will 
establish a risk-based screening process, including criteria for 
designating chemical substances as high-priority substances for risk 
evaluations or low-priority substances for which risk evaluations are 
not warranted at the time.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   12/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, State, Tribal.
    Sectors Affected: 325 Chemical Manufacturing.
    URL for More Information: https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca.
    Agency Contact: Ryan Schmit, Environmental Protection Agency, 
Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, 7404T, Washington, 
DC 20460, Phone: 202 564-0610, Fax: 202 566-0471, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 2070-AK23

EPA--OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT (OLEM)

Proposed Rule Stage

130. Financial Responsibility Requirements Under Cercla Section 108(B) 
for Classes of Facilities in the Hardrock Mining Industry

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Unfunded Mandates: This action may affect the private sector under 
PL 104-4.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 9608(b)
    CFR Citation: 40 CFR 320.
    Legal Deadline: NPRM, Judicial, December 1, 2016, Notice of 
proposed rulemaking.
    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 hardrock mining industry as those for which financial 
responsibility requirements will be first developed. The 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 hardrock 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 hardrock mining and mineral 
processing facilities.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice..............................   07/28/09  74 FR 37213
NPRM................................   12/00/16  .......................
Final Rule..........................   12/00/17  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal.
    Additional Information: Docket No.: EPA-HQ-SFUND-2015-0781. Split 
from RIN 2050-AG56.
    Sectors Affected: 212 Mining (except Oil and Gas); 331 Primary 
Metal Manufacturing.
    URL for More Information: https://www.epa.gov/superfund/superfund-financial-responsibility.
    URL for Public Comments: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-SFUND-2009-0265-0001.
    Agency Contact: Barbara Foster, Environmental Protection Agency, 
Office of Land and Emergency Management, 5304P, 1200 Pennsylvania 
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 703 308-7057, Email: 
[email protected].
    Scott Palmer, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Land and 
Emergency Management, 5305P, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, 
DC 20460, Phone: 703 308-8621, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2050-AG61

EPA--OFFICE OF WATER (OW)

Proposed Rule Stage

131. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and Copper: 
Regulatory Revisions

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major status under 5 U.S.C. 801 
is undetermined.
    Unfunded Mandates: Undetermined.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300f et seq. Safe Drinking Water Act
    CFR Citation: 40 CFR 141; 40 CFR 142.

[[Page 94657]]

    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: Beginning in 2004, EPA conducted a wide-ranging review of 
implementation of the Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) to determine if there 
is a national problem related to elevated lead levels. EPA's 
comprehensive review consisted of several elements, including a series 
of workshops designed to solicit issues, comments, and suggestions from 
stakeholders on particular issues; a review of monitoring data to 
evaluate the effectiveness of the LCR; and a review of the LCR 
implementation by States and water utilities. As a result of this 
multi-part review, EPA identified seven targeted rules changes and EPA 
promulgated a set of short-term regulatory revisions and clarifications 
on October 10, 2007, to strengthen implementation of the existing Lead 
and Copper Rule. In developing the short-term revisions, EPA identified 
several regulatory changes to be considered as part of identifying more 
comprehensive changes to the rule. These considerations are longer-term 
in nature as they require additional data collection, research, 
analysis, and stakeholder involvement to support decisions. This action 
addresses the remaining regulatory revisions. EPA's goal for the LCR 
revisions is to improve the effectiveness of public health protections 
while maintaining a rule that can be effectively implemented by the 
68,000 drinking water systems that are covered by the rule.
    Statement of Need: Beginning in 2004, EPA conducted a wide-ranging 
review of implementation of the Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) to determine 
if there is a national problem related to elevated lead levels. EPA's 
comprehensive review consisted of several elements, including a series 
of workshops designed to solicit issues, comments, and suggestions from 
stakeholders on particular issues; a review of monitoring data to 
evaluate the effectiveness of the LCR; and a review of the LCR 
implementation by States and water utilities. As a result of this 
multi-part review, EPA identified seven targeted rules changes and EPA 
promulgated a set of short-term regulatory revisions and clarifications 
on October 10, 2007, to strengthen implementation of the existing Lead 
and Copper Rule. In developing the short-term revisions, EPA identified 
several regulatory changes to be considered as part of identifying more 
comprehensive changes to the rule. These considerations are longer-term 
in nature as they require additional data collection, research, 
analysis, and stakeholder involvement to support decisions. EPA's goal 
for the LCR revisions is to improve the effectiveness of public health 
protections while maintaining a rule that can be effectively 
implemented by the 68,000 drinking water systems that are covered by 
the rule.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) (42 
U.S.C. 300f et seq.) requires EPA to establish maximum contaminant 
level goals (MCLGs) and National Primary Drinking Water Regulations 
(NPDWRs) for contaminants that may have an adverse effect on the health 
of persons, may occur in public water systems at a frequency and level 
of public concern, and in the sole judgment of the Administrator, 
regulation of the contaminant would present a meaningful opportunity 
for health risk reduction for persons served by public water systems 
(section 1412(b)(1)(A)). The 1986 amendments to SDWA established a list 
of 83 contaminants for which EPA is to develop MCLGs and NPDWRs, which 
included lead and copper. The 1991 NPDWR for Lead and Copper (56 FR 
26460, U.S. EPA, 1991a) fulfilled the requirements of the 1986 SDWA 
amendments with respect to lead and copper. EPA promulgated a set of 
short-term regulatory revisions and clarifications on October 10, 2007, 
to strengthen implementation of the existing Lead and Copper Rule. In 
developing the short-term revisions, EPA identified several regulatory 
changes to be considered as part of identifying more comprehensive 
changes to the rule. These considerations are longer-term in nature as 
they require additional data collection, research, analysis, and 
stakeholder involvement to support decisions. Changes will be made to 
improve the effectiveness of public health protections while 
maintaining a rule that can be effectively implemented.
    Alternatives: To be determined.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: To be determined.
    Risks: To be determined.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   06/00/17
Final Rule..........................   12/00/18
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
    Federalism: Undetermined.
    Additional Information: This action includes retrospective review 
under Executive Order 13563; see: http://www.epa.gov/regdarrt/retrospective/history.html.
    URL for More Information: http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/lcr/index.cfm.
    Agency Contact: Jeffrey Kempic, Environmental Protection Agency, 
Office of Water, Mail Code 4607M, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., 
Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 202 564-4880, Fax: 202 564-3760, Email: 
[email protected].
    Jerry Ellis, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Mail 
Code 4607M, Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 202 564-2766, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 2040-AF15

EPA--OW

132.  Fees for Water Infrastructure Project Applications Under 
the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 33 U.S.C. 3901 et seq. WRDDA
    CFR Citation: TBD.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: EPA is proposing this rule to establish fees for applying 
for federal credit assistance under the Water Infrastructure Finance 
and Innovation Act (WIFIA) program. As specified under 33 U.S.C. 
3908(b)(7), 3909(b), and 3909(c)(3), EPA is authorized to charge fees 
to recover all or a portion of the Agency's cost of providing credit 
assistance and the costs of retaining expert firms, including counsel, 
in the field of municipal and project finance to assist in the 
underwriting and servicing of Federal credit instruments. EPA is 
proposing an initial application fee, credit processing fee, and 
servicing fee and is seeking comment on these.
    Statement of Need: EPA is proposing to establish fees for applying 
for federal credit assistance under the Water Infrastructure Finance 
and Innovation Act (WIFIA) program. As specified under 33 U.S.C. 
3908(b)(7), 3909(b), and 3909(c)(3), EPA is authorized to charge fees 
to recover all or a portion of the Agency's cost of providing credit 
assistance and the costs of retaining expert firms, including counsel, 
in the field of municipal and project finance to assist in the 
underwriting and servicing of Federal credit instruments. EPA is 
proposing an initial application fee, credit processing fee, and 
servicing fee and is seeking comment on these.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The Water Infrastructure Finance and 
Innovation Act (WIFIA) program authorizes EPA to

[[Page 94658]]

provide secured (direct) loans and loan guarantees to eligible water 
infrastructure projects. WIFIA was passed as part of the Water 
Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014, Pub. L. 113-121. The fees 
are specified under 33 U.S.C. 3908(b)(7), 3909(b), and 3909(c)(3).
    Alternatives: To Be Determined.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: To Be Determined.
    Risks: To Be Determined.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   11/00/16
Final Rule..........................   07/00/17
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Jordan Dorfman, Environmental Protection Agency, 
Office of Water, 4204M, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 
20460, Phone: 202 564-0614, Email: [email protected].
    Karen Fligger, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, 
4204M, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 202 
564-2992, Email: [email protected].
    Related RIN: Related to 2040-AF63
    RIN: 2040-AF64

EPA--OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION (OAR)

Final Rule Stage

133. National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) 
Subpart W: Standards for Radon Emissions From Operating Uranium Mill 
Tailings: Review

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Clean Air Act.
    CFR Citation: 40 CFR 61.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 
(NESHAP) subpart W protects human health and the environment by setting 
radon emission standards and work practices for operating uranium mill 
tailings impoundments. The EPA is in the process of reviewing this 
standard. If necessary, the Agency will revise the NESHAP requirements 
for radon emissions from operating uranium mill tailings.
    Statement of Need: This radionuclide NESHAP promulgated in 1989 
limits radon emissions from operating impoundments that manage uranium 
byproduct material. This review of the rule is prompted by a settlement 
agreement based on EPA's failure to review the rule within 10 years of 
the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The authority for this action comes from 
Clean Air Act section 112(q)(1).
    Alternatives: The rule proposed to establish Generally Available 
Control Technologies (GACT) or management practices for conventional 
impoundments, non-conventional impoundments, and heap leach piles. EPA 
proposed to: Eliminate the radon flux standard and monitoring at older 
conventional impoundments; to require non-conventional impoundments to 
retain one meter of liquid; to regulate heap leach piles from the 
initial application of leaching solution; and to require heap leach 
piles to maintain 30% moisture content. A specific alternative was 
discussed only in relation to regulating heap leach piles. The 
alternative was to not regulate the piles under subpart W until the 
leaching (extraction) process was completed and the heap leach pile 
contained only uranium byproduct material.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Costs attributable to the proposed 
rule include the cost to maintain one meter of liquid in non-
conventional impoundments and the cost to maintain 30% moisture content 
in heap leach piles. These costs represent less than 0.1% of baseline 
facility costs. The primary benefit is maintaining air quality in the 
vicinity of uranium recovery facilities to levels consistent with the 
1989 rule.
    Risks: The proposed rule maintains the estimated individual 
lifetime risk of fatal cancer at approximately 1 x 10-4 or below, 
consistent with the 1989 rule. Population risk is estimated at between 
0.0015 and 0.0026 fatal cancers per year, or approximately 1 case every 
385 to 667 years for the 4 million persons living within 80 km of 
uranium recovery facilities.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   05/02/14  79 FR 25387
NPRM Comment Period Extended........   07/21/14  79 FR 42275
Final Rule..........................   11/00/16
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: State, Tribal.
    Agency Contact: Reid Rosnick, Environmental Protection Agency, 
Office of Air and Radiation, 6608J, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., 
Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 202 343-9563, Fax: 202 343-2304, Email: 
[email protected].
    Dan Schultheisz, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and 
Radiation, 6608J, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460, 
Phone: 202 343-9349, Fax: 202 343-2304, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 2060-AP26

EPA--OAR

134. Revision of 40 CFR 192--Health and Environmental Protection 
Standards for Uranium and Thorium Mill Tailings and Uranium In Situ 
Leaching Processing Facilities

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq. Atomic Energy Act
    CFR Citation: 40 CFR 192.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The EPA's regulations in 40 CFR 192 establish standards 
for the protection of public health, safety, and the environment from 
radiological and nonradiological hazards associated with uranium ore 
processing and disposal of resulting waste materials. These cross-media 
standards, which apply to pollutant emissions and site restoration, 
must be adopted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, their Agreement 
States, and the Department of Energy. The EPA reviewed the standards in 
the existing rule and proposed to revise the regulations in January 
2016 (80 FR 4155), taking into particular account the significant 
changes in uranium industry extraction technologies and their potential 
impacts to groundwater. In addition, new facilities being proposed in 
states from Virginia to Alaska add to the importance of this effort. 
The final rule will incorporate comments from industry and public 
stakeholders received during the proposal, as well as the intra-agency 
workgroup.
    Statement of Need: In-situ uranium recovery (ISR) is now the 
dominant form of uranium recovery. ISR involves injection of chemical 
solutions to alter groundwater chemistry and mobilize uranium, which is 
then extracted. Monitoring and groundwater restoration must be 
conducted to limit the potential for contamination during operations 
and after facility closure. Rules specific to ISR do not exist at the 
federal level. The current rulemaking will provide national consistency 
in protecting groundwater at ISR facilities.
    Summary of Legal Basis: EPA's authority to establish standards of

[[Page 94659]]

general application to protect public health, safety, and the 
environment is provided by section 275 of the Atomic Energy Act of 
1954, as amended by section 206 of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation 
Control Act of 1978. EPA's standards of general application are 
implemented and enforced by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
    Alternatives: The proposed rule would establish a framework for 
monitoring at ISR facilities. The primary alternatives proposed related 
to the length of the long-term stability monitoring period. EPA 
proposed a 30-year monitoring period, with provision to shorten using 
geochemical modeling. Alternative presented were a 30-year period, with 
no provision for shortening, and a narrative standard identifying 
performance goals with no specified time period, in which the NRC would 
determine whether monitoring is sufficient based on site-specific 
conditions.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The proposed rule was estimated to 
increase the average cost of uranium production at ISR facilities by 
approximately $1.50 per pound of uranium (~2.9%), and that average 
costs per facility would range from $304,000 to $9.5 million, depending 
on the scale of the facility. Total annual costs attributable to the 
rule were estimated at approximately $13.5 million. Benefits are 
primarily the avoidance of remediation of contamination resulting from 
insufficient restoration and monitoring. Because current practice is to 
monitor for only a short period after restoration, it was not possible 
to determine how many sites could require remediation in the absence of 
the rule or quantify benefits, although it is estimated that the cost 
of remediation at any particular site would likely exceed the cost of 
compliance with the rule.
    Risks: Risk to public health would be from exposure to groundwater 
contamination resulting from insufficient restoration and monitoring. 
Because current practice is to monitor for only a short period after 
restoration, there is insufficient information to determine public 
exposures after monitoring is terminated. Therefore, it is not possible 
to quantify the health benefits of the rule, such as cancers averted.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   01/26/15  80 FR 4155
NPRM Comment Period Extended........   04/24/15  80 FR 22964
Final Rule..........................   11/00/16
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: State, Tribal.
    Additional Information: SAN No. 5319.
    Sectors Affected: 212291 Uranium-Radium-Vanadium Ore Mining.
    Agency Contact: Ingrid Rosencrantz, Environmental Protection 
Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, 2844T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue 
NW., Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 202 566-0961, Email: 
[email protected].
    Tom Peake, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and 
Radiation, 6608J, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460, 
Phone: 202 343-9765, Fax: 202 343-2304, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2060-AP43

EPA--OAR

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

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
    CFR Citation: 40 CFR 62.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: In the final Clean Power Plan (CPP) promulgated in August 
2015, the EPA set Emission Guidelines for the best system of emission 
reductions for carbon dioxide from existing power plants. States were 
tasked in the CPP with developing plans to achieve reductions in carbon 
dioxide emissions from the existing power plants in each state. In 
these model trading rules, the EPA will finalize models that provide 
two optional approaches (rate-based and mass-based emission trading 
programs) that states may use in developing a plan.
    Statement of Need: These model trading rules provide states with 
examples of a mass-based trading program and a rate-based trading 
program that can be used as part of a state plan submission for the 
Clean Power Plan. These model trading rules achieve the level of carbon 
dioxide emission reductions achieved through the Clean Power Plan.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The Model Trading rules are example trading 
programs the states may use to achieve emission reductions for carbon 
dioxide from existing power plants. They can be used by states as part 
of their submissions for the Clean Power Plan. The Clean Power Plan was 
developed under the authority of the Clean Air Act Section 111.
    Alternatives: In the proposal, the EPA solicited comments on many 
topics. For the rate-based Model Trading Rule, the EPA solicited 
comment on different methods for calculating Gas Shift Emission Rate 
Credits. Also in the rate-based Model Trading Rule, there were 
alternatives sought for the overall structure of a rate-base trading 
rule that aligns with the Clean Power Plan and facilitates interstate 
trading. For the mass-based Model Trading Rule, the EPA solicited 
comment on allocation approaches and methods for addressing leakage.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: There are no anticipated costs for 
these Model Trading Rules that differ from the anticipated costs 
described in the Clean Power Plan. The Model Trading Rules have the 
anticipated benefits described there as well. Actions taken to comply 
with the Clean Power Plan will also reduce the emissions of directly-
emitted PM2.5, SO2, and NOX. The 
benefits associated with these PM2.5, SO2, and 
NOX reductions are referred to as co-benefits, as these 
reductions are not the primary objective of this rule. The RIA for the 
Clean Power Plan spells out, in detail, the numerical benefits 
associated with the model trading rules.
    Risks: Because these Model Trading Rules are example trading 
programs for states, there is no risk associated with them outside of 
what is described in the Clean Power Plan.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   10/23/15  80 FR 64965
Final Rule..........................   12/00/16
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State, Tribal.
    Energy Effects: Statement of Energy Effects planned as required by 
Executive Order 13211.
    Agency Contact: Nicholas Swanson, Environmental Protection Agency, 
Office of Air and Radiation, E143-03, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, 
Phone: 919 541-4080, Fax: 919 541-3470, Email: 
[email protected].
    Jeremy Tarr, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and 
Radiation, D205-01, RTP, NC 27709, Phone: 919 541-3731, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 2060-AS47


[[Page 94660]]



EPA--OAR

136. 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, 2016, The statute 
requires the standards be finalized by November 30 of the year prior to 
the year in which the standards would apply.
    Final Statutory November 30,2016, 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.
    Abstract: The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to promulgate 
regulations that specify the annual standards 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 that 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 that 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 propose the BBD standard for 2018.
    Statement of Need: Section 211(o) of 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.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The Clean Air Act Section 211(o) 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.
    Alternatives: The action will establish renewable fuel standards 
for the years identified above. Comments submitted during the public 
process will be reviewed and considered in the final standards.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: In the proposal, EPA estimated that 
the cost to produce renewable fuels compared to the costs of producing 
petroleum fuels would range from $535 to $971 million in 2017. These 
illustrative cost estimate are not meant to be precise measures, nor do 
they attempt to capture the full impacts of the rule. These estimates 
are provided solely for the purpose of showing how the cost to produce 
a gallon of a ``representative'' renewable fuel compares to the cost of 
producing a petroleum fuel. The short timeframe 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 annual 
standards. Since the benefits are unquantified, the net benefits are 
incalculable.
    Risks: A risk analysis was not conducted.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   05/31/16  81 FR 34777
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, 
Office of Air and Radiation, N27, Ann Arbor, MI 48105, Phone: 734 214-
4507, Email: [email protected].
    Paul Argyropoulos, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air 
and Radiation, 6401A, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 
20460, Phone: 202 564-1123, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2060-AS72

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

Final Rule Stage

137. 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 competence 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 to 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

[[Page 94661]]

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, 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notice..............................   11/14/14  79 FR 68152
Notice..............................   11/14/14  79 FR 68152
NPRM................................   08/24/15  80 FR 51355
NPRM Comment Period Extended........   11/18/15  80 FR 72029
NPRM Comment Period Extended........   12/23/15  80 FR 79803
Final Rule..........................   11/00/16
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State, Tribal.
    Additional Information: Docket No.: 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, 1200 
Pennsylvania Avenue NW., 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, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., 
Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 703 305-7666, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2070-AJ20

EPA--OFFICE OF LAND AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT (OLEM)

Final Rule Stage

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

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Unfunded Mandates: This action may affect the private sector under 
Public Law 104-4.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7412(r)
    CFR Citation: 40 CFR 68.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The EPA, in response to Executive Order 13650, is 
amending its Risk Management Program regulations. Such revisions may 
include several changes to the accident prevention program requirements 
including an additional analysis of safer technology and alternatives 
for the process hazard analysis for some Program 3 processes, third-
party audits and incident investigation root cause analysis for Program 
2 and Program 3 processes, enhancements to the emergency preparedness 
requirements, increased public availability of chemical hazard 
information, and several other changes to certain regulatory 
definitions and data elements submitted in risk management plans. Such 
amendments are intended to improve chemical process safety, assist 
local emergency authorities in planning for and responding to 
accidents, and improve public awareness of chemical hazards at 
regulated sources.
    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. 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

