[ The Regulatory Plan and Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions]
[Statement by the Vice President, Introduction to The Regulatory Plan and the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions, and Agency Regulatory Plans
]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]



[[Page 61201]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part II





Regulatory Information Service Center





_______________________________________________________________________

Statement by the Vice President

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

Agency Regulatory Plans


                          The Regulatory Plan 


____________________________________________________________________



                Statement by the Vice President

                A key measure of success by which this Administration 
                will be judged is our progress in improving the 
                regulatory process. This, the Administration's fifth 
                Regulatory Plan, describes the most significant 
                upcoming regulatory actions. It documents the 
                continuing efforts of agencies to develop regulations 
                the right way--regulating only when necessary and 
                tailoring regulations to achieve their purpose in the 
                least costly manner.

                Whether developing new regulations or modifying 
                existing ones, agencies are committed to working with 
                the regulated community to identify workable 
                approaches. They are carefully analyzing the likely 
                effects of various alternatives. Most importantly, 
                regulations must be made as flexible and as clear as 
                possible by writing them in plain language. This is 
                vital to creating a government that works better and 
                costs less, and to reinventing a regulatory system that 
                benefits the American people.

                Today, this Regulatory Plan is published along with a 
                more comprehensive catalogue of other regulatory 
                activities--the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory 
                and Deregulatory Actions. Taken together, these 
                documents provide a wealth of information about 
                regulations being developed. They empower concerned 
                citizens to be more fully involved in the process by 
                informing them of upcoming regulatory proposals. It 
                also encourages them to register their comments and 
                thoughts.

                This fifth Regulatory Plan reflects the hard work being 
                done by all agencies. It highlights many examples of 
                regulation being done the right way--evidence of a 
                regulatory system that works for the American people by 
                providing more benefits with fewer burdens. It also 
                charts the progress that we have made in reinventing 
                the regulatory process since 1993. Thank you for all of 
                your efforts.

                    (Vice Presidential Sig.)

[FR Doc. 98-30120
Filed 11-06-98 8:45 am]
Billing Code 3110-01-F



Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 1998 / The 
Regulatory Plan

Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 216 / Monday, November 9, 1998 / The 
Regulatory Plan

[[Page 61205]]





REGULATORY INFORMATION SERVICE CENTER



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



AGENCY: Regulatory Information Service Center.

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

_______________________________________________________________________

SUMMARY: The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires that agencies publish 
semiannual regulatory agendas describing regulatory actions they are 
developing (5 U.S.C. 602). Executive Order 12866 ``Regulatory Planning 
and Review'' (58 FR 51735; October 4, 1993) and Office of Management 
and Budget memoranda implementing section 4 of that Order establish 
minimum standards for agencies' agendas, including specific types of 
information for each entry.

    The Unified Agenda helps agencies fulfill all of these 
requirements. All Federal regulatory agencies have chosen to publish 
their regulatory agendas as part of this publication.

    Section 4 of Executive Order 12866 also directs that, as part of 
their submissions to the October edition of the Unified Agenda, 
agencies prepare a regulatory plan of the most important significant 
regulatory actions that the agency reasonably expects to issue in 
proposed or final form during the upcoming fiscal year. The agency 
plans appear as the first section of this joint publication; the agency 
agendas follow.

    The Regulatory Plan begins with Vice President Gore's statement, 
followed by an introduction, and then the regulatory plans of 29 
Federal departments and agencies. Each of these agencies has also 
submitted a regulatory agenda describing its other regulatory actions. 
The regulatory agendas for these and 33 other Federal agencies appear 
in Parts III-LXIV of this issue of the Federal Register, followed by 
indexes to both Plan and Agenda entries.

    We welcome your comments on this joint publication and your 
suggestions for improving future ones.

ADDRESSES: Regulatory Information Service Center (MI), General Services 
Administration, 1800 F Street NW., Suite 3033, Washington, DC 20405.