[[Page 94662]]

considering publishing non-regulatory guidance to address some issues 
that will 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................................   03/14/16  81 FR 13637
Final Rule..........................   12/00/16
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Yes.
    Small Entities Affected: Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal, Local, State, Tribal.
    Additional Information: Docket No.: EPA-HQ-OEM-2015-0725.
    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: https://www.epa.gov/rmp.
    URL for Public Comments: http://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EPA-HQ-OEM-2015-0725.
    Agency Contact: Jim Belke, Environmental Protection Agency, Office 
of Land and Emergency Management, 5104A, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., 
Washington, DC 20460, Phone: 202 564-8023, Fax: 202 564-8444, Email: 
[email protected].
    Kathy Franklin, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Land and 
Emergency Management, 5104A, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, 
DC 20460, Phone: 202 564-7987, Fax: 202 564-2625, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 2050-AG82

EPA--OFFICE OF WATER (OW)

Final Rule Stage

139. Credit Assistance for Water Infrastructure Projects

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 33 U.S.C. 3901 et seq. WRDDA
    CFR Citation: Undetermined.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The EPA is taking this action to implement the Water 
Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) program. WIFIA was 
passed as part of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 
2014, Pub. L. 113-121. This action will establish guidelines for the 
application process, selection criteria, and project selection, as well 
as define threshold requirements for credit assistance, limits on 
credit assistance, reporting requirements, collection of fees and the 
application of other Federal statutes.
    Statement of Need: EPA plans to issue an interim final rule that 
establishes the guidelines for a new credit assistance program for 
water infrastructure projects and the process by which EPA will 
administer such credit assistance. The rule will implement a new 
program authorized under the Water Infrastructure Finance and 
Innovation Act of 2014 (WIFIA). WIFIA authorizes EPA to provide secured 
(direct) loans and loan guarantees to eligible water infrastructure 
projects. Following project selection by the EPA Administrator, 
individual credit agreements will be developed through negotiations 
between the project sponsors and EPA. The interim final rule primarily 
restates and clarifies statutory language while establishing approaches 
to specific procedural issues left to EPA's discretion.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The Water Infrastructure Finance and 
Innovation Act (WIFIA) program authorizes EPA to provide secured 
(direct) loans and loan guarantees to eligble water infrastructure 
projects. WIFIA was passed as part of the Water Resources Reform and 
Development Act of 2014, Pub. L. 113-121.
    Alternatives: To Be Determined.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: To Be Determined.
    Risks: To Be Determined.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule..................   11/00/16
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Karen Fligger, Environmental Protection Agency, 
Office of Water, 4204M, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 
20460, Phone: 202 564-2992, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 2040-AF63

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

[[Page 94663]]

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 Regulatory Plan has one item entitled ``Affirmative Action for 
Individuals With Disabilities in the Federal Government.'' The EEOC's 
regulations implementing section 501, as set forth in 29 CFR 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 it 
issued a proposed rule on February 24, 2016 (81 FR 9123), 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.
    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
                              contracts or
                              subcontracts.
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.           Federal sector
                                                     equal employment
                                                     opportunity process
                                                     and thus is not
                                                     expected to affect
                                                     small businesses.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

EEOC

Final Rule Stage

140. Affirmative Action for Individuals With Disabilities in the 
Federal Government

    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 NPRM was published on February 
24, 2016 (81 FR 9123). 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,

[[Page 94664]]

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................................   02/24/16  81 FR 9123
NPRM Comment Period End.............   04/25/16
Final Action........................   11/00/16
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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
BILLING CODE 6570-01-P

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION (GSA)

Regulatory Plan--October 2016

I. Mission and Overview

    GSA oversees the business of the Federal Government. GSA's 
acquisition solutions supply Federal purchasers with cost-effective, 
high-quality products and services from commercial vendors. GSA 
provides workplaces for Federal employees and oversees the preservation 
of historic Federal properties. GSA helps keep the Nation safe by 
providing tools, equipment, and non-tactical vehicles to the U.S. 
military, and providing State and local governments with law 
enforcement equipment, firefighting and rescue equipment, and disaster 
recovery products and services.
    GSA serves the public by delivering services directly to its 
Federal customers through the Federal Acquisition Service (FAS), the 
Public Buildings Service (PBS), and the Office of Government-wide 
Policy (OGP). GSA has a continuing commitment to its Federal customers 
and the U.S. taxpayers by providing those services in the most cost-
effective manner possible.

Federal Acquisition Service (FAS)

    FAS is the lead organization for procurement of products and 
services (other than real property) for the Federal Government. The FAS 
organization leverages the buying power of the Government by 
consolidating Federal agencies' requirements for common goods and 
services. FAS provides a range of high-quality and flexible acquisition 
services that increase overall Government effectiveness and efficiency. 
FAS business operations are organized into four business portfolios 
based on the product or service provided to customer agencies: 
Integrated Technology Services (ITS); Assisted Acquisition Services 
(AAS); General Supplies and Services (GSS); and Travel, Motor Vehicles, 
and Card Services (TMVCS). The FAS portfolio structure enables GSA and 
FAS to provide best value services, products, and solutions to its 
customers by aligning resources around key functions.

Public Buildings Service (PBS)

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

Office of Government-Wide Policy (OGP)

    OGP sets Government-wide policy in the areas of personal and real 
property, travel and transportation, information technology, regulatory 
information, and use of Federal advisory committees. OGP also helps 
direct how all Federal supplies and services are acquired as well as 
GSA's own acquisition programs. OGP's regulatory function fully 
incorporates the provisions of the President's priorities and 
objectives under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 with policies 
covering acquisition, travel, and property and management practices to 
promote efficient Government operations. OGP's strategic direction is 
to ensure that Government-wide policies encourage agencies to develop 
and utilize the best, most cost effective management practices for the 
conduct of their specific programs. To reach the goal of improving 
Government-wide management of property, technology, and administrative 
services, OGP builds and maintains a policy framework by: (1) 
Incorporating the requirements of Federal laws, Executive orders, and 
other regulatory material into policies and guidelines; (2) 
facilitating Government-wide reform to provide Federal managers with 
business-like incentives and tools and flexibility to prudently manage 
their assets; (3) identifying, evaluating, and promoting best practices 
to improve efficiency of management processes; and (4) performing 
ongoing analysis of existing rules that may be obsolete, unnecessary, 
unjustified, excessively burdensome, or counterproductive.
    OGP's policy regulations are described in the following 
subsections:

Office of Asset and Transportation Management (Federal Travel 
Regulation)

    The Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) enumerates the travel and 
relocation policy for all title 5 Executive agency employees and 
others, as specified therein. The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) is 
available at www.gpoaccess.gov/cfr. Each version is updated as official 
changes are published in the Federal Register. Federal Register 
publications and complete versions of the FTR are available at 
www.gsa.gov/ftr.
    The FTR is the regulation contained in 41 Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR),

[[Page 94665]]

chapters 300 through 304, that implements statutory requirements and 
executive branch policies for official travel by Federal civilian 
employees and others authorized to travel at Government expense.
    The Administrator of General Services promulgates the FTR to: (a) 
Interpret statutory and other policy requirements in a manner that 
balances the need to ensure that official travel is conducted in a 
responsible manner with the need to minimize administrative costs; and 
(b) communicate the resulting policies in a clear manner to Federal 
agencies and employees.

Office of Asset and Transportation Management (Federal Management 
Regulation)

    The Federal Management Regulation (FMR) establishes policy for 
aircraft, transportation, personal property, real property, and mail 
management. The FMR is the successor regulation to the Federal Property 
Management Regulation (FPMR), and it contains updated regulatory 
policies originally found in the FPMR. However, it does not contain 
FPMR material that describes how to do business with GSA.

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

    GSA's internal rules and practices on how it buys goods and 
services from its business partners are covered by the General Services 
Administration Acquisition Manual (GSAM), which implements and 
supplements the Federal Acquisition Regulation at GSA. The GSAM 
comprises both a non-regulatory portion (GSAM), which reflects policies 
with no external impact, and a regulatory portion, the General Services 
Administration Acquisition Regulation (GSAR). The GSAR establishes 
agency acquisition regulations that affect GSA's business partners 
(e.g. prospective offerors and contractors) and acquisition of 
leasehold interests in real property. The latter are primarily 
established under the authority of 40 U.S.C. 585. The GSAR implements 
contract clauses, solicitation provisions, and forms that control the 
relationship between GSA and contractors and prospective contractors.

II. Statement of Regulatory and Deregulatory Priorities

FTR Regulatory Priorities

    In fiscal year 2017, 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, or incorporates industry best practices at the lowest 
logical travel cost.
     Revising chapters 301; Temporary Duty (TDY) Travel 
Allowances and 304, Payment of Travel Expenses from a Non-Federal 
Source to clarify the full or partial waiver of conference registration 
fees from a non-Federal conference organizer.

FMR Regulatory Priorities

    In fiscal year 2017, 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 transportation.

FPMR Regulatory Priorities

     Migrating regulations regarding the supply and procurement 
of Government personal property management from the FPMR to the FMR.
     Incorporating the penalty inflation adjustments for the 
civil monetary penalties.

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;
     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; and
     Streamlining the evaluation process for contracts 
containing commercial supplier agreements.

General Services Property Management Regulation

     Updating and streamlining the Freedom of Information Act 
regulations.

Regulations of Concern to Small Businesses

    GSAR rules are relevant to small businesses that do or wish to do 
business with the Federal Government. GSAR Case 2015-G512, 
Unenforceable Commercial Supplier Agreement Terms is of interest to 
small businesses as it proposes 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'' (2011), the GSA retrospective review 
and analysis final and updated regulations plan can be found at 
www.gsa.gov/improvingregulations. The following RINS are included in 
the Retrospective Review.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Regulation  Identifier  No.                     Title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Proposed Rule Stage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3090-AJ63..........................  General Services Administration
                                      Regulation (GSAR); GSAR Case 2015-
                                      G503; Construction Contract
                                      Administration.
3090-AJ64..........................  General Services Administration
                                      Regulation (GSAR); GSAR Case 2015-
                                      G506; Construction Manager as
                                      Constructor Contracting.
3090-AJ65..........................  General Services Administration
                                      Regulation (GSAR); GSAR Case 2015-
                                      G505; Architect-Engineer Selection
                                      Procedures.

[[Page 94666]]

 
3090-AJ66..........................  General Services Administration
                                      Regulation (GSAR); GSAR Case 2015-
                                      G504; Design-Build Selection
                                      Procedures.
3090-AJ71..........................  Federal Management Regulation
                                      (FMR); FMR Case 2016-102-2,
                                      Designation of Authority and
                                      Location of Space.
3090-AJ74..........................  General Services Property
                                      Management Regulation (GSPMR)
                                      GSPMR Case 2016-105-1; Public
                                      Availability of Agency Records and
                                      Informational Materials Inbox.
3090-AJ75..........................  General Services Administration
                                      Regulation (GSAR); GSAR Case 2016-
                                      G506;Federal Supply Schedule,
                                      Order-Level Materials.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Final Rule Stage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3090-AJ50..........................  Federal Property Management
                                      Regulations (FPMR)/Federal
                                      Management Regulation (FMR) FPMR
                                      Case 2014-101-1; FMR Case 2014-102-
                                      2, Supply and Procurement.
3090-AJ56..........................  Federal Travel Regulation (FTR);
                                      FTR Case 2015-304, Clarifying
                                      Agency Responsibilities Concerning
                                      Reimbursement for Automatic Teller
                                      Machine (ATM) Fees and Laundry,
                                      Cleaning and Pressing of Clothing
                                      Expenses.
3090-AJ59..........................  Federal Management Regulation
                                      (FMR); FMR Case 2015-102-2,
                                      Transportation Payment and Audit.
3090-AJ60..........................  Federal Management Regulation
                                      (FMR); FMR Case 2015-102-3, Art-in-
                                      Architecture.
3090-AJ67..........................  General Services Administration
                                      Regulation (GSAR); GSAR Case 2015-
                                      G512, Unenforceable Commercial
                                      Supplier Agreement Terms.
3090-AJ68..........................  Federal Travel Regulation (FTR);
                                      FTR 2015-303, Optimal Use of the
                                      Government Contractor-Issued
                                      Travel Charge Card.
3090-AJ69..........................  Federal Travel Regulation (FTR);
                                      FTR Case 2016-301, Clarification
                                      of Payment In Kind for Speakers at
                                      Meetings and Conferences.
3090-AJ70..........................  Federal Property Management
                                      Regulation; FPMR Case 2016-101-1;
                                      Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act
                                      of 1986, Civil Monetary Penalties
                                      Inflation Adjustment.
3090-AJ72..........................  Federal Management Regulation
                                      (FMR); FMR Case 2016-102-1;
                                      Federal Real Property Profile.
3090-AJ73..........................  Federal Management Regulation
                                      (FMR); FMR Case 2010-102-3, Sale
                                      of Personal Property.
3090-AJ76..........................  Federal Management Regulation
                                      (FMR); FMR Case 2016-102-3,
                                      Utility Services.
3090-AJ77..........................  Federal Management Regulation
                                      (FMR); FMR Case 2016-102-4,
                                      Historic Preservation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Completed Actions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3090-AI51..........................  General Service Administration
                                      Acquisition Regulation (GSAR);
                                      GSAR Case 2007-G500, Rewrite of
                                      GSAR Part 517, Special Contracting
                                      Methods.
3090-AI76..........................  General Services Administration
                                      Acquisition Regulation (GSAR);
                                      GSAR Case 2008-G506, Rewrite of
                                      GSAR Part 515, Contracting by
                                      Negotiation.
3090-AJ43..........................  General Services Administration
                                      Acquisition Regulation (GSAR);
                                      GSAR Case 2010-G511, Purchasing by
                                      Non-Federal Entities.
3090-AJ51..........................  General Services Administration
                                      Acquisition Regulation (GSAR);
                                      GSAR Case 2013-G504, Transactional
                                      Data Reporting.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: September 1, 2016.

Troy Cribb,
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 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 US manufacturing and technology sectors. While NASA 
does not have any

[[Page 94667]]

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. 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 has 
finalized 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 [81 
FR 3703].
    2. NASA FAR Supplement: Safety and Health Measures and Mishap 
Reporting [48 CFR 1852.233]--NASA finalized 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 streamlined and reduced reporting requirements imposed 
on the public [80 FR 73675].
    3. Clarification of Award Fee Evaluations and Payments--[48 CFR 
1816 and 1852] NASA issued a final rule amending the NASA Federal 
Acquisition Regulation Supplement (NFS) to clarify NASA's award fee 
process by incorporating terms used in award-fee contracting; guidance 
relative to final award-fee evaluations; release of source selection 
information; and the calculation of the provisional award fee payment 
percentage in NASA end-item award-fee contracts [81 FR 50365].
    4. Cooperative Agreements with Commercial Firms--[14 CFR 1274] NASA 
issued a final rule amending its regulation on Cooperative Agreements 
with Commercial Firms to implement the requirements of section 872 of 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 for 
recipients and NASA staff to report information that will appear in the 
Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) 
[81 FR 35583].

Rulemakings That Were Modified, Streamlined, Expanded, or Repealed

    5. Space Flight [14 CFR 1214]--NASA amended its regulations to 
remove language that refers to the retired Space Shuttle Program and to 
clarify language for other ongoing programs that require some of this 
rule to remain in place [81 FR 8545].
    6. NASA Protective Services [14 CFR 1204]--NASA amended its traffic 
enforcement regulation to correct citations and to clarify the 
regulation's scope, policy, responsibilities, procedures, and violation 
descriptions [81 FR 70151].
    7. Processing of Monetary Claims [14 CFR 1261]--NASA is amending 
its regulations to change the amount to collect installment payments 
from $20,000 to $100,000 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.
    8. 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].
    9. 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].
    10. 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].
    11. Removal of Outdated and Duplicative Guidance [48 CFR 1817 and 
1852]--NASA amended the NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) to remove duplicative 
language of the FAR and superseded NFS guidance. The revision is part 
of NASA's retrospective plan under Executive Order (EO) 13563 completed 
in August 2011 [81 FR 39871].

Rulemaking That Is of Particular Concerns to Small Business

    Abstracts for other regulations that will be amended or repealed 
between October 2016 and October 2017 are reported in the fall 2016 
edition of Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulation 
actions.

[[Page 94668]]

Regulations That Office of Procurement Intends To Publish Between Now 
and October 2017

    1. Contractor Financial Reporting of Property [48 CFR 1845, 1852)--
NASA is proposing to amend the NASA Federal Acquisition Regulation 
Supplement (NFS) to add a monthly reporting requirement for contractors 
having custody of $10 million or more in NASA-owned property, plant, 
and equipment (PP&E) [81 FR 48726].
    2. Revised Voucher Submission & Payment Process [48 CFR 1816, 1832, 
1842, 1852]--NASA is proposing to issue an interim rule amending the 
NASA Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (NFS) to implement 
revisions to the voucher submittal and payment process. These revisions 
are necessary due to section 893 of the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2016 prohibiting the Defense Contract Audit Agency 
(DCAA) from performing audit work for non-Defense Agencies. NASA had 
delegated to DCAA the task of reviewing contractor requests for payment 
under NASA cost-type contracts.
    3. Removal of NFS clause 1852.243-70, Engineering Change Proposals 
[48 CFR 1852]--NASA is proposing to amend the NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) 
to remove NFS clause 1852.243-70, Engineering Change Proposals (ECPs) 
basic clause with its Alternate I & II and associated information 
collection from the NFS.
    4. Award Term [48 CFR 1816 and 1852]--NASA is proposing to revise 
the NFS to implement policy addressing the use of ``award terms'' or 
additional contract periods of performance for which a contractor may 
earn if the contractor's performance is superior, the Government has an 
ongoing need for the requirement, and funds are available for the 
additional period of performance. The purpose of the policy is to 
provide a non-monetary incentive for contractors whose performance is 
better than the ``average'' or ``acceptable'' level.
    5. Revisions to Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost 
Principles and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards [2 CFR 1800]--NASA 
is proposing to amend the NASA regulation, titled Uniform 
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles and Audit Requirements for 
Federal Awards to modify the requirements related to information 
contained in a Federal award for commercial firms with no cost sharing 
requirement and to add new or modify existing terms and conditions 
related to indirect cost charges and access to research results.
BILLING CODE 7510-13-P

NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION (NARA)

Statement of Regulatory Priorities

Overview

    The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) primarily 
issues regulations directed to other Federal agencies and to the 
public. These regulations include records management, information 
services, access to and use of NARA holdings, and grant programs. For 
example, records management regulations directed to Federal agencies 
concern the proper management and disposition of Federal records. 
Through the Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO), NARA also 
issues Government-wide regulations concerning information security 
classification and declassification programs. NARA regulations directed 
to the public address access to and use of our historically valuable 
holdings, including archives, donated historical materials, Nixon 
Presidential materials, and Presidential records. NARA also issues 
regulations relating to the National Historical Publications and 
Records Commission (NHPRC) grant programs.
    NARA has two regulatory priorities for fiscal year 2017, which are 
included in The Regulatory Plan. The first priority is a substantial 
revision to NARA's National Industrial Security Program (NISP) 
regulations at 32 CFR 2004. The NISP regulations govern release of 
classified information to contractors and other entities that enter 
agreements with the Federal Government involving access to classified 
information. Although we are proposing to substantially revise the 
regulation, the proposed revisions would effect only minor changes to 
the program's requirements for contractors and other entities. The 
proposed changes primarily include new sections setting out agency 
obligations in the course of implementing the program that reflect 
already-existing requirements for industry contained in the National 
Industrial Security Program Operating Manual (NISPOM), and streamline 
or clarify other sections of the regulation. In addition, a small 
portion of the proposed revisions add requirements from Executive Order 
13587 to implement the insider threat program.
    And the second priority this fiscal year are revisions to the 
Federal records management regulations found at 36 CFR Chapter XII, 
Subchapter B (phases I, II, and III). 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), and 1239 (Program Assistance and 
Inspections). These regulations were published in a proposed rulemaking 
in March 2016 and were open for public comment through May. During the 
course of addressing the comments we received, we determined we need to 
undertake a more substantial revision, which we are focusing on this 
fiscal year. We anticipate publishing a new proposed rule around the 
end of FY 2017.
    Phase II (RIN 3095-AB89) includes changes to provisions in 36 CFR 
parts 1235 (Transfer of Records to the National Archives of the United 
States), 1236 (Electronic records management), and 1237 (Audiovisual 
Cartographic and Related Records Management). These regulations were 
published in a proposed rulemaking in July 2016 and were open for 
public comment through September. We are currently addressing the 
comments we received and, similarly to Phase I, we have determined that 
we should do a more significant revision. As a result, we anticipate 
publishing a new proposed rule on these regulations in FY 2018.
    Phase III (RIN 3095-AB85) includes changes to provisions in 36 CFR 
parts 1220 (Federal Records General), 1222 (Creation and Maintenance of 
Federal Records), 1225 (Scheduling records), 1226 (Implementing 
disposition), 1228 (Loan of Permanent and Unscheduled Records), 1230 
(Unlawful or Accidental Removal, Defacing, Alteration, or Destruction 
of Records), 1231 (Transfer of Records from the Custody of one 
Executive Agency to Another), 1234