Electronic Availability

    All editions of The Regulatory Plan and the Unified Agenda of 
Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions since October 1995 are 
available in electronic form. You can search the Plan and the Agenda on 
the World Wide Web at:

http://reginfo.gov

You may also search the Plan and the Agenda on the Government Printing 
Office's GPO Access, which is accessible through:

http://www.access.gpo.gov

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: Mark G. Schoenberg, Executive Director, 
Regulatory Information Service Center (MI), General Services 
Administration, 1800 F Street NW., Suite 3033, Washington, DC 20405, 
(202) 482-7350. You may also send comments to us by e-mail at:

[email protected]



SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                            TABLE OF CONTENTS
 
                                                                   Page
 
 
Statement by the Vice President.................................   61203
 
  Introduction to The Regulatory Plan and the Unified Agenda of Federal
                   Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions
 
I. What Are the Unified Agenda and The Regulatory Plan?.........   61206
  A. What Are the Limitations of the Information?...............   61206
II. Why Are the Unified Agenda and The Regulatory Plan
 Published?.....................................................   61206
III. How Are The Regulatory Plan and the Unified Agenda
 Organized?.....................................................   61207
IV. What Information Appears for Each Entry?....................   61207
V. Abbreviations................................................   61209
VI. How Can Users Get Copies of the Plan and the Agenda?........   61209
 
                         AGENCY REGULATORY PLANS
 
                           Cabinet Departments
 
Department of Agriculture.......................................   61210
Department of Commerce..........................................   61224
Department of Defense...........................................   61231
Department of Education.........................................   61235
Department of Energy............................................   61237
Department of Health and Human Services.........................   61242
Department of Housing and Urban Development.....................   61259
Department of the Interior......................................   61269
Department of Justice...........................................   61278
Department of Labor.............................................   61284
Department of Transportation....................................   61315
Department of the Treasury......................................   61331
Department of Veterans Affairs..................................   61339
 
                        Other Executive Agencies
 
Environmental Protection Agency.................................   61340
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.........................   61383
General Services Administration.................................   61386
National Aeronautics and Space Administration...................   61387
National Archives and Records Administration....................   61388
Office of Personnel Management..................................   61391
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation............................   61394
Small Business Administration...................................   61396
Social Security Administration..................................   61397
 
                     Independent Regulatory Agencies
 
Commodity Futures Trading Commission............................   61402
Consumer Product Safety Commission..............................   61405
Federal Housing Finance Board...................................   61408
Federal Maritime Commission.....................................   61412
Federal Trade Commission........................................   61413
National Indian Gaming Commission...............................   61416
Nuclear Regulatory Commission...................................   61418
 
                             AGENCY AGENDAS
 
                           Cabinet Departments
 
Department of Agriculture.......................................   61422
Department of Commerce..........................................   61522
Department of Defense...........................................   61610
Department of Education.........................................   61648
Department of Energy............................................   61658
Department of Health and Human Services.........................   61680
Department of Housing and Urban Development.....................   61788
Department of the Interior......................................   61820
Department of Justice...........................................   61908
Department of Labor.............................................   61968
Department of State.............................................   62020
Department of Transportation....................................   62026
Department of the Treasury......................................   62204
Department of Veterans Affairs..................................   62304
 
                        Other Executive Agencies
 
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.......................   62332
Agency for International Development............................   62334
Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board......   62338
Commission on Civil Rights......................................   62342
Corporation for National and Community Service..................   62344
Environmental Protection Agency.................................   62348
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.........................   62480
Federal Emergency Management Agency.............................   62486
Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service......................   62494
General Services Administration.................................   62496
National Aeronautics and Space Administration...................   62510
National Archives and Records Administration....................   62514
National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities
  Institute of Museum and Library Services......................   62522
  National Endowment for the Arts...............................   62524
  National Endowment for the Humanities.........................   62528

[[Page 61206]]

 
National Science Foundation.....................................   62530
Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight..................   62534
Office of Government Ethics.....................................   62538
Office of Management and Budget.................................   62546
Office of Personnel Management..................................   62552
Office of Special Counsel.......................................   62576
Overseas Private Investment Corporation.........................   62578
Panama Canal Commission.........................................   62580
Peace Corps.....................................................   62584
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation............................   62588
Railroad Retirement Board.......................................   62594
Selective Service System........................................   62600
Small Business Administration...................................   62602
Social Security Administration..................................   62610
Tennessee Valley Authority......................................   62630
United States Information Agency................................   62632
 
                             Joint Authority
 
Department of Defense/General Services Administration/National
 Aeronautics and Space Administration (Federal Acquisition
 Regulation)....................................................   62634
 
                     Independent Regulatory Agencies
 
Commodity Futures Trading Commission............................   62648
Consumer Product Safety Commission..............................   62654
Farm Credit Administration......................................   62662
Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation........................   62668
Federal Communications Commission...............................   62670
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation...........................   62698
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission............................   62708
Federal Housing Finance Board...................................   62714
Federal Maritime Commission.....................................   62720
Federal Reserve System..........................................   62724
Federal Trade Commission........................................   62738
National Credit Union Administration............................   62748
National Indian Gaming Commission...............................   62754
Nuclear Regulatory Commission...................................   62760
Securities and Exchange Commission..............................   62782
Surface Transportation Board....................................   62808
 
          INDEXES TO REGULATORY PLAN AND UNIFIED AGENDA ENTRIES
 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Index...........................   62813
Small Entities Index (Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Not
 Required)......................................................   62823
Government Levels Index.........................................   62831
Regulatory Flexibility Act Section 610 Review Index.............   62857
Subject Index...................................................   62859
 




INTRODUCTION TO THE UNIFIED AGENDA AND THE REGULATORY PLAN



I. What Are the Unified Agenda and The Regulatory Plan?

    The Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions 
(Unified Agenda) provides information, in a uniform format, about 
regulations that the Government is considering or reviewing. The 
Unified Agenda has appeared in the Federal Register twice each year 
since 1983. This edition includes regulatory agendas from 62 Federal 
departments and agencies. Agencies of the United States Congress are 
not included.

    The Regulatory Plan (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. The 
regulatory plan of each participating agency contains two sections: (1) 
A narrative statement of its regulatory priorities and (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 departments and agencies.

    The Regulatory Information Service Center (the Center) compiles 
Unified Agenda and the Plan 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 E.O. 12866. The Center also provides information 
about Federal regulatory activity to the President and his Executive 
Office, the Congress, agency managers, 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 
include activities that will have a longer timeframe than 12 months. 
Agency agendas also show actions or reviews completed or withdrawn 
since the last agenda. The agendas do not contain regulations that were 
excluded under Executive Order 12866, such as those concerning military 
or foreign affairs functions or regulations related to agency 
organization, management, or personnel matters.



A. What Are the Limitations of the Information?

    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 the Unified Agenda do not create a legal 
obligation on agencies to adhere to schedules within them or to confine 
their regulatory activities to those regulations that appear in these 
publications. The information in this edition is accurate as of October 
1, 1998, in the judgment of the submitting agencies, except as 
otherwise noted by the agencies. In addition, some agencies submitted 
updates after that date.

    Where applicable, individual actions will be subject to review for 
compliance with applicable Executive orders, the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act, and the Paperwork Reduction Act at appropriate points in the 
regulatory process.



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

    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 12866

    Executive Order 12866 entitled ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' 
(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 October Unified Agenda.



Executive Order 12875

    Executive Order 12875 entitled ``Enhancing the Intergovernmental 
Partnership'' (October 26, 1993; 58 FR 58093) directs agencies to 
reduce the imposition of unfunded mandates upon State, local, and 
tribal governments. The Order directs agencies that are proposing to 
impose nonstatutory unfunded mandates to consult with affected 
governmental officials and document their concerns, report those 
concerns to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and 
explain the agency's position supporting the

[[Page 61207]]

continuing need to issue the regulation in light of those concerns. 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.



Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (P.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.



Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (P.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. If the issuing agency 
believes that a rule may be major, it indicates this under the 
``Priority'' heading of the entry. 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 of this edition of the 
Federal Register. Following the Plan, each agency's 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. Departments may in turn be divided into subagencies.

    Each department's or agency's section of the Plan contains a 
narrative statement of regulatory priorities followed by a description 
of the department's or agency's most important significant regulatory 
and deregulatory actions. Each part of the Agenda begins with a 
preamble providing information specific to that part.

    In the Agenda, each agency presents its entries under one of five 
headings according to the rulemaking stage of the entry. In the Plan, 
only the first three stages are applicable. The 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 in their rulemaking process.

    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.

    In the Agenda, an agency may use subheadings to identify 
regulations that it has grouped according to particular topics. When 
these subheadings are used, they appear above the title of the first 
regulation in each group.

    A bullet () preceding an entry indicates that the entry 
appears in this publication for the first time.