[[Page 94669]]

(Facility standards for records storage facilities), 1236 (Electronic 
Records Management), and 1238 (Microforms records management). We are 
currently drafting the proposed revisions to these regulations and 
project publication of a proposed rulemaking on these regulations after 
we have published new proposed rules for phases I and II.
BILLING CODE 7515-01-P

U.S. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT

Statement of Regulatory and Deregulatory Priorities

Fall 2016 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

 Appointment of Current and Former Land Management Employees
3206-AN28
    The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) proposes regulations 
that will allow current and former land management employees to compete 
for permanent positions in the competitive service at a land management 
agency or any agency for any position under internal merit promotion 
procedures. This appointment into the competitive service is authorized 
in Public Law 114-47.
 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.
 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 (DoD) 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.
 Recruitment, Selection, and Placement (General) and 
Suitability (aka Ban the Box)
3206-AN25
    The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is proposing to 
revise its regulations pertaining to when, during the hiring process, a 
hiring agency can make a suitability determination on an applicant for 
Federal employment. OPM is proposing this change in response to a 
Presidential directive. On November 2, 2015, the President directed 
OPM, ``. . .to take action where it can by modifying its rules to delay 
inquiries into criminal history until later in the hiring process.'' 
The intended effect of this proposal is 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.
 Federal Employees Health Benefits Program: Removal of 
Ineligible Individuals From Existing Enrollments
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.
 Employment in the Excepted Service
3206-AN30
    The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is proposing to 
revise its regulations governing employment in the excepted service. 
The proposed rules will clarify the existing policy on exemptions from 
excepted service selection procedures, and provide additional 
procedures for passing over a preference eligible veteran with a 
compensable disability of 30 percent or more.
 Noncompetitive Appointment of Certain Military Spouses
3206-AM76
    The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) will limit to one the 
number of permanent appointments spouses of 100 percent disabled and 
spouses of deceased members of the Armed Forces may receive under this 
noncompetitive hiring authority. OPM is making this change based on the 
provisions of the FY 2013 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).
 Personnel Management in Agencies
3206-AL98
    The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) will issue a final 
rule that will provide regulatory definitions for various

[[Page 94670]]

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.
 Medical Qualification Determinations
3206-AL14
    The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) will revise its 
regulations for medical qualification determinations. The revised 
regulations would update references and language; add and modify 
definitions; clarify coverage and applicability; address the need for 
medical documentation and medical examination and/or testing for an 
applicant or employee whose position may or may not have medical 
standards, physical requirements and/or physical fitness standards or 
testing; and may recommend the establishment of agency medical review 
boards. The final rule would provide agencies with more comprehensive 
guidance regarding medical evaluation and clearance procedures and 
implementation of a comprehensive physical fitness and medical 
standards program for applicants and employees.
 Prevailing Rate Systems; Redefinition of the New York, NY, and 
Philadelphia, PA, Appropriated Fund Federal Wage System Wage Areas
3206-AN29
    The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is issuing a proposed 
rule that would redefine the geographic boundaries of the New York, NY, 
and Philadelphia, PA, appropriated fund Federal Wage System (FWS) wage 
areas. The proposed rule would redefine the Joint Base McGuire-Dix-
Lakehurst portions of Burlington County, NJ, and Ocean County, NJ, that 
are currently defined to the Philadelphia wage area to the New York 
wage area so that the entire Joint Base is covered by a single wage 
schedule. This change is based on a majority recommendation of the 
Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee (FPRAC), the national labor-
management committee responsible for advising OPM on the administration 
of the FWS.
 Pay Administration Under the FLSA
3206-AN41
    The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is issuing interim 
final regulations for part 551 subpart B to make OPM's regulations 
consistent with updates to Department of Labor regulations that define 
which white collar workers are protected by the FLSA's minimum wage and 
overtime standards. 79 FR 18737 (Apr. 3, 2014). While OPM's regulations 
are not required to conform with DOL's regulations, OPM believes that 
updates to part 551 are appropriate and consistent with the President's 
goal of ensuring workers are paid a fair day's pay for a fair day's 
work.
 Competitive Service; Shared Certificates
3206-AN46
    The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) will issue interim 
regulations to implement the Competitive Service Act of 2015 which 
authorizes agencies to share certificates when filling competitive 
service positions.
 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.
 Federal Employees Health Benefits Program: Employee Prepayment 
of FEHB Contributions During Leave Without Pay (LWOP)
3206-AN33
    The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) proposes to amend the 
Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) regulations at 5 CFR part 890 
to provide agencies with the option to require payment of FEHB premium 
contributions from employees in Leave Without Pay (LWOP) status for the 
time period they are in LWOP status.
 Federal Employees Health Benefits Program; Tribes and Tribal 
Organizations
3206-AM40
    The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) proposes to amend the 
Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) regulations at 5 CFR part 890 
to include enrollments for eligible employees of Tribes and Tribal 
organizations under the provisions of the Affordable Care Act of 2010.
 Privacy Procedures for Personnel Records
3206-AN27
    The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) proposes to amend part 297 
of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, to implement a timeframe to 
submit a request for administrative review on internal or central 
system of records. This proposed change will allow greater efficiency 
in processing appeals and requests for administrative review and will 
also improve the office's records maintenance and disposal policies.
 Federal Employees' Retirement System; Government Costs
3206-AN22
    The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) proposes to amend 5 CFR 
part 841 to clarify the process by which the U.S. Postal Service and 
the U.S. Department of the Treasury may request reconsideration of 
OPM's computation of the supplemental liability. This proposed rule 
will also clarify the employee categories it will use for computing the 
FERS normal cost percentages covered under FERS (Federal Employees 
Retirement System), FERS-RAE (FERS Revised Annuity Employees), and FERS 
FRAE (FERS Further Revised Annuity Employees). Finally, it will also 
clarify the definition of present value factors as provided in 5 CFR 
part 831; 5 CFR part 839; 5 CFR part 841; 5 CFR part 842; and 5 CFR 
part 847.
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 nearly 24,000 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

[[Page 94671]]

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 seeks to 
encourage 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 reduce 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).\15\ This Statement of Regulatory and 
Deregulatory Priorities reflects PBGC's ongoing implementation of its 
Regulatory Review Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 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 maintained 
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 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 structured differently from, and generally 
significantly smaller than, the single-employer guarantee.
    At the end of FY 2015, PBGC had a deficit of $24 billion in its 
single-employer insurance program and $52 billion in its multiemployer 
insurance program. While the financial position of the single-employer 
program is likely (but not certain) to improve, the multiemployer 
program is likely to run out of funds by 2025. Substantial increases in 
premium revenue will be needed to avoid cuts in multiemployer insurance 
program guarantees.

Regulatory Objectives and Priorities

    PBGC's regulatory objectives and priorities are developed in the 
context of the Corporation's statutory purposes:
     To encourage voluntary private pension plans;
     To provide for the timely and uninterrupted payment of 
pension benefits; and
     To keep premiums at the lowest possible levels.
    Pension plans and the statutory framework in which they are 
maintained and terminated 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 continue 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, to 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).

Enhancing Retirement Security

    Missing participants. A major focus of PBGC's current regulatory 
efforts is to finalize rules to improve and expand the existing missing 
participants program to help connect more participants with their lost 
retirement savings. As authorized by PPA 2006, the expanded program 
will cover terminating defined contribution plans, non-covered defined 
benefit plans, and multiemployer plans, in addition to single-employer 
defined benefit plans. PBGC will continue to work with Internal Revenue 
Service and Department of Labor to coordinate government requirements 
for dealing with missing participant issues. PBGC published a proposal 
in September 2016. PBGC expects to publish a final regulation in FY 
2017.

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 consistent with the 
Corporation's final retrospective review plan. The regulatory actions 
associated with these RINs are described below.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Effect on small
               Title                     RIN             business
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Payment of Premiums; Late Payment      1212-AB32  Expected to reduce
 Penalty Relief.                                   burden on small
                                                   business.
Valuation Assumptions and Methods;     1212-AA55  To Be Determined.
 Interest and Mortality.
Benefit Payments...................    1212-AB27  To Be Determined.
Administrative Review..............    1212-AB35  To Be Determined.
Miscellaneous Corrections,             1212-AB34  To Be Determined.
 Clarifications, and Improvements.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Penalty relief for late payment of premiums. PBGC is lowering the 
rates of penalty charged for late payment of premiums by all plans, and 
providing a waiver of most of the penalty for plans with a history of 
premium compliance. In recent years, Congress has significantly 
increased PBGC premium rates. Since late payment charges are a 
percentage of unpaid premium, the penalties have gone up in proportion 
to the increases. PBGC is sensitive to the fact that a penalty assessed 
today may be several times what would have been assessed years ago for 
the same acts or omissions involving a plan with the same number of 
participants and the same unfunded vested benefits. Penalties under the 
new rule generally would be reduced by half and could be reduced by 80 
percent for sponsors with good payment histories.
    Valuation assumptions and methods; interest and mortality. PBGC 
plans to conduct a routine, periodic review of PBGC's regulations and 
policies to ensure that the actuarial and economic

[[Page 94672]]

content remains current. PBGC plans to publish a proposed rule in FY 
2017 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.
    Benefit payments. PBGC plans to publish a proposed rule in FY 2017 
to make clarifications and codify policies in PBGC's benefit payments 
and valuation regulations involving payment of lump sums, entitlement 
to a benefit, changes to benefit form, partial benefit distributions, 
and valuation of plan assets.
    Administrative review. PBGC is proposing to update and improve its 
rules for administrative review of agency decisions.
    Miscellaneous corrections, clarifications, and improvements. PBGC 
is proposing to make miscellaneous corrections, clarifications, and 
improvements to its regulations. PBGC intends to initiate future 
projects of this type to deal with minor issues that don't call for 
full-scale rulemaking projects.

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. PBGC published a proposed rule on June 6, 2016, 
that would prescribe rules for facilitated mergers of multiemployer 
plans and conform the existing regulation to changes in the law. PBGC 
received 10 comments on the proposal and expects to publish a final 
rule early in FY 2017. This is the second PBGC rulemaking project based 
on MPRA requirements. The first, prescribing the application process 
and notice requirements for partitions of eligible multiemployer plans 
under MPRA, was finalized on December 23, 2015.
    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 
both in PBGC-trusteed plans and in plans that close out in the private 
sector.\16\ Now that the Treasury Department has issued final 
regulations on statutory hybrid plans, PBGC is developing a final rule, 
which it expects to publish in FY 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 76 FR 67105 (Oct. 31, 2011), http://www.pbgc.gov/Documents/2011-28124.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Owner-participant benefits. PPA 2006 changed the guarantee of 
owner-participant benefits in PBGC-trusteed plans. PBGC is developing a 
proposed rule implementing these changes, which it expects to publish 
in FY 2017.

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 proposed rules that will focus on small businesses:
    Missing participants. The missing participants rule discussed above 
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.
    Penalty relief for late payment of premiums. The late payment 
penalty relief rule discussed above benefits small businesses by 
reducing penalties for late premium payments by at least half.

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 2013 Request for Information \17\ on Missing Participants 
in Individual Account Plans and 2015 Request for Information \18\ on 
Partitions and Facilitated Mergers Under MPRA are examples of PBGC's 
efforts to solicit public participation in the regulatory process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ http://www.pbgc.gov/documents/2013-14834.pdf.
    \18\ http://www.pbgc.gov/documents/2015-03434.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    PBGC plans to provide additional means for public involvement, 
including 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

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

[[Page 94673]]

regulations, even those that are not subject to the public notice and 
comment requirement under the Administrative Procedures Act. Where 
appropriate, SBA also conducts hearings, webinars, and other public 
events as part of its regulatory process.

Regulatory Framework

    The SBA's FY 2014 to FY 2018 strategic plan serves as the 
foundation for the regulations that the Agency will develop during the 
next 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 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) Small Business Investment Company (SBIC) Program; Impact 
SBICs (RIN: 3245-AG66); and (2) Small Business Innovation Research 
Program and Small Business Technology Transfer Program Policy Directive 
(RIN: 3245-AG64).
(1) 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.
(2) Small Business Innovation Research Program and Small Business 
Technology Transfer Program Policy Directive (RIN: 3245-AG64)
    This proposed Directive 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.

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 rule and 
the policy directive discussed above.

SBA

Final Rule Stage

141. 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 ch 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.
    On April 7, 2016, SBA issued a notice of policy directive 
amendments with a request for comments at 81 FR 20484. In this NPRM, 
SBA proposed 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 also proposed combining both the SBIR and STTR 
policy 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

[[Page 94674]]

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................................   04/07/16  81 FR 20484
NPRM Comment Period Extended........   05/31/16  81 FR 34426
NPRM Comment Period End.............   06/06/16  .......................
Second NPRM Comment Period End......   07/06/16  .......................
Final Rule..........................   01/00/17  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

142. 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 will 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 would 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 percent 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 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 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 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 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 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 
regulation, including continuing its impact investment objectives 
solely through existing policy initiatives. However, those policy 
initiatives did not provide sufficient

[[Page 94675]]

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 
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 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 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 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................................   02/03/16  81 FR 5666
NPRM Comment Period End.............   03/04/16  .......................
Final Rule..........................   02/00/17  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P

FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION (FAR)

I. Mission and Overview

    The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) was established to codify 
uniform policies for acquisition of supplies and services by executive 
agencies. It is issued and maintained jointly, pursuant to the Office 
of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) Reauthorization Act, under the 
statutory authorities granted to the Secretary of Defense, 
Administrator of General Services, and the Administrator, National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration. Statutory authorities to issue 
and revise the FAR have been delegated to the procurement executives in 
Department of Defense (DoD), GSA, and National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration (NASA).

II. Statement of Regulatory and Deregulatory Priorities

Federal Acquisition Regulation Priorities

    Specific FAR cases that the FAR Council plans to address in fiscal 
year 2017 include:

SB--Regulations To Improve Small Businesses Opportunities in Government 
Contracting

    Implementation of the Small Business Administration's final rule 
for section 1651 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2013. SBA's rule revised the limitations on subcontracting and the 
nonmanufacturer rule. Also implements SBA's regulatory clarifications 
concerning application of the limitations on subcontracting, 
nonmanufacturer rule, and size determination of joint ventures. (FAR 
Case 2016-011, Small Business Government Contracting and National 
Defense Authorization Act of 2013 Amendments)
    Clarification on the participation of Federal Prison Industries in 
small business set-asides. Provides clarity under FAR subparts 19.8, 
19.13, 19.14, and 19.15. (FAR Case 2016-010, FPI Participation in Small 
Business Set-Asides)
    Clarification on 8(a) joint ventures. Clarifies that 8(a) joint 
ventures are not ``certified'' into the 8(a) program and that 8(a) 
joint venture agreements need not be ``approved'' by the SBA until 
contract award rather than at the time of proposal submission. (FAR 
Case 2015-031, Policy on 8(a) Joint Ventures)
    Considers applicability of small business regulations to contracts 
performed outside the United States. FAR Case 2016-002, Applicability 
of Small Business Regulations Outside the United States)
    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)
    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)

[[Page 94676]]

Labor--Regulations Which Promote the Welfare of Wage Earners

    Equal Pay for Equal Work Among Employees Working for Covered 
Federal Contractors. The rule implements E.O. 13665, Non-Retaliation 
for Disclosure of Compensation Information. FAR Case 2016-007, Non-
Retaliation for Disclosure of Compensation Information.
    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

    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 Executive Order 
13693, Planning for Federal Sustainability in the Next Decade, which 
supersedes Executive orders 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)
    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

    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

    Effective Communication. Implements section 887 of the NDAA for FY 
2016, which provides that agency acquisition personnel are permitted 
and encouraged to engage in responsible and constructive exchanges with 
industry. (FAR Case 2016-005, Effective Communication between 
Government and Industry)
    Provide clarification within service contracts that contractors are 
required to purchase the mandatory source products from approved 
sources. (FAR Case 2015-026, Contractor Use of Mandatory Sources of 
Supply in Service Contracts)
    Incremental Funding of Fixed-Price Contracting Actions. While the 
FAR provides for incremental funding of cost-reimbursement contracts, 
it is silent on incremental funding of fixed-price contracts. Given the 
federal government's implicit preference for fixed-price contracting, 
as well as the quagmire posed by Continuing Resolutions and other 
budgeting problems, acquisition professionals need additional tools to 
overcome less-than-full-funding challenges while abiding by the 
preference for fixed-price contracting. The proposed rule aims to amend 
the FAR to cover fixed-price contracting actions under circumstances in 
which full funding is not available at the outset of the contracting 
endeavor.
    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 flow down 
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 flow down 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)
    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)

Regulations Which Promote Fiscal Responsibility (Accountability and 
Transparency)

    Revise the definition of ``information technology'' in the FAR. 
This conforms to the Office of Management and Budget Memo, M-15-14 
titled Management Oversight of Federal Information Technology. (FAR 
Case 2015-037, Definition of ``Information Technology'')
    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

[[Page 94677]]

responsibilities for ordering activity contracting officers to 
determine fair and reasonable prices when using Federal Supply 
Schedules. (FAR Case 2015-021)

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: August 29, 2016.
William Clark,
Director, Office of Government-wide Acquisition Policy, Office of 
Acquisition Policy, Office of Government-wide Policy.
BILLING CODE 6820-EP-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 via reimbursement for necessary costs in making disability 
determinations.
    The 18 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

    The continued improvement of the disability program and the 
protection of our beneficiaries is of paramount importance to SSA. The 
regulatory plan actions under this category will aid in these goals. 
These initiatives include two final and three proposed rules that will:
     Save time during the disability application process by 
authorizing the Commissioner of SSA to directly seek necessary medical 
evidence for disability claims;
     Update the education category in our medical-vocational 
guidelines to accurately differentiate between literacy and education 
level;
     Establish beneficiaries' legal guardians as the preferred 
choice during our representative payee selection process;
     Update our rules on withdrawal of old-age benefits 
applications and suspension of benefits; and
     Improve the efficiency of our processes by requiring 
representatives to use electronic methods with the Agency.

Priority Hearings and Appeals Process Improvement Rules

    These rules are the core of a continuing SSA initiative to improve 
the adjudication process, reduce average processing times for 
disability hearings, and reduce the hearings backlog. These regulatory 
actions include three final rules that will:
     Revise existing rules to achieve national consistency of 
our procedures at the administrative law judge (ALJ) and Appeals 
Council levels;
     Revise our rules of conduct and standards of 
responsibility for claimant representatives to better protect the 
integrity of our administrative process and further clarify 
representatives' existing responsibilities, thus protecting our 
beneficiaries; and
     Update rules relating to acceptable medical sources and 
medical evidence, to make these rules easier to understand and apply 
and support the goal of faster, more accurate disability decisions.

Revised Listing of Medical Impairments

    SSA uses the Listing of Impairments in disability determinations. 
Each major body system has its own unique listing describing 
impairments that we consider severe enough to prevent an individual 
from performing substantial gainful activity, regardless of age, 
education, or work experience. As part of our commitment to improving 
and modernizing the disability programs, we update the listings to keep 
pace with medicine, science, technology, and the world of work. In 
2017, we plan to begin the process of updating six of our body system 
listings by publishing proposed rules.

Bipartisan Budget Act (BBA)

    The rules in this section are required in connection with the 
Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (BBA), Public Law 114-74, enacted on 
November 2, 2015. SSA is prioritizing these rules to meet our 
regulatory obligations under the BBA. Our BBA Regulatory Plan 
initiatives include a proposed and final rule to regulate the use of 
electronic payroll data to improve program administration, and a 
proposed rule to close unintended loopholes related to presumed filing 
and voluntary suspension.