    All entries are numbered sequentially from the beginning of the 
Plan to the end of the Unified Agenda. The sequence number preceding 
the title of each entry identifies the location of the entry in this 
edition. The same number is used in the indexes to enable readers to 
find entries on specific subjects.

    For each agency that requests it, the Center provides a table of 
contents that appears in the Agenda after the agency preamble. In 
addition to listing all the agency's Agenda entries, the tables of 
contents identify each Plan entry by a cross-reference in bold type.

    This publication contains five indexes. The first two indexes list 
the regulatory actions that agencies believe may have effects on small 
entities. The first lists the regulatory actions for which agencies 
believe that the Regulatory Flexibility Act may require a Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis. The second lists additional regulatory actions 
for which agencies have chosen to indicate that some impact on small 
entities is likely though a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis may not be 
required. The third index lists entries that agencies believe may have 
effects on levels of government. The fourth index lists entries for 
which agencies have indicated that they are conducting a periodic 
review under section 610(c) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The 
fifth is a subject index based on the Federal Register Thesaurus of 
Indexing Terms.

    Congress generally authorizes a single Federal agency to implement, 
through regulation, a specific policy objective. Sometimes, however, a 
statute may require that several agencies issue regulations to 
accomplish the objective. In such cases, the agencies, working with a 
central coordinator, jointly publish the rulemaking documents. These 
regulations are known as Governmentwide common rules. Agencies 
participating in developing common rules report them in their 
individual sections of the Unified Agenda.

    This edition of the Unified Agenda contains four Governmentwide 
common rules:

 New Restrictions on Lobbying
 Administrative Requirements for Grantees To Reflect Single 
    Audit Act Amendments
 Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Federally Assisted 
    Programs and Activities
 Protection of Human Subjects



IV. What Information Appears for Each Entry?

    All entries in the Unified Agenda contain uniform data elements 
including, at a minimum, the following information:

    Title of the Regulation. 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)).

    Priority. Agencies assign each entry to one of the following five 
categories of significance.

[[Page 61208]]

    (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 (P.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 E.O. 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.

    In addition, if an agency believes that a rule may be ``major'' 
under 5 U.S.C. 801 (P.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 agency indicates this 
under the ``Priority'' heading. (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 (P.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. If the agency believes the 
entry is not subject to the Act, this data element will not be printed.

    Reinvention--whether the action is part of the Administration's 
Reinventing Government effort and, if so, whether the result will be 
elimination of existing text in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 
or revision of text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication or to 
streamline requirements. If the action is not specifically part of this 
effort, the data element will not be printed.

    Legal Authority--the section(s) of the United States Code (U.S.C.) 
or Public Law (P.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 rule 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. If a date appears in this section as 00/00/00, the 
date of the action is currently undetermined. A date printed in the 
form 01/00/99 means the agency is predicting the month and year the 
action will take place but not the day it will occur. ``Undetermined'' 
indicates the agency does not know what action it will take next. Dates 
after 1999 are printed in the same form as other dates, using the last 
two digits of the year. (Note that 00/00/00 refers to an unspecified 
date some time in the future, with no specific relation to the year 
2000.)

    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required--whether an analysis is 
required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) 
because the rule 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 rule is 
likely to have an impact as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 
Some agencies have chosen to indicate likely effects on small entities 
even though they believe that a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis will 
not be required.

    Government Levels Affected--whether the rule is expected to affect 
levels of government and, if so, whether the governments are State, 
local, tribal, or Federal.

    Agency Contact--the name, title, address, and phone number of a 
person in the agency who is knowledgeable about the regulation. If 
available, the agency may also provide the fax number, e-mail address, 
and TDD for the agency contact.

    Procurement--whether the action is related to procurement and, if 
so, whether it is required by statute and whether it involves a 
paperwork burden. The Procurement heading appears only if the entry is 
related to procurement.

    Some agencies have provided the following optional information:

    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.

    Entries appearing in The Regulatory Plan should also contain the 
following information:

    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 E.O. 
12866.

    Anticipated Costs and Benefits--a description of preliminary 
estimates of the anticipated costs and benefits of the action.