Privacy and Disclosure

    The interim final rule in this category will implement the time-
sensitive, statutory requirements of the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016, 
Public Law 114-185.

Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations

    Pursuant to section 6 of Executive Order 13563, ``Improving 
Regulation and Regulatory Review'' (January 18, 2011), SSA regularly 
engages in retrospective review and analysis for multiple existing 
regulatory initiatives. These initiatives may be proposed or completed 
actions, and they do not necessarily appear in The Regulatory Plan. You 
can find more information on these completed rulemakings in past 
publications of the Unified Agenda at www.reginfo.gov in the 
``Completed Actions'' section for the Social Security Administration. 
The Agency's most recently published Retrospective Review Progress 
Report can be found at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/regreform/retroplans/Jan-2016/SSA-Retrospective-Plan-Progress-Report.pdf.

SSA

Proposed Rule Stage

143. 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.

[[Page 94678]]

    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, technology, and treatment since we last revised these 
rules.
    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................................   06/00/17  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 Policy, 6401 Security Boulevard, 
Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, Phone: 410 965-1020, Email: 
[email protected].
    Nancy Miller, Social Insurance Specialist, Social Security 
Administration, Office of Medical Policy, 6401 Security Boulevard, 
Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, Phone: 410 966-1573, Email: 
[email protected].
    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

SSA

144. 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 rules are required to facilitate 
disability claims adjudication.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Sections 5.00 and 105.00, Digestive 
Systems, of appendix 1 to subpart P of part 404 of our regulations.
    This proposed rule is 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, technology, and treatment since we last revised these 
rules.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Ensuring that the medical evaluation 
criteria are up-to-date and consistent with the latest advances in 
medical knowledge, technology, and treatment will provide for accurate 
disability evaluations.
    Costs: While no cost is expected, documentation is not yet 
available.
    Risks: None.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM...............................   12/12/07  72 FR 70527
ANPRM Comment Period End............   02/11/08  .......................
NPRM................................   07/00/17  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 Policy, 6401 Security Boulevard, 
Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, Phone: 410 965-1020, Email: 
[email protected].
    Shawnette Ashburne, Social Insurance Specialist, Social Security 
Administration, Office of Medical Policy, 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, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 0960-AG65

SSA

145. Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating Cardiovascular Disorders 
(3477P)

    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 4.00 and 104.00, Cardiovascular System, of 
appendix 1 to subpart P of part 404 of our regulations describe those 
cardiovascular disorders

[[Page 94679]]

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 rules are required to facilitate 
disability claims adjudication.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Sections 4.00 and 104.00, Cardiovascular 
System, of appendix 1 to subpart P of part 404 of our regulations.
    This proposed rule is 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 published our final rule.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Ensuring that the medical evaluation 
criteria are up-to-date and consistent with the latest advances in 
medical knowledge, technology, and treatment will provide for accurate 
disability evaluations.
    Costs: While no cost is expected, documentation is not yet 
available.
    Risks:
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM...............................   04/16/08  73 FR 20564
ANPRM Comment Period End............   06/16/08  .......................
NPRM................................   07/00/17  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 Policy, 6401 Security Boulevard, 
Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, Phone: 410 965-1020, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 0960-AG74

SSA

146. Revising the Ticket to Work Program Rules (3780A)

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: Not Yet Determined.
    CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This notice of proposed rulemaking will pose several 
questions to the public regarding the best means by which to encourage 
employment networks to assist beneficiaries in seeking employment at a 
level that could lead to eventual financial independence. We want to 
hear from program beneficiaries and others about what combination of 
incentives would best help beneficiaries to go to work and reach and 
sustain middle-class earnings.
    Statement of Need: We would like to clarify the purpose of and the 
rules for our Ticket to Work (TTW) program, as part of our ongoing 
effort to help our beneficiaries find and maintain employment that 
leads to increased independence and enhanced productivity.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Ticket to Work and Work Incentives 
Improvement Act of 1999 (Ticket Act).
    Alternatives: We may postpone updating our TTW regulations.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Updating the Ticket to Work program 
rules to provide increased choices for our beneficiaries and service 
providers. Improving flexibility in the program rules should also 
increase the number of employment service providers participating in 
the Ticket to Work program, as well as encourage additional 
beneficiaries to attempt work and reach their employment goals. When 
beneficiaries with disabilities return work at a significant level of 
earnings, they are able to take advantage of all of the work supports 
in SSA's program rules and start on the road to financial independence 
and a better future.
    Risks: None.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM...............................   02/10/16  81 FR 7041
ANPRM Comment Period End............   04/11/16  .......................
NPRM................................   06/00/17  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Mark Green, Deputy Office Director, Social Security 
Administration, Office of Employment Support Programs, Office of 
Beneficiary Outreach and Employment Support, 6401 Security Boulevard, 
Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, Phone: 410 965-9852.
    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-AH50

SSA

147. Revisions to Rules Regarding the Evaluation of Medical Evidence

    Priority: Other Significant.
    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); Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, section 832
    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 medical 
evidence rules. The proposals include redefining several key terms 
related to evidence, revising our list of acceptable medical sources 
(AMS), revising how we consider and articulate our consideration of 
medical opinions and prior administrative medical findings, revising 
who can be a medical consultant (MC) and psychological consultant (PC), 
revising our rules about treating sources, and reorganizing our 
evidence regulations for ease of use. These proposed revisions would 
conform our rules with the requirements of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 
2015 (BBA), reflect changes in the national healthcare workforce and in 
the manner that individuals receive primary medical care, simplify and 
reorganize our rules to make them easier to understand and apply, allow 
us to continue to make accurate and consistent decisions, and emphasize 
the need for objective medical evidence in disability and blindness 
claims.
    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.

[[Page 94680]]

    Alternatives: Undetermined at this time.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Undetermined at this time.
    Risks: Undetermined at this time.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   09/09/16  81 FR 62559
NPRM Comment Period End.............   11/08/16  .......................
Final Action........................   01/00/17  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: William P. Gibson, Social Insurance Specialist, 
Regulations Writer, Social Security Administration, Office of 
Regulations and Reports Clearance, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, 
MD 21235-6401, Phone: 410 966-9039, Email: [email protected].
    Joshua Silverman, Technical Expert, Social Security Administration, 
Office of Disability Policy, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 
21235-6401, Phone: 410 594-2128, Email: [email protected].
    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, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 0960-AH51

SSA

148. Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating Hearing Loss and 
Disturbances of Labyrinthine-Vestibular Function (3806P)

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: Not Yet Determined.
    CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: Sections 2.00B and 102.00B, Hearing Loss and Disturbances 
of Labyrinthine-Vestibular Function, of appendix 1 to subpart P of part 
404 of our regulations describe hearing loss 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 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 rules are required to facilitate 
disability claims adjudication.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Sections 5.00 and 105.00, Digestive 
Systems, of appendix 1 to subpart P of part 404 of our regulations.
    This proposed rule is 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, technology, and treatment since we last revised these 
rules.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Ensuring that the medical evaluation 
criteria are up-to-date and consistent with the latest advances in 
medical knowledge, technology, and treatment will provide for accurate 
disability evaluations.
    Costs: While no cost is expected, documentation is not yet 
available.
    Risks:
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM...............................   08/30/13  78 FR 53700
ANPRM Comment Period End............   10/29/13  .......................
NPRM................................   10/00/17  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov
    Agency Contact: Cheryl A Williams, Director, Social Security 
Administration, Office of Medical Policy, 6401 Security Boulevard, 
Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, Phone: 410 965-1020, Email: 
[email protected].
    Suzanne Luther, Social Insurance Specialist, Social Security 
Administration, Office of Medical Policy, 6401 Security Boulevard, 
Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, Phone: 410 965-8121, Email: 
[email protected].
    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-AH54

SSA

149. Use of Electronic Payroll Data To Improve Program Administration

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 sec. 824
    CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This NPRM will propose to implement the Commissioner's 
access to and use of the information held by payroll providers. The 
Agency will use this data to help administer the disability and SSI 
programs and prevent improper payments.
    Statement of Need: In accordance with the Bipartisan Budget Act of 
2015, section 824; the Commissioner of Social Security has the 
authority to enter into an information exchange with a payroll or data 
provider, allowing us to efficiently administer monthly insurance and 
supplemental security income benefits, while preventing improper 
payments.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, section 824.
    Alternatives: None.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: To be determined.
    Risks: To be determined.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   07/00/17  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Elizabeth Teachey, Director, Social Security 
Administration, SSA: OISP/OEMP/DHSLT, 6401 Security Blvd., Woodlawn, MD 
21235, Phone: 410 965-9145, Email: [email protected].
    Faye Lipsky, Director, Office of Regulations and Reports Clearance, 
Social Security Administration, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 
21235-6401, Phone: 410 965-8783, Email: [email protected].
    Eric Skidmore, Social Insurance Specialist, Social Security 
Administration, Office of Income Security Programs, 6401 Security 
Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235, Phone: 410 597-1833, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 0960-AH88

SSA

150. Treatment of Earnings Derived From Services

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 sec. 825
    CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: Prior to the Bipartisan Budget Act when a Social Security

[[Page 94681]]

disability beneficiary worked, we were required to determine which 
month the beneficiary's income was earned in determining the 
beneficiary's continued entitlement to benefits (or the amount of his 
or her benefits). Section 825 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, 
requires SSA to presume that wages and salaries are earned when paid, 
unless information is available to SSA that shows when the income is 
earned. Regulatory changes are needed to set forth the procedures and 
rules that beneficiaries and SSA must follow in implementing this 
provision.
    Statement of Need: The purpose of section 825 is to simplify work 
CDR processing by allowing adjudicators to use readily available 
evidence of earnings like IRS data, SSI verified wages, quarterly 
earnings data, and earnings maintained by third party payroll 
providers.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Section 825 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 
2015.
    Alternatives: There is no alternative, this rule complies with 
statutory mandate.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Prior to this legislation, when we 
made an SGA determination we had to determine when the services were 
performed. Under provision 825, we can presume that monthly earnings 
are earned in the month paid, unless there is readily available 
evidence to indicate when earned.
    Risks: None.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   06/00/17  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: Faye Lipsky, Director, Office of Regulations and 
Reports Clearance, Social Security Administration, 6401 Security 
Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, Phone: 410 965-8783, Email: 
[email protected].
    Kristine Erwin-Tribbitt, Acting Director, Social Security 
Administration, Office of Research, Demonstration, and Employment 
Support, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235, Phone: 410 965-
3353, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 0960-AH90

SSA

151. Closure of Unintended Loopholes (Conforming Changes to Regulations 
on Presumed Filing and Voluntary Suspension)

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 sec. 831
    CFR Citation: 20 CFR 404.623; 20 CFR 404.313.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: Section 831 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, closes 
several loopholes in our program rules regarding deemed filing, dual 
entitlement, and benefit suspension in order to prevent individuals 
from obtaining larger benefits than Congress intended. Regulatory 
changes are needed to conform our regulations on presumed filing and 
voluntary suspension.
    Statement of Need: Section 831 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 
2015, closes several loopholes in our program rules regarding deemed 
filing, dual entitlement, and benefit suspension in order to prevent 
individuals from obtaining larger benefits than Congress intended. 
Regulatory changes are needed to conform our regulations on presumed 
filing and voluntary suspension.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Section 831(a) of the Bipartisan Budget Act 
of 2015 amends the Social security Act at sec. 202(r). Section 831(b) 
of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 amends the Social Security Act to 
add sec. 202(z).
    Alternatives:
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
    Risks:
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   04/00/17  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined.
    Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Faye Lipsky, Director, Office of Regulations and 
Reports Clearance, Social Security Administration, 6401 Security 
Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, Phone: 410 965-8783, Email: 
[email protected].
    RIN: 0960-AH93

SSA

Final Rule Stage

152. Revisions to Rules on Representation of Parties (3396F)

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 405(a); 42 U.S.C. 406(a)(1); 42 U.S.C. 
810(a); 42 U.S.C. 902(a)(5); 42 U.S.C. 1010; 42 U.S.C. 1383(d)
    CFR Citation: 20 CFR 404.612; 20 CFR 404.901; 20 CFR 404.903; 20 
CFR 404.909; 20 CFR 404.910; 20 CFR 404.933; 20 CFR 404.934; 20 CFR 
404.1700 to 404.1799; 20 CFR 408.1101; 20 CFR 416.315; 20 CFR 416.1401; 
20 CFR 416.1403; 20 CFR 416.1409; 20 CFR 416.1410; 20 CFR 416.1433; 20 
CFR 416.1434; 20 CFR 416.1500 to 416.1599; 20 CFR 422.203; 20 CFR 
422.515.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: We will revise our rules on representation of parties in 
parts 404, 408, 416, and 422 to reflect changes in the way claimants 
obtain representation and in representatives' business practices. These 
new rules will improve our efficiency by increasing the use of 
electronic services.
    Statement of Need: These revisions will reflect changes in 
representatives' business practices and improve our efficiency by 
enhancing use of the Internet.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Allows SSA to recognize firms as 
representatives.
    Alternatives: Determining if SSA has legal authority to permit 
appointed representatives to assign fees awarded under section 206 of 
the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 406) this would be an interim step.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Costs include Systems changes, 
modifications, and/or updates. There will also be costs associated with 
training staff on the new policy. Benefits include a more streamlined 
process for paying fees under section 206 of the Social Security Act, 
42 U.S.C. 406, that will make it more efficient and effective saving 
significant work years for SSA as well as providing better customer 
service.
    Risks: SSA anticipates that its recognition of firms as 
representatives will streamline the process for paying fees under 
section 206 of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 406, which will 
likely make the process more efficient and effective, and potentially 
reduce the number of incorrect payments.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   09/08/08  73 FR 51963
NPRM Comment Period End.............   11/07/08  .......................
Final Action........................   10/00/17  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 94682]]

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: Paraskevi Maddox, Social Insurance Specialist, 
Social Security Administration, Office of Disability Policy, 6401 
Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, Phone: 410 594-2129, 
Email: [email protected].
    Alexander Cristaudo, Program Analyst, Social Security 
Administration, Office of Disability Policy, 6401 Security Boulevard, 
Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, Phone: 410 965-3671, Email: 
[email protected].
    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, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 0960-AG56

SSA

153. Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating Human Immunodeficiency 
Virus (HIV) Infection and for Evaluating Functional Limitations in 
Immune System Disorders (3466F)

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 402; 42 U.S.C. 405(a); 42 U.S.C. 405(b); 
42 U.S.C. 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: We are revising the criteria in the Listing of 
Impairments (listings) that we use to evaluate claims involving human 
immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection in adults and children under 
titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act (Act). We also are 
revising the introductory text of the listings that we use to evaluate 
functional limitations resulting from immune system disorders. The 
revisions reflect our program experience, advances in medical 
knowledge, our adjudicative experience, recommendations from a 
commissioned report, and comments from medical experts and the public.
    Statement of Need: These final rules are necessary in order to 
update the HIV evaluation listings to reflect advances in medical 
knowledge, treatment, and evaluation methods. The changes will ensure 
that determinations of disability have a sound medical basis, that 
claimants receive equal treatment through the use of specific criteria, 
and that individuals who are disabled can be readily identified and 
awarded benefits if all other factors of entitlement or eligibility are 
met.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Administrative--not required by statute or 
court order.
    Alternatives: Undetermined at this time.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Cost/savings estimate--negligible.
    Risks: Undetermined at this time.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM...............................   03/18/08  73 FR 14409
ANPRM Comment Period End............   05/19/08  .......................
NPRM................................   02/26/14  79 FR 10730
NPRM Comment Period End.............   04/28/14  .......................
NPRM Correction and NPRM Comment       03/25/14  79 FR 16250
 Period Extended.
NPRM Comment Period Extended End....   05/27/14  .......................
Final Action........................   12/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 Policy, 6401 Security Boulevard, 
Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, Phone: 410 965-1020, Email: 
[email protected].
    Paul J. Scott, Social Insurance Specialist, Social Security 
Administration, Office of Medical Policy, 6401 Security Boulevard, 
Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, Phone: 410 966-1192.
    Brian Rudick, Social Insurance Specialist, Regulations Writer, 
Social Security Administration, Office of Regulations and Reports 
Clearance, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, Phone: 
410 965-1483, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 0960-AG71

SSA

154. Amendments to Regulations Regarding Withdrawals of Applications 
and Voluntary Suspension of Benefits (3573F)

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 402; 42 U.S.C. 402(i); 42 U.S.C. 402(j); 
42 U.S.C. 402(o); 42 U.S.C. 402(p); 42 U.S.C. 402(r); 42 U.S.C. 403(a); 
42 U.S.C. 403(b); 42 U.S.C. 405(a); 42 U.S.C. 416; 42 U.S.C. 416(i)(2); 
42 U.S.C. 423; 42 U.S.C. 423(b); 42 U.S.C. 425; 42 U.S.C. 428(a) to 
428(e); 42 U.S.C. 902(a)(5).
    CFR Citation: 20 CFR 404.313; 20 CFR 404.640.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: We modified our regulations to establish a 12-month time 
limit for the withdrawal of an old-age benefits application. We will 
also permit only one withdrawal per lifetime. These changes limit the 
voluntary suspension of benefits only to those benefits disbursed in 
future months.
    Statement of Need: We are under a clear congressional mandate to 
protect the Trust Funds. It was crucial that we change our current 
policies that have the effect of allowing beneficiaries to withdraw 
applications or suspend benefits and use benefits from the Trust Funds 
as something akin to an interest-free loan.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Discretionary.
    Alternatives: Based on our current evidence, there are no 
alternatives at this time.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The administrative effect of this 
final rule is negligible.
    Risks: None.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Final Rule..................   12/08/10  75 FR 76256
Interim Final Rule Effective........   12/08/10  .......................
Interim Final Rule Comment Period      02/07/11  .......................
 End.
Final Action........................   04/00/17  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: Undetermined.
    Agency Contact: Liz Calvo, Social Insurance Specialist. Social 
Security Administration, Office of Income Security Programs, 6401 
Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, Phone: 410 965-4200, 
Email: [email protected].
    Brian Rudick, Social Insurance Specialist, Regulations Writer, 
Social

[[Page 94683]]

Security Administration, Office of Regulations and Reports Clearance, 
6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, Phone: 410 965-1483, 
Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 0960-AH07

SSA

155. Revisions to Rules of Conduct and Standards of Responsibility for 
Appointed Representatives

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: Not Yet Determined
    CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: We propose to revise our rules of conduct and standards 
of responsibility for representatives. We also propose to update and 
clarify procedures we use when we bring charges against a 
representative for violating our rules of conduct and standards of 
responsibilities for representatives. These changes are necessary to 
better protect the integrity of our administrative process and further 
clarify representatives' currently existing responsibilities in their 
conduct with us. The changes to our rules are not meant to suggest that 
any specific conduct is permissible under our existing rules; instead, 
we seek to ensure that our rules of conduct and standards of 
responsibility are clearer as a whole and directly address a broader 
range of inappropriate conduct.
    Statement of Need: These changes are necessary because or current 
regulations do not specifically address some representative conduct 
that we find inappropriate.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Administrative--not required by statute or 
court order.
    Alternatives: Based on our program experience, there are no 
alternatives at this time. These rules will be based on 
recommendations.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The administrative effect of this 
regulation is negligible.
    Risks: Undetermined.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   08/16/16  81 FR 54520
NPRM Comment Period End.............   10/17/16  .......................
Final Action........................   01/00/17  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None,
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: 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-AH63