[[Page 61209]]

    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. The agency issues an ANPRM before it 
develops a detailed proposed rule. The 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 departments and agencies of the Federal Government. The Code is 
divided into 50 titles, and each title covers 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 departments and 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--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 105-4 is 
the fourth public law of the 105th 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 Unified Agenda and The Regulatory Plan, as directed by E.O. 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 this publication. Note that a specific regulatory action will have 
the same RIN throughout its development but will generally have 
different sequence numbers in different editions of the Unified Agenda 
and The Regulatory Plan.

    USC--The United States Code is a consolidation and codification of 
all general and permanent laws of the United States. The USC is divided 
into 50 titles, and each title covers a broad area of Federal law.



VI. How Can Users Get Copies of the Plan and the Agenda?

    Printed copies of this edition of the Federal Register are 
available from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government 
Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402-9325, (202) 512-1800.

    Copies of individual agency materials may be available directly 
from the agency. 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 October 1995 are also 
available in electronic form. You can search the Plan and the Agenda on 
the World Wide Web at:

http://reginfo.gov

or through the U.S. Business Advisor at:

http://www.business.gov

You may also search the Plan and the Agenda on the Goverment Printing 
Office's GPO Access, which is accessible through:

http://www.access.gpo.gov

Dated: October 27, 1998.

Ronald C. Kelly,
Acting Executive Director.

[FR Doc. 98-29180 Filed 11-06-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-27-F

[[Page 61210]]

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (USDA)
Statement of Regulatory Priorities
To comply with the National Performance Review (NPR) directive to 
achieve regulatory reform, the Department of Agriculture is continuing 
an important project to eliminate unnecessary regulations and improve 
those remaining by making them easier to understand and more user 
friendly. To date, the Department's review and revision effort has 
resulted in actions on over 60 percent of our NPR commitment to 
regulatory reform. When the results are fully implemented, the 
Department will have eliminated or reinvented 81 percent of its 
regulatory holdings in the CFR.
Positive changes resulting from regulatory actions proposed as well as 
completed by the Department will reach into every corner of the country 
and, both directly and indirectly, touch the lives of most Americans. 
Those programs that offer support to specific rural and urban segments 
of the economy are being simplified so that persons who qualify for 
assistance, or some other form of participation, will find less 
burdensome rules. Yet high standards will be set for efficient and 
effective program management that makes the best use of taxpayer 
dollars. Farmers, ranchers, and others involved in U.S. agriculture 
will find significant changes in all aspects of regulations that govern 
their interaction with the Department and its programs. Farm credit, a 
mainstay of the Nation's rural economy, will be significantly 
streamlined by the merger of cumbersome loan-making regulations with 
forms and certifications simplified to facilitate the application 
process. The Department is undertaking a number of actions in the 
regulation of commodities that will increase efficiency, improve 
customer service, reduce intervention in markets, and allow States to 
assume greater responsibility in controlling the spread of plant pests 
or disease. The Department is also improving the regulations that serve 
rural communities. Several changes are being made in the rural housing 
programs. Nutrition programs are also being strengthened, their 
efficiency improved, and their integrity enhanced through regulatory 
reform. In the area of food safety, the Department has undertaken a 
significant reinvention of all policies and relationships with industry 
and the public. There are several important reinvention plans in the 
natural resources and conservation area.
Reducing Paperwork Burden on Farmers