SSA

156. Ensuring Program Uniformity at the Hearing and Appeals Council 
Levels of the Administrative Review Process

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 401(j); 42 U.S.C. 404(f); 42 U.S.C. 
405(a) to 405(b); 42 U.S.C. 405(d) to 405(h); 42 U.S.C. 405(j); 42 
U.S.C. 405(s); 42 U.S.C. 421; 42 U.S.C. 421 note; 42 U.S.C. 423(a) to 
423(b); 42 U.S.C. 423(i); 42 U.S.C. 902(a)(5); 42 U.S.C. 902 note; 42 
U.S.C. 1381; 42 U.S.C. 1381a; 42 U.S.C. 1383; 42 U.S.C. 1383b
    CFR Citation: 20 CFR 404.935; 20 CFR 404.938; 20 CFR 404.939; 20 
CFR 944; 20 CFR 404.949; 20 CFR 404.950; 20 CFR 404.951; 20 CFR 
404.970; 20 CFR 976; 20 CFR 405 RECINDED & RESERVED; 20 CFR 416.1435; 
20 CFR 416.1438; 20 CFR 416.1439; 20 CFR 416.1444; 20 CFR 416.1449; 20 
CFR 416.1450; 20 CFR 416.1451; 20 CFR 416.1470; 20 CFR 416.1476; 20 CFR 
404.900; 20 CFR 404.929; 20 CFR 404.968; 20 CFR 416.1400; 20 CFR 
416.1429; 20 CFR 416.1468.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: We propose to revise our rules so that more of our 
procedures at the administrative law judge (ALJ) and Appeals Council 
levels of our administrative review process are consistent nationwide. 
We propose revisions to:
    (1) The time-frame for notifying claimants of a hearing date;
    (2) the information in our hearing notices;
    (3) the period when we require claimants to inform us about or 
submit written evidence, written statements, objections to the issues, 
and subpoena requests;
    (4) what constitutes the official record; and
    (5) the manner in which the Appeals Council considers additional 
evidence.
    We anticipate that these nationally consistent procedures will 
enable us to administer our disability programs more efficiently and 
better serve the public.
    Statement of Need: We propose to revise parts 404 and 416 to make 
more of our procedures at the hearings and Appeals Council levels 
consistent nationwide. These changes would bring the vast majority of 
the part 405 procedures in line with the procedures in parts 404 and 
416, so we propose to remove part 405 in its entirety. We anticipate 
that under nationally consistent procedures, we will be able to 
administer our disability programs more efficiently and better serve 
the public.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Administrative--not required by statute or 
court order.
    Alternatives: Based on our program experience, there are no 
alternatives at this time.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Undetermined.
    Risks: Undetermined.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   07/12/16  81 FR 45079
NPRM Comment Period Extended........   08/04/16  81 FR 51412
NPRM Comment Period End.............   08/11/16  .......................
NPRM Comment Period Extended End....   08/26/16  .......................
Final Action........................   12/00/16  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    URL for Public Comments: www.regulations.gov.
    Agency Contact: William P. Gibson, Social Insurance Specialist, 
Regulations Writer, Social Security Administration, Office of 
Regulations and Reports Clearance, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, 
MD 21235-6401, Phone: 410 966-9039, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 0960-AH71

SSA

157. Implementation of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 902(a)(5); 18 U.S.C. 922 note
    CFR Citation: 20 CFR 421.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: We propose to implement provisions of the NICS 
Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 (NIAA) that require Federal agencies 
to provide relevant records to the Attorney General for inclusion in 
the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). Under the 
proposed rule, we would identify, on a prospective basis, individuals 
who receive Disability

[[Page 94684]]

Insurance benefits under title II of the Social Security Act (Act) or 
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) payments under title XVI of the Act 
and also meet certain other criteria, including an award of benefits 
based on a finding that the individual's mental impairment meets or 
medically equals the requirements of section 12.00 of the Listing of 
Impairments (Listings) and receipt of benefits through a representative 
payee. We propose to provide pertinent information about these 
individuals to the Attorney General on not less than a quarterly basis. 
As required by the NIAA, at the commencement of the adjudication 
process we would also notify individuals, both orally and in writing, 
of their possible Federal prohibition on possessing or receiving 
firearms, the consequences of such inclusion, the criminal penalties 
for violating the Gun Control Act, and the availability of relief from 
the prohibitions imposed by Federal law. Finally, we also propose to 
establish a program that permits individuals to request relief from the 
Federal firearms prohibitions based on our adjudication. The proposed 
rule would allow us to fulfill responsibilities that we have under the 
NIAA.
    Statement of Need: We propose to implement provisions of the NICS 
Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 (NIAA) that require Federal agencies 
to provide relevant records to the Attorney General for inclusion in 
the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).
    Summary of Legal Basis: The NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 
(NIAA).
    Alternatives: None.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: To be determined.
    Risks: To be determined.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   05/05/16  81 FR 27059
NPRM Comment Period End.............   07/05/16  .......................
Final Action........................   01/00/17  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: None.
    Agency Contact: NICS Questions, Social Security Administration, 
6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, Phone: 410 965-3735.
    RIN: 0960-AH95.

SSA

158.  Availability of Information and Records to the Public

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: FOIA Reform Act of 2016, 5 U.S.C. 552
    CFR Citation: 20 CFR 402.
    Legal Deadline: Other, Statutory, December 27, 2016, FOIA Reform 
Act 2016. FOIA Reform Act of 2016.
    Abstract: Revisions of our FOIA regulations will address the 
requirements of the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016 and ensure that our 
regulations are consistent with all applicable laws.
    Statement of Need: Revisions of our FOIA regulation will address 
the requirements of the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016 and ensure that 
our regulations are consistent with all applicable laws.
    Summary of Legal Basis: FOIA Reform Act of 2016, 5 U.S.C. 552.
    Alternatives: None.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: To Be Determined.
    Risks:
    Timetable:

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

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: Federal.
    Agency Contact: Michael Sarich, Analyst, Social Security 
Administration, 6401 Security Blvd., Woodlawn, MD 21235, Phone: 410 
965-2803, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 0960-AI07

BILLING CODE 4191-02-P

FALL 2016 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, 
2016, to October 31, 2017, 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 also maintains a long-term agenda listing areas 
of potential rulemaking interest, as 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. Many of these projects build 
on prior research efforts by the Bureau.
    For example, the Bureau has begun 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 disputes 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

[[Page 94685]]

results of arbitration research that had been released by the Bureau in 
December 2013. The Bureau has issued a proposed rule that would 
prohibit covered providers of certain consumer financial products and 
services from using an arbitration agreement to bar the consumer from 
filing or participating in a class action. Under the proposal, 
companies would still be able to include arbitration clauses in their 
contracts. However, for contracts subject to the proposal, the clauses 
would have to say explicitly that they cannot be used to stop consumers 
from being part of a class action in court. The proposal would also 
require a covered provider that has an arbitration agreement and that 
is involved in arbitration pursuant to a pre-dispute arbitration 
agreement to submit specified arbitral records to the Bureau. The 
Bureau has received several thousand comments on the proposal and is 
considering development of a final rule for spring 2017.
    The Bureau is also engaged in a rulemaking concerning underwriting 
and certain other practices in connection with payday, vehicle title, 
and similar credit products. The rulemaking follows on multiple reports 
that the Bureau has issued on its research into these markets, 
including a white paper in April 2013, a data point in March 2014, and 
several publications earlier this year. The Bureau has issued a 
proposed rule that, among other things, would require lenders to make a 
reasonable determination that the consumer has the ability to repay a 
covered loan before extending credit. It would also require lenders to 
make certain disclosures before attempting to collect payments from 
consumers' accounts and restrict lenders from making additional payment 
collection attempts after two consecutive attempts have failed. The 
Bureau has already received more than 100,000 comments in response to 
the proposal; the comment period closed on October 7, 2016.
    In addition, the Bureau also engaged in policy analysis and 
research initiatives in preparation for a proposed 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 
Bureau released materials in July 2016 in advance of convening a panel 
under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) 
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. This SBREFA process focuses on companies that are 
considered ``debt collectors'' under the Fair Debt Collection Practices 
Act; the Bureau expects to convene a separate SBREFA proceeding 
focusing on companies that collect their own debts in 2017. The CFPB is 
also in the process of analyzing the results of a survey to obtain 
information from consumers about their experiences with debt collection 
and 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.
    Building on Bureau research and other sources, the Bureau is also 
engaged in policy analysis and further research initiatives in 
preparation for a proposed 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 qualitative consumer 
testing initiatives relating to the opt-in process.
    The Bureau is also working on a final rule to create a 
comprehensive set of protections for prepaid financial products, such 
as 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 final rule will build off a 
proposal that the Bureau issued in November 2014 to 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 also included 
provisions to amend Regulation E and Regulation Z (which implements the 
Truth in Lending Act) to regulate prepaid accounts with overdraft 
services or certain other 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, section 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Act 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 is in its early stages 
with respect to implementing section 1071 and is currently focused on 
outreach and research to develop its understanding of the players, 
products, and practices in the business lending markets and of the 
potential ways to implement section 1071. The Bureau then expects to 
begin developing proposed regulations concerning the data to be 
collected and determining appropriate procedures and privacy 
protections needed for information-gathering and public disclosure 
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.
    In October 2015, the Bureau issued a final rule implementing 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

[[Page 94686]]

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. Certain 
elements of the rule take effect in January 2017, and most new data 
collection requirements begin in January 2018. The Bureau is conducting 
outreach with industry and coordinating with other agencies to monitor 
and facilitate implementation of the rule. The Bureau has already 
released a small entity compliance guide. In addition, the Bureau is 
planning a rulemaking to make technical corrections and to clarify 
certain requirements under the new provisions of Regulation C. The 
Bureau expects the follow up HMDA rulemaking to occur in 2017.
    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 and the Real Estate 
Settlement Procedures Act. 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 help consumers better understand their options, choose the 
deal that is best for them, and avoid costly surprises at the closing 
table. The Bureau has worked intensively to support implementation 
efforts, including consumer education initiatives, both before and 
after the rule's October 2015 effective date. To facilitate 
implementation, the Bureau has released and provided applicable updates 
for a small entity compliance guide, a guide to forms, a readiness 
guide, sample forms, and additional materials. In July 2016, the Bureau 
proposed revisions to address a number of questions about the final 
rule that have been identified by interested parties in the course of 
these implementation efforts. The comment period on the proposal closed 
October 18, 2016. The Bureau anticipates finalizing the proposal in 
2017.
    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 (including 
several amendments issued since that time) to strengthen consumer 
protections involving the origination and servicing of mortgages. In 
general, 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, the Bureau 
issued a final rule in August 2016 that amends various provisions of 
its mortgage servicing rules in both Regulation X, which implements 
RESPA, and Regulation Z, which implements TILA. The final rule 
clarifies the applicability of certain provisions when a borrower is in 
bankruptcy or has invoked cease communication rights under the Fair 
Debt Collection Practices Act, enhances loss mitigation requirements, 
and extends the protections of the mortgage servicing rules to 
confirmed successors in interest, among other amendments. Most of the 
final rule will be effective in 2017, one year from publication in the 
Federal Register, while certain provisions regarding borrowers in 
bankruptcy and successors in interest will be effective in 2018, 18 
months from publication. In developing the final rule, the Bureau 
reviewed and considered public comments on the proposed rule, consulted 
with other agencies, and conducted consumer testing of certain 
disclosures. The Bureau will continue supporting implementation and 
consumer education efforts in connection with the mortgage-related 
final rules issued by the Bureau in January 2014, including the 
amendments issued since that time.
    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 relating to the use of automated valuation models.

Bureau Long-Term Planning Efforts

    The Bureau also maintains a long-term agenda to reflect its 
expectations beyond the current fiscal year. As noted in these items, 
the Bureau intends to explore potential rulemakings to address 
important issues related to consumer reporting and student loan 
servicing.
    With regard to consumer reporting, the Bureau continues to oversee 
the credit reporting market through its supervisory and enforcement 
efforts, monitor the market through research 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, the Department of Education, and the 
Department of Treasury also published a Joint Statement of Principles 
on student loan servicing. In May 2016, the CFPB issued a request for 
information, seeking comment from the public about potential borrower 
communications regarding alternative repayment options. In July 2016, 
the CFPB and Department of Treasury joined the Department of Education 
as it announced new policy guidance regarding servicing standards for 
Federal student loans, which it developed in consultation with the 
Bureau and the Department of Treasury. 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

[[Page 94687]]

potential rulemaking. Possible topics for consideration might include 
specific acts or practices and consumer disclosures.
    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

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.

CPSC

Proposed Rule Stage

159. Flammability Standard for Upholstered Furniture

    Priority: Economically Significant. Major under 5 U.S.C. 801.
    Legal Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1193; 5 U.S.C. 801
    CFR Citation: 16 CFR 1634.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: In October 2003, the Commission issued an advance notice 
of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) to address the risk of fire associated 
with cigarette and small open-flame ignitions of upholstered furniture. 
The Commission published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in 
March 2008, and received public comments. The Commission's proposed 
rule would require that upholstered furniture have cigarette-resistant 
fabrics or cigarette- and open flame-resistant barriers. The proposed 
rule would not require flame-resistant chemicals in fabrics or 
fillings. CPSC staff is conducting technical work to support a Final 
Rule. Since the Commission published the NPRM, CPSC staff has conducted 
testing of upholstered furniture, using both full-scale furniture and 
bench-scale models, as proposed in the NPRM. Currently, staff is 
reviewing fire barriers and fire-resistant fill materials that do not 
contain organohalogen chemicals as an approach for reducing deaths and 
injuries associated with furniture fires from upholstered furniture 
ignitions. Staff will develop a briefing package with options for 
consideration by the Commission in FY 2017, as well as a briefing 
package reviewing the pros and cons of adopting California's standard 
TB-117-2013 in FY 2016. Staff is also actively working with both ASTM 
and NFPA to evaluate new provisions and improve the existing consensus 
standards related to upholstered furniture flammability.
    Statement of Need: From 2009 to 2011, an annual average of 
approximately 5,000 residential fires in which upholstered furniture 
was the first item to ignite resulted in an estimated 410 deaths, 730 
civilian injuries, and about $280 million in property damage that could 
be addressed by a flammability standard. The total annual societal cost 
attributable to these upholstered furniture fire losses was more than 
$3.8 billion for 2008-2011. This total includes fires ignited by small 
open-flame sources and cigarettes.
    Summary of Legal Basis: Section 4 of the Flammable Fabrics Act 
(FFA) (15 U.S.C. 1193) authorizes the Commission to 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 sold in 
the United States meet mandatory requirements specified in the 
standard.
    Alternatives: (1) The Commission could issue a mandatory 
flammability standard if the Commission finds that such a standard is 
needed to address an unreasonable risk of the occurrence of fire from 
ignition of upholstered furniture. (2) The Commission could issue 
mandatory requirements for labeling of upholstered furniture, in 
addition to, or as an alternative to, the requirements of a mandatory 
flammability standard. (3) The Commission could terminate the 
proceeding for development of a flammability standard and rely on a 
voluntary standard if a voluntary standard would adequately address the 
risk of fire, and substantial compliance with such a standard is likely 
to result.

[[Page 94688]]

    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: The estimated annual cost of 
imposing a mandatory standard to address ignition of upholstered 
furniture will depend upon the test requirements in the Final Rule and 
the steps manufacturers take to meet those requirements. Depending upon 
the test requirements, a standard may reduce upholstered furniture-
related fire losses, the annual societal cost of which was more than 
$3.8 billion for 2008 to 2011. Thus, the potential benefits of a 
mandatory standard to address the risk of ignition of upholstered 
furniture could be significant, even if the standard did not prevent 
all such fires.
    Risks: The estimated average annual cost to society from 
residential fires associated with upholstered furniture was $3.8 
billion for 2008 to 2011. Societal costs associated with upholstered 
furniture fires are among the highest associated with any product 
subject to the Commission's authority. A standard has the potential to 
reduce these societal costs.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANPRM...............................   06/15/94  59 FR 30735
Commission Hearing May 5 & 6, 1998     03/17/98  63 FR 13017
 on Possible Toxicity of Flame-
 Retardant Chemicals.
Meeting Notice......................   03/20/02  67 FR 12916
Notice of Public Meeting............   08/27/03  68 FR 51564
Public Meeting......................   09/24/03  .......................
ANPRM...............................   10/23/03  68 FR 60629
ANPRM Comment Period End............   12/22/03  .......................
Staff Held Public Meeting...........   10/28/04  .......................
Staff Held Public Meeting...........   05/18/05  .......................
Staff Sent Status Report to            01/31/06  .......................
 Commission.
Staff Sent Status Report to            11/03/06  .......................
 Commission.
Staff Sent Status Report to            12/28/06  .......................
 Commission.
Staff Sent Options Package to          12/22/07  .......................
 Commission.
Commission Decision to Direct Staff    12/27/07  .......................
 to Prepare Draft NPRM.
Staff Sent Draft NPRM to Commission.   01/22/08  .......................
Commission Decision to Publish NPRM.   02/01/08  .......................
NPRM................................   03/04/08  73 FR 11702
NPRM Comment Period End.............   05/19/08  .......................
Staff Published NIST Report on         05/19/09  .......................
 Standard Test Cigarettes.
Staff Publishes NIST Report on         09/14/12  .......................
 Standard Research Foam.
Notice of April 25 Public Meeting      03/20/13  78 FR 17140
 and Request for Comments.
Staff Holds Upholstered Furniture      04/25/13  .......................
 Fire Safety Technology Meeting.
Comment Period End..................   07/01/13  .......................
Staff Sends Briefing Package to        09/08/16  .......................
 Commission on California's TB117-
 2013.
Staff Sends NPRM Briefing Package to   09/00/17  .......................
 Commission.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
    Agency Contact: Andrew Lock, Project Manager, Directorate for 
Laboratory Sciences, Consumer Product Safety Commission, National 
Product Testing and Evaluation Center, 5 Research Place, Rockville, MD 
20850, Phone: 301 987-2099, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 3041-AB35

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. One recent example is the FTC's enforcement action 
along with its law enforcement partners, the U.S. Department of Justice 
and the Environmental Protection Agency, to compensate consumers who 
were harmed by Volkswagen both because the company allegedly unfairly 
sold cars with illegal defeat devices and deceptively advertised these 
cars with claims that they were ``clean.'' On June 28, 2016, Volkswagen 
entered into a settlement to create a $10 billion compensation fund for 
Volkswagen diesel owners.\19\ This is the largest consumer refund 
program in the FTC's history.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Proposed Partial Stipulated Order for Permanent Injunction 
and Monetary Judgment, FTC v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., No. 
3:15-md-2672 (N.D. Cal. June 28, 2016), available at https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/proposed_partial_stipulated_order_filed_copy_0.pdf; see also related 
proposed consent decree between the United States Department of 
Justice and the State of California and Volkswagen at https://www.justice.gov/opa/file/871306/download.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At the same time, to ensure that consumers have a choice of 
products and services at competitive prices and quality, the 
marketplace must be policed for 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 with 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

[[Page 94689]]

Commission is also charged with the responsibility of issuing and 
enforcing regulations under a number of statutes, including 16 trade 
regulation rules promulgated pursuant to the FTC Act and numerous 
regulations issued pursuant to certain credit, financial and marketing 
practice statutes \20\ and energy laws.\21\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 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).
    \21\ 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) (codified in relevant part at 42 U.S.C. 17021, 17301-
17305).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commission Initiatives

    The Commission protects consumers through a variety of tools, 
including both regulatory and non-regulatory approaches. It has 
encouraged industry self-regulation, developed a corporate leniency 
policy for certain rule violations, and established compliance 
partnerships where appropriate.
    As detailed below, protecting consumer privacy, preventing and 
mitigating identity theft, containing the rising costs of health care 
and prescription drugs, fostering competition and innovation in markets 
for products that consumers buy every day, 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,\22\ and initiatives it has pursued since the 2015 Regulatory 
Plan was published.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 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. The Commission's recent efforts have 
addressed a wide range of issues, including the privacy of health 
information, the Internet of Things, Big Data, and data security.
    New health-related apps, devices, and services are increasingly 
available to consumers. These products and services often involve the 
collection of sensitive health data, which consumers generally expect 
to be private. While much of this activity is not covered by HIPAA 
(Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996), it is 
covered by the FTC Act. An example of a recent enforcement action in 
this area is a case against Practice Fusion, a company that provides 
management services to physicians, based on allegations that it 
deceived consumers by soliciting reviews about their doctors without 
adequately disclosing that the reviews would be posted publicly on the 
internet.\23\ As detailed in the complaint, many of the posted reviews 
included consumers' full names, medications, health conditions, and 
treatments received. The FTC also took action against Henry Schein 
Practice Solutions, a provider of office management software for dental 
practices, based on allegations that it misrepresented the extent to 
which it protected sensitive patient information.\24\ Further, because 
many of the entities collecting health data in today's marketplace are 
health apps and other small companies, the FTC is placing emphasis on 
business education. The FTC has thus worked with the U.S. Department of 
Health and Human Services to develop an interactive tool showing app 
developers which laws apply to them.\25\ In conjunction with that 
project, the FTC also released guidance to help mobile health app 
developers build privacy and security into their apps.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Complaint, In re Practice Fusion, Inc., No. C-4591 (Aug. 
15, 2016), available at https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/142-3039/practice-fusion-inc-matter.
    \24\ Complaint, In re Henry Schein Practice Solutions, Inc., No. 
C-4575 (May 20, 2016), available at https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/142-3161/henry-schein-practice-solutions-inc-matter.
    \25\ See Mobile Health Apps Interactive Tool (Apr. 2016), 
https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/mobile-health-apps-interactive-tool.
    \26\ See Mobile Health App Developers: FTC Best Practices (Apr. 
2016), https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/mobile-health-app-developers-ftc-best-practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Internet of Things is also an expanding part of the 
Commission's work. It comes in the form of products such as fitness 
devices, wearables, smart cars, and connected smoke detectors, light 
bulbs, and refrigerators. While these products are innovative and 
exciting, they are also collecting, storing, and often sharing vast 
amounts of consumer data, some of it very personal, raising familiar 
and new concerns relating to privacy and security. Device security is a 
serious concern. If hackers can hack a smart car, a pacemaker, or an 
insulin pump, the consequences could be grave. The FTC's case against 
computer hardware company ASUS illustrates the problems created by poor 
device security.\27\ The complaint charged that critical security flaws 
in ASUS' routers put the home networks of hundreds of thousands of 
consumers at risk. An earlier case against TRENDnet involved 
allegations of compromised security of home security monitoring 
cameras.\28\ Last year, the FTC issued a report addressing how 
fundamental privacy principles can be adapted to Internet of Things 
devices and recommending best practices for companies to follow.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Complaint, In re ASUSTeK Computer Inc., No. C-4587 (July 
18, 2016), available at https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2016/07/ftc-approves-final-order-asus-privacy-case.
    \28\ Complaint, In re TRENDnet, Inc., No. C-4426 (Jan. 16, 
2014), available at http://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/122-3090/trendnet-inc-matter.
    \29\ FTC Staff Report, Internet of Things: Privacy & Security in 
a Connected World (Jan. 2015), https://www.ftc.gov/reports/federal-trade-commission-staff-report-november-2013-workshop-entitled-internet-things.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another area of interest is Big Data, specifically the vast 
collection of data about consumers and enhanced capabilities to analyze 
data to make inferences and predictions about consumers. Such data uses 
can and are creating many benefits, including in areas such as public 
health and safety. But the increase in data collection and storage also 
increases the risk of data breach, identity theft, and the likelihood 
that data will be used in ways consumers do not expect or want. The FTC 
recently issued a report entitled Big Data: A Tool for Inclusion or 
Exclusion? addressing how the categorization of consumers may be both 
creating and limiting opportunities for them, with a focus on low-
income and underserved consumers.\30\ A key message in the report is 
that there are laws currently on the books--including the Fair Credit 
Reporting Act, the Equal Credit

[[Page 94690]]

Opportunity Act, and the FTC Act--that already address some of the 
concerns raised by Big Data, and with which companies must already 
comply. The report also identifies issues that companies should 
consider when using Big Data analytics to minimize discriminatory or 
other harmful outcomes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ FTC Report, Big Data: A Tool for Inclusion or Exclusion? 
Understanding the Issues, (Jan. 2016), https://www.ftc.gov/reports/big-data-tool-inclusion-or-exclusion-understanding-issues-ftc-report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One aspect of the increase in data collection is the ease with 
which anyone can buy detailed data about consumers. The FTC continues 
to focus on data brokers and, in particular, the role they play in 
facilitating fraud. For example, the FTC brought a case against data 
broker Sequoia One, alleging that it purchased the payday loan 
applications of financially strapped consumers--including names, 
addresses, phone numbers, Social Security Numbers, and bank account 
numbers--and then sold them to scam artists who used the data to 
withdraw millions of dollars from consumers' accounts.\31\ The FTC also 
hosted a public workshop that examined the growing use of online lead 
generation in various industries \32\ leading to a 2016 staff report 
that addressed lead generation's potential benefits and the consumer 
protection issues it might raise.\33\ Further, in November 2015, the 
FTC hosted a workshop on cross-device tracking to examine the various 
ways that companies now track consumers across multiple devices, and 
not just on one device.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Complaint, FTC v. Sequoia One, LLC, No. 2:15-cv-01512-JCM-
CWH (D. Nev. Aug. 12, 2015), available at https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/150812sequoiaonecmpt.pdf.
    \32\ Follow the Lead: An FTC Workshop on Lead Generation (Oct. 
30, 2015), https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/events-calendar/2015/10/follow-lead-ftc-workshop-lead-generation.
    \33\ FTC Staff Perspective, Follow the Lead Workshop (Sept. 
2016), https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/reports/staff-perspective-follow-lead/staff_perspective_follow_the_lead_workshop.pdf.
    \34\ Cross Device Tracking: An FTC Workshop (Nov. 16, 2015), 
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/events-calendar/2015/11/cross-device-tracking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Data security remains an important focus of the Commission's 
privacy work. Since 2002, approximately 60 companies have settled FTC 
cases alleging that they engaged in deceptive or unfair practices that 
unreasonably put consumers' personal data at risk. In July 2016, the 
Commission issued an Opinion and Final Order against medical testing 
laboratory LabMD, Inc., concluding that its data security practices 
were unreasonable and constituted an unfair act or practice that 
violated the FTC Act.\35\ The case concerns the company's failure to 
protect the sensitive health information of many thousands of 
consumers. The final order requires LabMD to establish a comprehensive 
information security program, obtain periodic assessments regarding its 
implementation, and notify those consumers whose personal information 
was exposed. The agency also announced recent data security settlements 
against Lifelock and Wyndham. In Lifelock, the company agreed to pay 
$100 million--the largest monetary award obtained by the Commission in 
a contempt action to settle charges that it violated the terms of a 
2010 federal court order that required the company to secure consumers' 
personal information and prohibited deceptive advertising.\36\ In the 
Wyndham case, the company agreed to settle FTC charges that the 
company's security practices unreasonably exposed the payment card 
information of hundreds of thousands of consumers to hackers in three 
separate data breaches.\37\ While the Wyndham case was pending, the 
Third Circuit affirmed the FTC's authority to challenge unfair data 
security practices using its Section 5 authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ Opinion of the Commission and Final Order, In re LabMD, 
Inc., No. 9357 (July 28, 2016), available at https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/102-3099/labmd-inc-matter.
    \36\ Amended Order, FTC v. LifeLock, Inc., No. 2:10-CV-00530-JJT 
(D. Ariz. Jan. 4, 2016), available at https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/160105lifelockorder.pdf.
    \37\ Stipulated Order for Injunction, FTC v. Wyndham Worldwide 
Corp., No. 2:13-CV-01887-ES-JAD (D.N.J. Dec. 11, 2015), available at 
https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/151211wyndhamstip.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FTC also engages in policy initiatives to better understand 
emerging technologies, research, and business models, including by 
hosting many workshops and events on privacy issues. On January 14, 
2016, the FTC hosted it's first-ever PrivacyCon event to showcase 
original research in the area of privacy and security. Participants 
presented and discussed original research on important and timely 
topics such as data security, online tracking, and consumer perceptions 
of privacy, privacy disclosures, Big Data, and the economics of 
privacy. PrivacyCon is helping the Commission stay up-to-date with 
changing technologies, learn about new tools and programs, identify 
potential areas for investigation and enforcement, fashion remedies, 
and identify areas for further study. The Commission has scheduled a 
second PrivacyCon for January 12, 2017, in Washington, DC
    As another example of its work on policy issues, the FTC is hosting 
a Fall Technology Series of three half-day events during Fall of 2016 
that to explore consumer protection and privacy implications of 
ransomware, drones, and smart TVs. This series gathers input from 
academics, business and industry representatives, government experts, 
and consumer advocates for three-hour discussion sessions, which take 
place in Washington, DC and are open to the public. The FTC invites 
comment from the public on the events.
    Finally, the FTC educates consumers and businesses on privacy and 
security issues. For example, the ``Start with Security'' business 
outreach campaign, launched in 2015, has included one-day conferences 
in Austin, San Francisco, Seattle, and Chicago to bring business owners 
and developers together with industry experts to discuss practical tips 
and strategies for implementing effective data security. Additionally, 
the Start with Security Guide \38\ for businesses provides an easy way 
for companies to understand and apply lessons from the FTC's previous 
data security cases. It includes brief descriptions and references to 
the cases, as well as plain-language explanations of the security 
principles at issue. The FTC has also introduced a one-stop Web site at 
www.ftc.gov/datasecurity that consolidates the Commission's data 
security information for businesses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ FTC, Start with Security: A Guide for Business (June 2015), 
https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/plain-language/pdf0205-startwithsecurity.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 children under the age of thirteen. For example, in cases against 
app developers LAI Systems and Retro Dreamer,\39\ the FTC alleged that 
the companies created a number of apps directed to children that 
allowed third-party advertisers to collect personal information from 
children in the form of persistent identifiers, for purposes of 
conducting behavioral advertising, without obtaining parental consent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See Press Release, FTC, Two App Developers Settle FTC 
Charges They Violated Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (Dec. 
17, 2015), https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2015/12/two-app-developers-settle-ftc-charges-they-violated-childrens.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission actively litigates to protect children and their 
parents when children use mobile apps that appeal to children and offer 
virtual goods for sale.

[[Page 94691]]

On April 26, 2016, a federal district court granted the Commission's 
request for summary judgment in the agency's lawsuit alleging that 
Amazon, Inc. billed consumers for unauthorized in-app charges incurred 
by children. The judge's order in the case found that Amazon received 
many complaints from consumers about surprise in-app charges incurred 
by children, citing the fact that the company's disclosures about the 
possibility of in-app charges within otherwise ``free'' apps were not 
sufficient to inform consumers about the charges.\40\ 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.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ Redacted Order Granting Amazon's Motion for Partial Summary 
Judgment and Granting the FTC's Motion for Summary Judgment, FTC v. 
Amazon.com, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-1038-JCC (W.D. Wash. Apr. 26, 2016), 
available at https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/160427amazonorder.pdf.
    \41\ Decision and Order, In re Apple Inc., No. C-4444 (Mar. 25, 
2014), available at https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/112-3108/apple-inc; Decision and Order, In re Google 
Inc., No. C-4499 (Dec. 2, 2015), available at https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/122-3237/google-inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (c) Protecting Every Community. The FTC has brought a very large 
number of cases to stop scam artists, shut down their operations, and 
put money back in consumers' pockets. Fraud precludes economic 
opportunities and deprives individuals of money, time, and resources. 
While fraud touches people of all ages, backgrounds, incomes, and 
locations, certain groups are targeted more frequently. Sometimes 
fraudsters target older people, and sometimes they target people of 
different racial, ethnic, or national origins, or people for whom 
English is not their first language. Sometimes scam artists target 
members of the military. The FTC is thus making a concerted effort to 
ensure that our fraud prevention efforts--both law enforcement and 
education--are reaching every community, including groups that may have 
been underserved in the past.
    The agency has aggressively enforced the law against scam artists 
and sought to educate older consumers about scams and to promote 
technological solutions that will make it more difficult for scammers 
to operate and hide from law enforcement. Though all of the FTC's fraud 
cases involve elderly consumers as part of the general population, 
since 2005, the Commission has brought 38 cases alleging that 
defendants' conduct has specifically targeted or disproportionately 
harmed older adults. Although scams targeting older Americans are 
diverse and have ranged from sweepstakes to business opportunities, the 
FTC has in recent years concentrated its law enforcement efforts on 
online threats and various types of impostor scams. Some examples are 
technical support scams, health care-related scams, and sweepstakes and 
prize scams. The FTC also has pursued actions related to the money 
transfer services that are commonly used in scams affecting older 
adults, and has coordinated efforts with criminal and foreign law 
enforcement agencies to achieve a broader impact.
    FTC education and outreach programs reach tens of millions of 
people every year. Among them are a series of fotonovelas (graphic 
novels) to raise awareness about scams targeting the Latino community 
and the ``Pass It On'' program that provides seniors with information, 
in English and Spanish, on a variety of scams targeting the 
elderly.\42\ The agency works with the Elder Justice Coordinating 
Council to help protect seniors. And the FTC also works with the AARP 
Foundation, whose peer counselors provided fraud-avoidance advice last 
year to more than a thousand seniors who had filed complaints about 
certain frauds, including lottery, prize promotion, and grandparent 
scams. The Commission also promotes initiatives to make it harder for 
scammers to fake or ``spoof'' their caller identification information 
and supports more widespread availability of technology that will block 
calls from fraudsters, essentially operating as a spam filter for the 
telephone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ FTC, Fotonovelas, https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/features/feature-0031-fotonovelas; FTC, Pass It On, https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/features/feature-0030-pass-it-on.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (d) Protecting Financially Distressed Consumers. Even as the 
economy recovers, some consumers continue to face financial challenges. 
The FTC acts to protect consumers from deceptive and unfair credit 
practices and ensure that consumers can 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.
    For example, if educational institutions make promises to their 
prospective students about future employment and income, the 
institutions must be able to substantiate those claims. On January 27, 
2016, the Commission filed suit against DeVry University for allegedly 
deceiving students about the likelihood that they would find jobs after 
graduation in their field of study.\43\ In its complaint against DeVry, 
the FTC alleged that the defendants' claim that 90 percent of DeVry 
graduates actively seeking employment landed jobs in their field within 
six months of graduation was deceptive. The complaint also charged that 
DeVry deceptively claimed that its graduates had 15 percent higher 
incomes one year after graduation on average than the graduates of all 
other colleges or universities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ Complaint for Permanent Injunction and Other Equitable 
Relief, FTC v. DeVry Educ. Group Inc., No. 2:16-cv-579 (C.D. Cal. 
Jan. 27, 2016), available at https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/160127devrycmpt.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (e) Fighting Identity Theft. The issue of identity theft has been 
one of the top consumer complaint subject areas reported to the FTC 
over the past 15 years, and in 2015, the Commission received 490,220 
complaints from consumers who were victims of identity theft. On May 
14, 2015, the FTC launched the Web site IdentityTheft.gov 
(robodeidentidad.gov in Spanish), a free, one-stop resource people can 
use to report and recover from identity theft. The site implements the 
President's Executive Order \44\ by consolidating federal resources and 
reducing the burden on identity theft victims as they repair damage 
caused by identity theft. The online site is accessible from mobile 
devices and is integrated with the FTC's consumer complaint system. 
Identity theft victims can use the site to create a personal recovery 
plan based on the type of identity theft they face and prepare pre-
filled letters and forms to send to credit bureaus, businesses and debt 
collectors. During 2015, the IdentityTheft.gov Web site had more than 
1.3 million page views and the public ordered more than 3.7 million 
related publications in English, Spanish and four other languages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ E.O. 13681, ``Improving the Security of Consumer Financial 
Transactions'' (Oct. 17, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Tax identity theft is a growing share of identity theft-related 
complaints. In January 2016, the FTC sponsored a Tax Identity Theft 
Awareness Week to raise awareness about tax identity theft and provide 
tips about how to respond to it. The FTC's Tax Identity Theft Awareness 
Week Web site \45\ provided material for regional events held in the 
states with the highest reported rates of identity theft. The FTC 
conducted multiple webinars with Veterans Affairs staff and military 
financial counselors, including three webinars about tax identity theft

[[Page 94692]]

and imposter scams that reached more than 1,100 Veterans Affairs staff 
and veterans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ See FTC, Tax Identity Theft Awareness Week (Jan. 2016), 
http://www.consumer.ftc.gov/features/feature-0029-tax-identity-theft-awareness-week.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (f) Sharing Economy. In light of the recent rapid expansion of 
business activity on online and mobile peer-to-peer business platforms, 
the Commission hosted a workshop in 2015 on the emerging ``Sharing 
Economy.'' \46\ Peer-to-peer platforms provide marketplaces in which 
numerous suppliers (frequently individuals and small entities) and 
consumers may locate partners and engage in commercial 
transactions.\47\ These platforms, and suppliers using them, are 
providing innovative alternatives to consumers in a number of sectors, 
particularly in local transportation (e.g., Uber and Lyft) and lodging 
(e.g., Airbnb). The workshop examined the economics underlying sharing 
economy activity, the reputational systems and other mechanisms that 
sharing economy platforms use to promote trust among parties, how entry 
by sharing economy platforms and suppliers enhances competition, and 
the debate over how such economic activity should be regulated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ The workshop homepage can be accessed at the following 
address: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/events-calendar/2015/06/sharing-economy-issues-facing-platforms-participants-regulators.
    \47\ Some peer-to-peer platforms enable non-commercial 
transactions. The FTC's workshop did not evaluate such platforms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (g) Promoting Competition in Health Care Markets. The Commission 
prioritizes preventing mergers that would reduce competition among 
healthcare providers and likely enable the merged entities to raise 
rates charged to commercial healthcare plans for vital services and 
reduce incentives to improve service quality and innovation. The latest 
empirical research consistently finds that provider competition results 
in the greatest price and quality benefits for consumers, driving the 
FTC's continued vigilance in health care provider markets.\48\ In late 
2015, the Commission sued to stop three proposed hospital mergers that 
the agency alleged would lead to increased market power for the merging 
firms in their local communities.\49\ Two of these cases are still 
pending, but on July 6, 2016, the FTC dismissed without prejudice its 
administrative complaint challenging the proposed merger between Cabell 
Huntington Hospital and St. Mary's Medical Center--two hospitals 
located three miles apart in Huntington, West Virginia. The Commission 
voted to dismiss the complaint in light of the passage in March 2016 of 
a new West Virginia law relating to certain ``cooperative agreements'' 
between hospitals in that state, and the West Virginia Health Care 
Authority's decision to approve a cooperative agreement between Cabell 
and St. Mary's. Cooperative agreement laws seek to replace antitrust 
enforcement with state regulation and supervision of healthcare 
provider combinations. In the Commission's view, this case presents 
another example of healthcare providers using state legislation to 
shield potentially anticompetitive combinations from antitrust 
enforcement. Such state cooperative agreement laws are likely to harm 
local communities through higher health care costs and lower quality 
care.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ Zack Cooper et al., The Price Ain't Right? Hospital Prices 
and Health Spending on the Privately Insured (Nat'l Bureau of Econ. 
Research, Working Paper No. 21815, 2015), http://www.nber.org/papers/w21815; Beth Jones Sanborn, Huge Variation in Medical Prices 
as Hospital Monopolies Charge More, Report Says, Healthcare Fin. 
(Dec. 18, 2015), http://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/news/huge-variation-medical-prices-hospital-monopolies-charge-more-report-says; see, e.g., Richard Scheffler et al., Differing Impacts of 
Market Concentration of Affordable Care Act Marketplace Premiums, 35 
Health Affairs 880 (2015); Erin Trish & Bradley Herring, How Do 
Health Insurer Market Concentration and Bargaining Power With 
Hospitals Affect Health Insurance Premiums?, 42 J. Health Econ. 104, 
112 (2015); Martin Gaynor et al., Death by Market Power: Reform, 
Competition, and Patient Outcomes in the National Health Service, 5 
Am. Econ. J. 134 (Nov. 2013); Zack Cooper et al., Does Hospital 
Competition Save Lives? Evidence from the English NHS Patient Choice 
Reforms, 121 Econ. J. 228 (2011); see also Nathan Wilson, Market 
Structure as a Determinant of Patient Care Quality, Am. J. Health 
Econ. (forthcoming).
    \49\ Press Release, FTC, FTC Challenges Proposed Merger of Two 
West Virginia Hospitals (Nov. 6, 2015), https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2015/11/ftc-challenges-proposed-merger-two-west-virginia-hospitals; Press Release, FTC, FTC and Pennsylvania 
Office of Attorney General Challenge Penn State Hershey Medical 
Center's Proposed Merger with PinnacleHealth System (Dec. 8, 2015), 
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2015/12/ftc-pennsylvania-office-attorney-general-challenge-penn-state; Press 
Release, FTC, FTC Challenges Proposed Merger of Two Chicago-area 
Hospital Systems (Dec. 18, 2015), https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2015/12/ftc-challenges-proposed-merger-two-chicago-area-hospital-systems.
    \50\ See Statement of the Federal Trade Commission, In re Cabell 
Huntington Hosp., Inc., Docket No. 9366 (July 6, 2016), https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/969783/160706cabellcommstmt.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FTC also continues to work to eliminate anticompetitive ``pay-
for-delay'' settlements in which a branded drug firm pays a generic 
competitor to keep generic drugs off the market. In a significant 
victory, 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). This decision cleared the way for 
antitrust review of potentially anticompetitive pay-for-delay patent 
settlement agreements. The FTC currently has three active pay-for-delay 
litigations underway in federal courts. Two involve the blockbuster 
male testosterone replacement drug Androgel (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).\51\ The third case involves an agreement not to market 
an authorized generic--often called a ``no-AG'' commitment--as a form 
of reverse payment.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ Complaint for Injunctive and Other Equitable Relief, FTC v. 
AbbVie, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-05151-RK (E.D. Pa. Sept. 8, 2014), 
available at https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/140908abbviecmpt1.pdf.
    \52\ Complaint for Injunctive and Other Equitable Relief, FTC v. 
Endo Pharms. Inc., No. 2:16-cv-01440 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 30, 2016), 
available at https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/160331endocmpt.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FTC also remains vigilant to stop other anticompetitive conduct 
by pharmaceutical firms to delay generic competition, including 
``product hopping,'' where a brand introduces new products with minor 
or no substantive improvements in the hopes of preventing substitution 
to lower-priced generics. The Commission has noted that the potential 
for anticompetitive product design is particularly acute in the 
pharmaceutical industry, in part because it may be a profitable 
strategy even if consumers do not prefer the reformulated version of 
the product or if it lacks any real medical benefit.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ Brief for Amicus Curiae FTC Supporting Plaintiff-Appellant, 
Mylan Pharms., Inc. v. Warner Chilcott PLC, Civ. A. No. 12-3824 (3d. 
Cir. Sept. 30, 2015), https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/amicus_briefs/mylan-pharmaceuticals-inc.v.warner-chilcott-plc-et-al./151001mylanamicusbrief.pdf. Commissioner Ohlhausen voted against 
the filing of this brief.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (h) Promoting Competition for Retail Goods. On May 19, 2016, 
Staples, Inc. abandoned its proposed $6.3 billion acquisition of Office 
Depot, Inc. after the Commission obtained a preliminary injunction in 
federal court. This deal would have eliminated head-to-head competition 
between the two companies and likely led to higher prices and lower 
quality for the many large businesses that purchase office supplies for 
their own use. This action, like other merger challenges involving 
supermarkets and dollar stores, helps preserve competition in prices, 
distribution, and combination of services and features for products 
that businesses and consumers buy every day.
    The Commission also recently filed an administrative complaint 
against 1-800