The Department has made substantial progress under the guidance of the 
Chief Information Officer in implementing the goal of the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995 to reduce the burden of information collection on 
the public by 25 percent by 1999. Further reductions will result from 
program changes, improved efficiency in the collection and management 
of information, and adjustments in the burden.
The Department established a Paperwork Reduction Implementation Team 
(PRIT), under the guidance of the Food and Agriculture Council, based 
on direction from the Secretary of Agriculture, to create a plan to 
reduce the paperwork burden on farmers. The PRIT has developed a USDA 
Paperwork Reduction Framework--a set of standards and guidelines for 
the Service Center agencies. Agencies and other teams will use the 
framework in their execution of their paperwork reduction initiatives.
Simultaneously, the PRIT, working with the Service Center agencies, 
continue ongoing initiatives to reduce burden as quickly as possible. 
These agencies are working together through business process 
reengineering initiatives to address customer needs by integrating 
Agency processes to streamline information collected from the farmer. 
This will eliminate redundant data collection, provide direct access to 
benefit and eligibility information, and reduce and simplify the number 
of regulations and forms.
The Role of Regulations
The programs of the Department are diverse and far reaching, as are the 
regulations that attend their delivery. Regulations codify how the 
Department will conduct its business, including the specifics of access 
to, and eligibility for, USDA programs. Regulations also specify the 
behavior of State and local governments, private industry, businesses, 
and individuals that is necessary to comply with their provisions. The 
diversity in purpose and outreach of our programs contributes 
significantly to the USDA being at or near the top of the list of 
departments that produce the largest number of regulations annually. 
These regulations range from nutrition standards for the school lunch 
program, to natural resource and environmental measures governing 
national forest usage and soil conservation, to regulations protecting 
American agribusiness (the largest dollar value contributor to exports) 
from the ravages of domestic or foreign plant or animal pestilence and 
they extend from farm to supermarket to ensure the safety, quality, and 
availability of the Nation's food supply. Many regulations function in 
a dynamic environment which requires their periodic modification. The 
factors determining various entitlement, eligibility, and 
administrative criteria often change from year to year. Therefore, many 
significant regulations must be revised annually to reflect changes in 
economic and market benchmarks. Almost all legislation that affects 
departmental programs has accompanying regulatory needs, often with a 
significant impact. The Farm Bill of 1996, Public Law 104-127, has 
considerable regulatory consequences. This key legislation affects most 
agencies of USDA and will result in the addition of new programs, the 
deletion of others, and modification to still others.
Administration Guidance--USDA Response
In developing and implementing regulations, the Department has been 
guided by the regulatory principles and philosophy set forth by the 
President in Executive Order 12866 ``Regulatory Planning and Review.'' 
As prescribed in the Order, the USDA is committed to ``promulgate only 
those regulations that are required by law, are necessary to interpret 
the law, or are made necessary by compelling public need.'' When 
considering a rulemaking action, the Department will assess the costs 
and benefits of available regulatory alternatives, including the 
alternative of not regulating. Our analysis will consider the costs and 
benefits of both quantifiable and qualitative measures and opt for 
approaches that maximize net benefits.
Major Regulatory Priorities
Five agencies are represented in this regulatory plan. They include the 
Farm Service Agency, the Food and Nutrition Service, the Forest 
Service, the Food Safety and Inspection Service, and the Risk 
Management Agency.
This document represents summary information on prospective significant 
regulations as called for in Executive Order 12866. A brief comment on 
each of the five agencies appears below, which summarizes the Agency 
mission and its key regulatory priorities. The Agency summaries are 
followed by the regulatory plan entries.