[[Page 94693]]

Contacts, the country's largest online seller of contact lenses.\54\ 
The complaint alleges that the company entered into a series of 
agreements with its online rivals that suppress competition in certain 
online search advertising auctions and restrict truthful internet 
advertising to consumers, resulting in some consumers paying more for 
contact lenses than they would have absent the agreements. The 
complaint contends that the agreements, which settled trademark 
lawsuits that 1-800 Contacts brought or threatened, bar both 1-800 
Contacts and each of its affected rivals from bidding for each other's 
trademarked terms. The agreements also allegedly require each party to 
use negative keywords designed to keep search engines from displaying 
one party's advertisements in response to a search query that includes 
terms specified by the other party. The complaint charges that the 
bidding agreements are overly broad and unnecessary to safeguard any 
legitimate trademark interest. The case is pending.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ Complaint, In re 1-800 Contacts, Docket No. 9372 (Aug. 8, 
2016). available at https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/160808_1800contactspt3cmpt.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (i) Fostering Innovation & Competition. For more than two decades, 
the Commission has examined difficult issues at the intersection of 
antitrust and intellectual property law--including those 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 has used its authority under Section 6(b) of 
the Federal Trade Commission Act to explore the impact of patent 
assertion entities (PAE), firms that acquire patents from third parties 
and then try to make money by licensing or suing accused infringers. In 
2014, the FTC received clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act 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. During October 2016, the FTC 
published a staff report that spotlighted the business practices of 
PAEs and recommended patent litigation reforms.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ FTC Study, Patent Assertion Entity Activity (Oct. 2016), 
https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/reports/patent-assertion-entity-activity-ftc-study/p131203_patent_assertion_entity_activity_an_ftc_study.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2014, the FTC received clearance under the Paperwork Reduction 
Act 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 expects to publish 
a report in Fall 2016 describing its findings and providing 
recommendations for future reform.
    In conjunction with the Department of Justice, the Commission is 
also seeking to update the Antitrust Guidelines for the Licensing of 
Intellectual Property, also known as the IP Licensing Guidelines. To 
reflect changes in law and accumulated antitrust enforcement experience 
over the past 20 years, the agencies have proposed modifications to the 
IP Licensing Guidelines. The Commission is seeking comments from the 
public on the proposed update.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ Press Release, FTC, FTC and DOJ Seek Views on Proposed 
Update of the Antitrust Guidelines for Licensing of Intellectual 
Property (Aug. 12, 2016), https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2016/08/ftc-doj-seek-views-proposed-update-antitrust-guidelines-licensing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (j) Deceptive Endorsements and Native Advertising. The Commission 
also focuses on many other advertising issues, such as deceptive 
endorsements and native advertising. Deceptive endorsements continue to 
be a priority, especially given the rapid growth of newer forms of 
promotion, such as social media, videos, and online reviews. Last year 
the FTC updated its Endorsement Guides to address these newer forms of 
promotion.\57\ The key principle is straightforward: Consumers have a 
right to know when a supposedly objective opinion is actually a 
marketing pitch. The FTC has brought many past cases and several recent 
cases involving deceptive endorsements, including a recent settlement 
with Machinima, an entertainment network that allegedly paid a large 
group of ``influencers'' to post videos online touting Microsoft's Xbox 
One.\58\ According to the complaint, the videos appeared to be the 
objective views of the influencers and allegedly did not disclose they 
were actually paid endorsements. In July 2016, the FTC announced a 
proposed settlement that would resolve allegations of similar practices 
against Warner Brothers.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ The FTC's Endorsement Guides: What People Are Asking (May 
2015), https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/ftcs-endorsement-guides-what-people-are-asking.
    \58\ Complaint, In re Machinima, Inc., No. C-4569 (Mar. 16, 
2016), available at https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/142-3090/machinima-inc-matter.
    \59\ See Press Release, FTC, Warner Bros. Settles FTC Charges It 
Failed to Adequately Disclose It Paid Online Influencers to Post 
Gameplay Videos (July 11, 2016), https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2016/07/warner-bros-settles-ftc-charges-it-failed-adequately-disclose-it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission focuses on similar concerns with respect to native 
advertising, which involves the use of formats that make advertising or 
promotional messages look like objective content. The Commission 
recently issued an Enforcement Policy Statement about this 
practice.\60\ It affirms that ads and marketing that promote the 
benefits and attributes of goods and services should be identifiable as 
advertising to consumers. The FTC also recently brought its first 
native advertising case, alleging that retailer Lord & Taylor deceived 
consumers by paying for native ads, including a seemingly objective 
article in an online fashion publication, without disclosing that such 
ads were actually paid promotions for a 2015 clothing launch.\61\ The 
FTC also challenged the company's endorsement practices. The complaint 
alleged that the company paid 50 online fashion ``influencers'' to post 
Instagram pictures of themselves wearing a dress from the new 
collection without disclosing that it had paid the influencers to do 
so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ See Commission Enforcement Policy Statement on Deceptively 
Formatted Advertisements (Dec. 2015), https://www.ftc.gov/public-statements/2015/12/commission-enforcement-policy-statement-deceptively-formatted; see also FTC, Native Advertising: A Guide for 
Businesses (Dec. 2015), https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/native-advertising-guide-businesses.
    \61\ Complaint, In re Lord & Taylor, LLC, No. C-4576 (May 20, 
2016), available at https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/152-3181/lord-taylor-llc-matter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (k) 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.\62\ For 
example, in 2016, the Commission required divestitures in connection 
with

[[Page 94694]]

ArcLight Energy's acquisition of Gulf Oil to preserve competition among 
petroleum product terminals located in Altoona, Scranton, and 
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.\63\ The Commission also hosted a one-day 
public workshop to explore competition and consumer protection issues 
that may arise when consumers generate their own electric power by 
installing solar panels on their homes.\64\ 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 energy industries will remain a focus 
of our work for years to come.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ Information regarding FTC oil and gas industry initiatives 
is available at https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/industry-guidance/oil-and-gas.
    \63\ Decision and Order, In re ArcLight Energy Partners Fund VI, 
L.P., No. C-4563 (Feb. 4, 2016), available at https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/151-0149/arclight-energy-partners-fund-vi-lp-matter.
    \64\ For more information, see FTC workshop, Something New Under 
the Sun (June 21, 2016), https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/events-calendar/2016/06/something-new-under-sun-competition-consumer-protection-issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (l) Remedy Study. The Commission is conducting another study to 
evaluate the effectiveness of the Commission's orders in past merger 
cases where it has required a divestiture or other remedy.\65\ This 
effort will expand on a similar remedy study conducted in the 1990s 
that led to important improvements in the Commission's orders.\66\ The 
new study is broader, covering 90 orders entered between 2006 and 2012, 
and will benefit from information collected from customers and 
significant competitors. We expect the study to provide insight into 
whether the Commission's orders maintained competition in markets that 
otherwise would have been affected by the merger at issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ Press Release, FTC, FTC Proposes to Study Merger Remedies 
(Jan. 9, 2015), https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2015/01/ftc-proposes-study-merger-remedies.
    \66\ FTC, A Study of the Commission's Divestiture Process 
(1999), https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/attachments/merger-review/divestiture.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (m) Protecting Consumers from Cross-Border Harm. The FTC cooperates 
with competition and consumer protection agencies in other countries to 
halt deceptive and anticompetitive business practices that affect U.S. 
consumers, and promotes sound approaches to issues of mutual 
international interest by building relationships with counterpart 
agencies around the world on competition and consumer protection 
issues.
    The FTC cooperated on enforcement-related matters with foreign 
agencies or multilateral organizations in 58 consumer protection and 
privacy matters, using its authority under the U.S. SAFE WEB Act in 19 
of these matters to share information or provide investigative 
assistance to foreign authorities. One highlight was the FTC's 
successful effort, working with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and 
the U.S. Department of Justice, to obtain a court order from a Montreal 
court repatriating nearly $2 million to the U.S. victims of a phony 
mortgage assistance and debt relief scheme. The FTC also continues to 
advance enforcement cooperation through networks such as the 
International Consumer Protection and Enforcement Network (ICPEN), the 
Global Privacy Enforcement Network (GPEN), the anti-spam London Action 
Plan and the International Mass Marketing Fraud Working Group. It 
relaunched the econsumer.gov complaint portal, together with 33 other 
countries that are members of ICPEN, to enhance their ability to gather 
and share cross-border consumer complaints that can be used to 
investigate and take action against international scams. In addition, 
the FTC with enforcement agencies from seven other GPEN member 
countries launched a new information-sharing system--GPEN Alert--which 
enables the FTC and its counterparts to better coordinate international 
efforts to protect consumer privacy by sharing information about 
investigations while maintaining confidentiality.
    In the policy arena, the FTC played a leading role in revising the 
OECD's Guidelines on Consumer Protection in Electronic Commerce, which 
were adopted by the OECD Council in early 2016 to address new 
developments in e-commerce including mobile applications, digital 
content, and peer platform marketplaces. The agency also played an 
important role in negotiating new provisions of the United Nations 
Guidelines on Consumer Protection relating to e-commerce, consumer 
financial services, dispute resolution and redress, and international 
cooperation.

    The FTC also continues to advocate for global interoperability 
among different international privacy frameworks. For example, the 
FTC worked closely with the U.S. Department of Commerce and European 
Commission to develop the E.U.-U.S. Privacy Shield Framework which 
the European Commission adopted on July 12, 2016. The new framework 
replaces the U.S.-E.U. Safe Harbor Framework and allows companies of 
all sizes and across most industries to transfer data between the 
European Union and United States. The new framework enhances 
protections for EU citizens' data, improves cooperation procedures 
among U.S. and EU authorities, and adds new redress and complaint 
resolution mechanisms for EU citizens. The FTC has a strong track 
record of protecting consumer privacy in many contexts, and it is 
committed to vigorously enforcing the new framework.

    Throughout 2016, the FTC's international competition program 
promoted cooperation with competition agencies in other jurisdictions 
and advocated convergence of international antitrust policies toward 
best practice. As a new co-chair of the Mergers Working Group of the 
International Competition Network (ICN), the FTC is already taking a 
lead role to strengthen implementation of, and possibly update, the 
ICN's signature recommended practices for merger notification and 
review procedures.
    In addition to promoting convergence toward sound competition 
policy and enforcement, the FTC advocates fair and transparent 
enforcement procedures. The FTC initiated and co-led the ICN's project 
on procedural fairness that culminated in the consensus Guidance on 
Investigative Process, which is the most comprehensive agency-led 
effort to articulate best practices in providing due process in 
antitrust investigations. The FTC actively promotes implementation of 
these standards of transparency, engagement, and other key procedural 
aspects of antitrust enforcement. The FTC also participated in the 
interagency teams that negotiated outcomes with China in the Joint 
Commission on Commerce and Trade and the Strategic and Economic 
Dialogue, including with regard to procedural fairness in anti-monopoly 
law proceedings and the coherence of antitrust monopoly and 
intellectual property rules. We also played an active role in 
developing the competition chapters of Trans-Pacific and Transatlantic 
Trade and Investment Partnerships.
    Finally, the FTC has continued its robust technical assistance 
program to share its experience with competition agencies around the 
world. In 2016, the FTC conducted programs in jurisdictions around the 
globe, including Argentina, Brazil, India, Mexico, the Philippines, 
South Africa, and Ukraine. Through its International Fellows Program, 
the FTC brought ten international competition colleagues from five 
competition agencies to work alongside FTC staff on antitrust 
enforcement matters for fiscal year 2016. Under the same program, the 
FTC brought four international consumer protection colleagues from four 
agencies to work alongside FTC staff on consumer protection matters and 
research this fiscal year.
    (n) Self-Regulatory and Compliance Initiatives with Industry. The 
Commission continues to engage

[[Page 94695]]

industry in compliance partnerships in the funeral and franchise 
industries. Specifically, the Commission's Funeral Rule Offender 
Program, conducted in partnership with the National Funeral Directors 
Association, is designed to educate funeral home operators found in 
violation of the requirements of the Funeral Rule, 16 CFR 453, so that 
they can meet the rule's disclosure requirements. Four hundred and 
ninety-nine 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 assists 
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 FTC Act 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.

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. In each rule review, the 
Commission requests public comments on, among other things, the 
economic impact and benefits of the rule; possible conflict between the 
rule and state, local, or other federal laws or regulations; and the 
effect on the rule of any technological, economic, or other industry 
changes.
    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 issued in February 2016 a revised 10-year 
review schedule (see next paragraph below). The Commission is currently 
reviewing 11 of the 65 rules and guides within its jurisdiction.
     The Commission continues to request and review public 
comments on the effectiveness of its regulatory review program and 
suggestions for its improvement.
     The FTC maintains a Web page at http://www.ftc.gov/regreview that serves as a one-stop shop for the public to obtain 
information and provide comments on individual rules and guides under 
review as well as the Commission's regulatory review program generally.
    In addition, the Commission's 10-year periodic review schedule 
includes initiating reviews for the following rules and guides (81 FR 
7716, Feb. 16, 2016) during 2016:
    (1) Standards for Safeguarding Customer Information, 16 CFR 314,
    (2) CAN-SPAM Rule, 16 CFR 316,
    (3) Labeling and Advertising of Home Insulation, 16 CFR 460,
    (4) Disposal of Consumer Report Information and Records, 16 CFR 
682, and in 2017 for:
    (5) Deceptive Advertising as to Sizes of Viewable Pictures Shown by 
Television Receiving Sets, 16 CFR 410.

Ongoing Rule and Guide Reviews

    The Commission is continuing review of a number of rules and 
guides, which are discussed below.
    (a) Rules
    Energy Labeling Rule, 16 CFR 305. The Energy Labeling Rule is 
officially known as the Rule concerning Energy and Water Use Labeling 
for Consumer Products Under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. On 
September 12, 2016, the Commission proposed amendments to the Energy 
Labeling Rule to require labels for portable air conditioners, large-
diameter and high-speed small diameter ceiling fans, and instantaneous 
electric water heaters. 81 FR 62681. Additionally, it proposed 
eliminating certain marking requirements for plumbing products. The 
comment period closes on November 14, 2016.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ See Final Actions below for information about a separate 
completed rulemaking proceeding for the Energy Labeling Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    R-value Rule, 16 CFR 460. On April 6, 2016, the Commission 
initiated a periodic review of the R-value Rule, officially the Trade 
Regulation Rule Concerning the Labeling and Advertising of Home 
Insulation, as part of its ongoing systematic review of all rules and 
guides. 81 FR 19936. The comment period was later extended to September 
6, 2016. 81 FR 35661 (June 3, 2016). Staff anticipates sending a 
recommendation to the Commission by the end of 2016. The R-value Rule 
is designed to assist consumers in evaluating and comparing the thermal 
performance characteristics of competing home insulation products by 
specifically requiring manufacturers of home insulation products to 
provide information about the product's degree of resistance to the 
flow of heat (R-value). The Rule also establishes uniform standards for 
testing, information disclosure, and substantiation of product 
performance claims.
    Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR), 16 CFR 308. On August 11, 2014, the 
Commission initiated a periodic review of the TSR as set out on the 10-
year review schedule.\68\ 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 
July 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ See Final Actions below for information about a separate 
completed rulemaking proceeding for the Telemarketing Sales Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Privacy Rule, 16 CFR 313. The Privacy Rule or Privacy of Consumer 
Financial Information Rule requires, among other things, that certain 
motor vehicle

[[Page 94696]]

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 take its 
next action by April 2017.
    Care Labeling Rule, 16 CFR 423. Promulgated in 1971, the Rule on 
Care Labeling of Textile Apparel and Certain Piece Goods as Amended 
(the Care Labeling Rule) makes it an unfair or deceptive act or 
practice for manufacturers and importers of textile wearing apparel and 
certain piece goods to sell these items without attaching care labels 
stating ``what regular care is needed for the ordinary use of the 
product.'' The Rule also requires that the manufacturer or importer 
possess, prior to sale, a reasonable basis for the care instructions 
and allows the use of approved care symbols in lieu of words to 
disclose care instructions. After reviewing the comments from a 
periodic rule review (76 FR 41148, July 13, 2011), the Commission 
concluded on September 20, 2012, that the Rule continued to benefit 
consumers and would be retained, and sought comments on potential 
updates to the Rule, including changes that would allow garment 
manufacturers and marketers to include instructions for professional 
wetcleaning on labels; permit the use of ASTM Standard D5489-07, 
``Standard Guide for Care Symbols for Care Instructions on Textile 
Products,'' or ISO 3758:2005(E), ``Textiles--Care labeling code using 
symbols,'' in lieu of terms; clarify what can constitute a reasonable 
basis for care instructions; and update the definition of ``dryclean.'' 
77 FR 58338. On March 28, 2014, the Commission hosted a public 
roundtable in Washington, DC, that analyzed proposed changes to the 
Rule. Staff anticipates Commission action by 2017.
    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 Commission action by 
November 2016.
    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. Commission staff has completed the review of 660 comments on 
the Contact Lens Rule and 831 comments on the Eyeglass Rule and is 
formulating next steps. The Contact Lens Rule requires contact lens 
prescribers to provide prescriptions to their patients upon the 
completion of a contact lens fitting, and to 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 
agree to purchase ophthalmic goods from the optometrist or 
ophthalmologist.
    Holder in Due Course Rule, 16 CFR 433. On December 1, 2015, the 
Commission initiated a periodic review of this Rule, officially the 
Preservation of Consumers' Claims and Defenses Rule. 80 FR 75018. The 
comment period closed on February 12, 2016. Staff is reviewing the 
comments and anticipates sending a recommendation to the Commission by 
early 2017. The Holder in Due Course Rule requires sellers to include 
language in consumer credit contracts that preserves consumers' claims 
and defenses against the seller. This rule eliminated the holder in due 
course doctrine as a legal defense for separating a consumer's 
obligation to pay from the seller's duty to perform by requiring that 
consumer credit and loan contracts contain one of two clauses to 
preserve the buyer's right to assert sales-related claims and defenses 
against any ``holder'' of the contracts.
    Disposal Rule, 16 CFR 682. On September 15, 2016, the Commission 
initiated a periodic review of the Disposal Rule (formally the Disposal 
of Consumer Report Information and Records) as part of its ongoing 
systematic review of all rules and guides. 81 FR 63435. The comment 
period will close on November 21, 2016. The Disposal Rule requires any 
person or entity that maintains or otherwise possesses consumer 
information for a business purpose to properly dispose of the 
information to protect against unauthorized access to or use of the 
information. Consumer information means any record about an individual 
that is a consumer report or is derived from a consumer report, or a 
compilation of such records. This rule implements Section 216 of the 
Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003, which is designed to 
reduce the risk of consumer fraud and related harms, including identity 
theft, created by improper disposal of consumer information.
    Safeguards Rule (or Standards for Safeguarding Customer 
Information), 16 CFR 314. On September 7, 2016, the Commission 
initiated a periodic review of the Safeguards Rule as part of its 
ongoing systematic review of all rules and guides. 81 FR 61632. The 
comment period will close on November 7, 2016. The FTC's Safeguards 
Rule, as directed by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLB), requires each 
financial institution subject to the FTC's jurisdiction 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.
    CAN-SPAM Rule, 16 CFR 316. The Controlling the Assault of Non-
Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act of 2003 sets rules for 
commercial email, establishes requirements for commercial messages, 
gives recipients the right to have senders of commercial email stop 
emailing them, and provides for

[[Page 94697]]

penalties for violations. The FTC issued the CAN-SPAM Rule (Rule) to 
implement the Act, as authorized by the statute. As part of its ongoing 
systematic review of all Federal Trade Commission rules and guides, in 
late 2016 the Commission plans to initiate a periodic review of the 
Rule.
    Picture Tube Rule, 16 CFR 410. The Picture Tube Rule, officially 
the Rule on Deceptive Advertising as to Sizes of Viewable Pictures 
Shown by Television Receiving Sets, became effective in 1967 and sets 
forth appropriate methods for measuring television screens when that 
measure is included in any advertisement or promotional material for 
the television set. If the measurement of the screen size is based on a 
measurement other than the horizontal dimension of the actual viewable 
picture area, the method of measurement must be clearly and 
conspicuously disclosed in close proximity to the size designation. As 
part of the systematic review of its rules and guides, the Commission 
plans to initiate a periodic review of this rule in 2017.
    (b) Guides
    Jewelry Guides, 16 CFR 23. On July 2, 2012, 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. 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. Based on comments received, and on 
information obtained during a public roundtable in June 2013, the FTC 
proposed revisions to the Guides on January 12, 2016, regarding below-
threshold alloys, precious metal content of products containing more 
than one precious metal, surface application of precious metals, lead-
glass filled stones, ``cultured'' diamonds, pearl treatments, 
varietals, and misuse of the word ``gem.'' 81 FR 1349. The extended 
comment period closed on June 3, 2016, and Commission staff anticipates 
forwarding a recommendation to the Commission before the end of 2016.
    Fuel Economy Guide, 16 CFR 259. On June 6, 2016, the Commission 
sought comments on proposed amendments to the Guide Concerning Fuel 
Economy Advertising for New Automobiles (Fuel Economy Guide) to reflect 
current Environmental Protection Agency and National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration fuel economy labeling rules and to consider 
advertising claims prevalent in the market. 81 FR 36216. The extended 
comment period closed on September 8, 2016. Staff is reviewing the 
comments and is considering next steps. The Fuel Economy Guide was 
adopted in 1975 to prevent deceptive fuel economy advertising and to 
facilitate the use of fuel economy information in advertising.
    Green Guides, 16 CFR 260. On August 10, 2016, the FTC released a 
staff report analyzing an internet-based study that explored consumer 
perceptions of ``organic'' and ``recycled content'' claims related to 
the Commission's Green Guides (officially Guides for the Use of 
Environmental Marketing Claims).\69\ The study, which was co-funded by 
the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), also addressed 
consumer perception of pre-consumer recycled content claims. The 
Commission and the USDA also held a public roundtable on October 20, 
2016, that explored organic claims for non-food products and ways to 
reduce deceptive organic claims, including through consumer education.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ See FTC Staff Report, Consumer Perception of ``Recycled 
Content'' and ``Organic'' Claims (Aug. 10, 2016), https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/reports/consumer-perception-recycled-content-organic-claims-joint-staff-report-federal-trade-commission/consumer_perception_of_recycled_content_and_organic_2016-08-10.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Final Actions

    Since the publication of the 2015 Regulatory Plan, the Commission 
has issued the following final rules or taken other actions to close 
other rulemaking proceedings.
    Hobby Rules, 16 CFR 304. On October 11, 2016, the Commission 
announced a final rule amending the Hobby Rules to conform with the 
2014 Collectible Coin Protection Act that amended the Hobby Protection 
Act, 15 U.S.C. 2101-2106. The Hobby Protection Act 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.''
    The final rule amendments extend the scope of the Rules to cover 
persons or entities that sell imitation numismatic items (coins, paper 
currency and commemorative medals), or provide substantial assistance 
or support to any manufacturer, importer, or seller of imitation 
numismatic items, or any manufacturer or importer of imitation 
political items, who they know, or should have known, is violating the 
marking requirements of the Hobby Act and the Rules. The amendments 
will be effective on November 16, 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 January 14, 2016, the 
Commission published final rule amendments that require entities to 
rate and certify all ethanol fuels with ethanol content ranging from 
above 10 percent to 83 percent so as to provide useful information to 
consumers about ethanol concentration and suitability for their cars 
and engines (81 FR 2054). The final rule amendments respond to the 
comments by providing greater flexibility for businesses to comply with 
the ethanol labeling requirements, and by not adopting the alternative 
octane rating method proposed in the 2014 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
(79 FR 18850 April 4, 2014). The amendments took effect on July 14, 
2016.
    Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR), 16 CFR 308. Anti-Fraud Provisions--
Following a public comment period, the Commission amended the TSR on 
December 14, 2015, to define and prohibit the use of certain payment 
methods in all telemarketing transactions; expand the scope of the 
advance fee ban for recovery services; and clarify certain provisions 
of the Rule (80 FR 77520).\70\ For inbound or outbound telemarketing 
transactions by telemarketers and sellers, the amendments prohibit 
novel payment methods that are difficult to trace and hard for people 
to reverse. The prohibited payment methods include remotely created 
checks, remotely created payment orders, cash-to-cash money transfers, 
and cash reload mechanisms. While addressing changes in the financial 
marketplace to ensure consumers remain protected by the TSR's antifraud 
provisions, the amendments are narrowly tailored to allow for 
innovations with respect to other payment methods that are used by 
legitimate companies. Portions of the changes took effect on February 
12, 2016, while the remainder took effect on June 13, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ See Ongoing Rule and Guide Reviews for information about a 
separate ongoing rulemaking proceeding for the Telemarketing Sales 
Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Energy Labeling Rule, 16 CFR 305. On September 15, 2016, the 
Commission

[[Page 94698]]

amended the Rule to improve access to energy labels online and improve 
labels for refrigerators, ceiling fans, central air conditioners, and 
water heaters. 81 FR 63634. The amendments to 16 CFR 305.3(x), 305.13, 
and Sample Label 17 of Appendix L are effective on September 17, 2018. 
All other amendments are effective on June 12, 2017.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ See Ongoing Rule and Guide Reviews for information about a 
separate ongoing rulemaking proceeding for the Energy Labeling Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule Governing Disclosure of Written Consumer Product Warranty 
Terms and Conditions and the Pre-Sale Availability Rule, 16 CFR 701-
702. These rules establish (1) requirements for warrantors for 
disclosing the terms and conditions of written warranties on consumer 
products actually costing the consumer more than $15.00, and (2) 
requirements for sellers and warrantors to make the terms of any 
written warranty available to the consumer prior to the sale of the 
product. The E-Warranty Act of 2015, which was signed into law on 
September 24, 2015, directed the FTC to revise the Pre-Sale 
Availability Rule to permit the option of using Internet Web sites to 
post warranty terms, in addition to the other methods that the Pre-Sale 
Availability Rule already allows. On September 15, 2016, the FTC issued 
final rule amendments, which were effective on October 17, 2016. 81 FR 
63664.
    Premerger Notification Rules and Report Form (or HSR Rules), 16 CFR 
801-803. On September -1, 2016, the Commission amended the HSR Rules to 
allow for submission of the Premerger Notification and Report Form 
(Form) and accompanying documents on digital video/versatile disc 
(DVD), and clarify the Instructions to the Form. The final rule was 
effective on September 1, 2016 (81 FR 60257).

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 described above 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 regulatory actions and possible alternative 
actions and to seek and consider 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.\72\ 
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ 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

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) 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 NIGC is committed to strong regulation of 
Indian gaming, the NIGC is equally committed to strengthening 
government-to-government relations by engaging in meaningful 
consultation with tribes to fulfill IGRA's intent. The NIGC's vision is 
to adhere to principles of good government, including transparency to 
promote agency accountability and fiscal responsibility, to operate 
consistently to ensure fairness and clarity in the administration of 
IGRA, and to respect the responsibilities of each sovereign in order to 
fully promote tribal economic development, self-sufficiency, and strong 
tribal governments. The NIGC is fully committed to working with tribes 
to ensure the integrity of the industry by exercising its regulatory 
responsibilities through technical assistance, compliance, and 
enforcement activities.

Retrospective Review of Existing Regulations

    As an independent regulatory agency, the NIGC has been performing a 
retrospective review of its existing regulations well before Executive 
Order 13579 was issued on July 11, 2011. The NIGC, however, recognizes 
the importance of Executive Order 13579, and its regulatory review is 
being conducted in the spirit of Executive Order 13579, to identify 
those regulations that may be outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or 
excessively burdensome and to modify, streamline, expand, or repeal 
them in accordance with input from the public. In addition, as required 
by Executive Order 13175, the NIGC 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

[[Page 94699]]

regulations, and the possible repeal of outdated regulations.
    The following Regulatory Identifier Numbers (RINs) are associated 
with the review:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  RIN                                 Title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3141-AA32.............................  Definitions.
3141-AA55.............................  Minimum Internal Control
                                         Standards.
3141-AA58.............................  Management Contracts.
3141-AA60.............................  Class II Minimum Internal
                                         Control Standards.
3141-AA62.............................  Buy Indian Goods and Services
                                         (BIGS).
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; (v) regulation that would provide a 
preference to qualified Indian-owned businesses when purchasing goods 
or services for the Commission at a fair market price; (vi) revisions 
to the minimum technical standards for gaming equipment used with the 
play of Class II games; and, (vii) 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.

NIGC

Proposed Rule Stage

160. Class II Minimum Internal Control Standards

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 25 U.S.C. 2706(b)(1) to (4); 25 U.S.C. 
2706(b)(10); 25 U.S.C. 2710(d)(7)(B)(vii)
    CFR Citation: 25 CFR 543.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The NIGC continues to review and revise the minimum 
internal control standards (MICS) for Class II gaming. The NIGC 
anticipates proposing minor but substantive corrections to the Class II 
MICS, including adding clarifying language and reinserting critical key 
controls that were inadvertently removed by the last revisions.
    Statement of Need: Periodic review and revision of existing 
standards based on input by a wide array of tribal entities ensures 
that the MICS remain relevant and appropriate. Recent review has 
uncovered a need for correction and clarification to specific 
provisions of the MICS, as well as a need to re-insert standards that 
were accidentally overwritten when kiosk standards were added.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The NIGC is charged with monitoring class 
II gaming conducted on Indian lands 25 U.S.C. 2706(b)(1). With regard 
to Class II gaming, NIGC's responsibility includes inspecting and 
examining the premises located on Indian lands on which Class II gaming 
is conducted and auditing all papers, books, and records respecting 
gross revenues of Class II gaming conducted on Indian lands, and any 
other matters necessary to carry out the duties of the NIGC pursuant to 
the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 (IGRA). 25 U.S.C. 2706(b)(2), 
(4).
    Alternatives: Maintain the current regulations.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: There are no anticipated cost 
increases to the Federal Government or to tribal governments as a 
result of this regulatory action.
    Risks: There are no known risks to this regulatory action.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPRM................................   10/00/17
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Small Entities Affected: No.
    Government Levels Affected: Tribal.
    Agency Contact: Michael Hoenig, General Counsel, National Indian 
Gaming Commission, C/O Department of Interior, 1849 C Street NW., 
Mailstop #1621, Washington, DC 20240, Phone: 202 632-0049.
    Related RIN: Split from 3141-AA56
    RIN: 3141-AA60

NIGC

Final Rule Stage

161. Minimum Internal Control Standards

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 25 U.S.C. 2706(b)(1) to (4); 25 U.S.C. 
2706(b)(10); 25 U.S.C. 2710(d)(7)(B)(vii)
    CFR Citation: 25 CFR 542.
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: The NIGC is considering removing, revising, or suspending 
the existing Class III minimum internal control standards (MICS) in 
part 542.
    Statement of Need: The NIGC cannot promulgate, implement, or 
enforce Class III MICS.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The D.C. Circuit Court's decision in 
Colorado River Indian Tribes v. National Indian Gaming Commission 383 
F.Supp.2d 123 (D.D.C. 2005), affd., 466 F.3d 134 (D.C. Cir. 2006), held 
that the NIGC cannot promulgate, implement, or enforce Class III 
control standards.
    Alternatives: The NIGC has a number of options: (1) Retain the 
status quo; (2) remove the standards; or (3) remove the standards and 
publish updated standards as guidance documents. At this time, the NIGC 
continues to research and identify all other available options.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: There are no anticipated cost 
increases to the Federal Government or to tribal governments as a 
result of this regulatory action.
    Risks: There are no known risks to this regulatory action.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
First NPRM..........................   12/01/04  69 FR 69847
First NPRM Comment Period End.......   01/18/05  .......................
Second NPRM.........................   03/10/05  70 FR 11893
Second NPRM Comment Period End......   04/25/05  .......................
Final Action on First NPRM..........   05/04/05  70 FR 23011
Final Action on Second NPRM.........   08/12/05  70 FR 47097
Third NPRM..........................   11/15/05  70 FR 69293
Third NPRM Comment Period End.......   12/30/05  .......................
Final Action on Third NPRM..........   05/11/06  71 FR 27385
Final Rule; Delay of Effective Date    08/30/12  77 FR 53817
 and Request for Comments.
Final Rule; Delay of Effective Date    10/04/12  77 FR 60625
 and Request for Comments.
Effective Date Delayed..............   04/22/14  .......................
Final Action........................   10/00/17  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.
    Government Levels Affected: Tribal.
    Agency Contact: Michael Hoenig, General Counsel, National Indian

[[Page 94700]]

Gaming Commission, C/O Department of Interior, 1849 C Street NW., 
Mailstop #1621, Washington, DC 20240, Phone: 202 632-0049.
    Related RIN: Split from 3141-AA27
    RIN: 3141-AA55

BILLING CODE 7565-01-P

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION STATEMENT OF REGULATORY PRIORITIES 
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017

I. Introduction

    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. Our 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 our mission, we regulate 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, we license the import and export of 
radioactive materials.
    As part of our regulatory process, we routinely conduct 
comprehensive regulatory analyses that examine the costs and benefits 
of contemplated regulations. We have developed internal procedures and 
programs to ensure that we impose only necessary requirements on our 
licensees and to review existing regulations to determine whether the 
requirements imposed are still necessary.
    Our regulatory priorities for Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 reflect our 
complex mission and will enable us to achieve our two strategic goals 
described in NUREG-1614, Volume 6, ``Strategic Plan: Fiscal Years 2014-
2018 (http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1614/v6/): (1) To ensure the safe use of radioactive materials and 
(2) to ensure the secure use of radioactive materials.

II. Regulatory Priorities

    This section contains information on some of our most important 
regulatory actions that we are considering issuing in proposed or final 
form during FY 2017. For additional information on these regulatory 
actions and on a broader spectrum of the NRC's upcoming regulatory 
actions, see the NRC's portion of the Unified Agenda of Regulatory and 
Deregulatory Actions.

A. Proposed Rules

    2015 Edition of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Code 
(RIN 3150-AJ74; NRC-2016-0082): This proposed rule would amend the 
NRC's regulations to incorporate, by reference, the 2015 American 
Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code and 
Code for Operation and Maintenance of nuclear power plants.
    Cyber Security for Fuel Facilities (RIN 3150-AJ64): This proposed 
rule would assure that NRC-licensed fuel cycle facilities provide 
reasonable assurance that digital assets associated with safety, 
security, emergency preparedness, and material control and 
accountability are adequately protected from cyber-attacks.

B. Final Rules

    Modified Small Quantities Protocol (SQP) (RIN 3150-AJ70): The final 
rule would amend the NRC's regulations to ensure that the U.S. 
Government can meet its international obligations under INFCIRC/366 and 
the modified SQP. The NRC is responsible for ensuring compliance by the 
licensees in the U.S. Caribbean Territories.
    Performance-Based Emergency Core Cooling System Acceptance Criteria 
(RIN 3150-AH42; NRC-2008-0332): This final rule would amend the NRC's 
regulations that specify the fuel cladding acceptance criteria for 
emergency core cooling system (ECCS) loss-of-coolant accidents (LOCA) 
evaluations. The ECCS acceptance criteria would be performance-based, 
and reflect recent research findings that identified new embrittlement 
mechanisms for fuel rods with zirconium alloy cladding under LOCA 
conditions.
    Enhanced Weapons, Firearms Background Checks, and Security Event 
Notifications (RIN 3150-AI49; NRC-2008-0465, NRC-2011-0018): This final 
rule would amend the NRC's regulations by implementing the authority in 
Section 161A of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. The rule 
would enable access to enhanced weapons with associated firearms 
background checks at power reactor facilities, at-reactor Independent 
Spent Fuel Storage Installations, and Category I strategic special 
nuclear materials facilities. This final rule would also modify 
physical security event notification provisions for most classes of NRC 
licensees with physical security programs.
    Mitigation of Beyond Design Basis Events (RIN 3150-AJ49; NRC-2011-
0189, NRC-2014-0240): This final rule would enhance mitigation 
strategies for nuclear power reactors for beyond-design-basis external 
events.
    Revision of Fee Schedules: Fee Recovery for FY 2017 (RIN 3150-AJ73; 
NRC-2016-0081): This final rule would amend the NRC's fee schedules for 
licensing, inspection, and annual fees charged to its applicants and 
licensees.

NRC

Final Rule Stage

162. Modified Small Quantities Protocol [NRC-2015-0263]

    Priority: Other Significant.
    Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 2201; 42 U.S.C. 5841
    CFR Citation: 10 CFR 40; 10 CFR 70; 10 CFR 75
    Legal Deadline: None.
    Abstract: This rule amends the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's 
regulations in 10 CFR parts 40, 70, and 75, as needed, to ensure that 
the U.S. Government can meet its international obligations under 
INFCIRC/366. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is responsible for 
ensuring compliance by the licensees in the U.S. Caribbean Territories. 
Changes would go into effect as a final rule, issued without notice and 
comment under 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1), which allows agencies to issue rules 
involving the foreign affairs functions of the United States without 
notice and comment. These rule changes must be in effect before the 
U.S. Government can bring the modified Small Quantities Protocol to 
INFCIRC/366 into force.
    Statement of Need: This rule would respond to Commission direction 
to proceed with rulemaking.
    Summary of Legal Basis: The legal basis of this rule is to ensure 
that the U.S. Government meets its obligations under the Treaty for the 
Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean 
(Treaty of Tlatelolco).
    Alternatives: None.
    Anticipated Cost and Benefits: Undefined.
    Risks: Undefined.
    Timetable:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                    Date            FR Cite
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Rule..........................   05/00/17  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No.

[[Page 94701]]

    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: In SECY-15-0080 staff requested Commission 
approval to initiate rulemaking: On June 5, 2015, the staff requested 
Commission approval to initiate the rulemaking. On July 21, 2015, the 
Commission approved initiation of the rulemaking. Specifically, the 
Commission provided its clearance for the Circular 175 memorandum 
authorizing the Department of State to negotiate and conclude a 
modified Small Quantities Protocol between the US and IAEA with the 
treaty for the prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America. This 
rulemaking will go directly to a final rule as it has a foreign policy 
exclusion.
    Agency Contact: Gregory Trussell, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Washington, DC 20555-
0001, Phone: 301 415-6445, Email: [email protected].
    RIN: 3150-AJ70

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

[FR Doc. 2016-29848 Filed 12-22-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P