[[Page 61211]]

Farm Service Agency
Mission: The Farm Service Agency (FSA) administers contract commodity, 
conservation, farm loan, commodity purchase, and emergency loan 
programs, as prescribed by various statutes, in order to support 
farming certainty and flexibility while ensuring compliance with farm 
conservation and wetland protection requirements and to assist owners 
and operators of farms and ranches to conserve and enhance soil, water, 
and related natural resources.
Priorities: FSA's priority for 1999 will be to continue to implement 
these programs with emphasis on enhanced service to our customers.
The most significant FSA regulations are those that operate the 
contract commodity programs and farm loans. The farm programs were 
significantly changed by the 1996 Farm Bill. The Farm Bill instituted 
the contract commodity programs, which utilize production flexibility 
contracts and marketing assistance loans in place of the deficiency 
payments and production adjustment of past programs. The contracts 
removed the link between income support payments and farm prices by 
providing for seven annual fixed but declining payments. FSA's farm 
loan programs make and guarantee loans to family farmers and ranchers 
to purchase farm land and finance agricultural production. While the 
contract commodity and farm loan programs have significant economic 
impact, they are driven by specific statutory requirements. Therefore, 
they are noted here to acknowledge their significance in the overall 
USDA regulatory plan, but are not further listed in the body of the 
plan which appears below.
In addition to its normal program operations, FSA has initiated a 
business process reengineering project to streamline its farm 
loanmaking and servicing regulations and reduce the information 
collection burden associated with the programs. FSA plans to reduce the 
number of CFR parts containing its farm loan program regulations by 
approximately 70 percent. In addition, FSA hopes to achieve a 
significant reduction in the total number of CFR pages by removing 
administrative provisions and internal policy and eliminating 
duplicative material. Furthermore, FSA intends to improve the clarity 
of the farm loan program regulations by following the guidelines 
established in the President's Plain Language in Government Writing 
Initiative. Current plans are to publish as a final rule the first 
revised CFR part, containing the guaranteed loanmaking and servicing 
requirements, in December 1998.
Food and Nutrition Service
Mission: The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) provides children and 
needy families better access to food and a more healthful diet through 
food assistance programs and comprehensive nutrition education efforts.
Priorities: In addition to responding to provisions of legislation 
authorizing its programs and recent welfare reform provisions, FNS has 
established broad strategic policy goals aimed at improving the 
nutritional well being of its clients and improving program integrity. 
These goals are:
 Healthful diets for school-age children. The two major 
            programs serving this goal are the National School Lunch 
            Program (NSLP) and the School Breakfast Program (SBP). This 
            goal reflects the Agency's recognition of its national 
            health and nutrition education responsibilities for school-
            age children.
 Enhanced food and nutrition security for low-income Americans. 
            This goal represents both the continuation of the Food 
            Stamp Program's traditional role in providing food 
            assistance, as well as improving program administration to 
            meet future challenges. Welfare reform legislation modified 
            the eligibility criteria for food stamp benefits, increased 
            State design options, and maintained the overall mission to 
            provide food and nutrition security for low-income 
            Americans participating in the program.
 Improved nutritional status and health of low-income women, 
            infants, and children. This goal reflects the mission of 
            the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, 
            Infants, and Children (WIC). It emphasizes nutrition 
            education, healthy infant feeding practices, and positive 
            health outcomes while seeking to enhance program efficiency 
            and integrity.
 Improved nutritional status of childen in day-care settings. 
            FNS seeks to improve the nutritional quality of meals 
            served under its Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP), 
            program access for children from low-income families, and 
            program integrity.
 Low-income children consume nutritious lunches when school 
            meals are not available. Through its Summer Food Service 
            Program, FNS seeks to extend its commitment to children 
            from low-income households during summer months when school 
            meals are not available.
 Improved quality of food distribution commodities and service. 
            FNS continues its support for agricultural markets with an 
            emphasis on more healthful commodities and improved program 
            efficiency through automation, reduced Federal and State 
            inventories, and timely deliveries in its food 
            distribution. It also takes the lead in USDA's gleaning 
            intitiative for foods used in the FNS feeding and food 
            distribution programs.
Forest Service
Mission: The mission of the Forest Service is to sustain the health, 
productivity, and diversity of the Nation's forest and rangelands to 
meet the needs of present and future generations. This includes 
protecting and managing the National Forest and Grasslands; providing 
technical and financial assistance to States, communities, and private 
forest landowners; and developing and providing scientific and 
technical assistance and scientific exchanges in support of 
international forest and range conservation.
Priorities: The President's environmental program includes 
incorporation of the principles of ecosystem management in natural 
resource planning for all units of the National Forest System. In 
support of that effort, proposed regulations will be published 
governing how future changes in direction will be made and how those 
changes will be documented. Guided by the recommendations of a recently 
chartered Committee of Scientists, the regulation also will streamline 
planning and update planning procedures and requirements to reflect 
Agency and public experience gained over the last 15 years. Emphasis 
will be placed on assessing ecosystem health through ecoregional and 
watershed-level assessments. The rule also will strengthen public 
participation opportunities in planning, as well as give greater 
emphasis to interaction and dialog with Federal, State, local, and 
Indian tribal governments.
Food Safety and Inspection Service
Mission: The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is responsible 
for ensuring the Nation's meat, poultry, and egg products are safe, 
wholesome, and properly packaged and labeled.
Priorities: FSIS is continuing its comprehensive review of its existing 
regulations in light of the July 25, 1996,

[[Page 61212]]

final rule, ``Pathogen Reduction; Hazard Analysis and Critical Control 
Points (HACCP) Systems,'' requiring that official meat and poultry 
establishments develop and implement HACCP, a science-based process 
control system for food safety. Establishments are responsible for 
developing and implementing HACCP plans incorporating the controls they 
have determined are necessary and appropriate to produce safe products. 
HACCP places the responsibility for food safety firmly on meat and 
poultry establishments but enables them to tailor their control systems 
to the needs of particular plants and processes and to take advantage 
of the latest technological innovations.
FSIS must revise its existing regulations to be consistent with HACCP 
principles; many are ``command-and-control'' regulations, prescribing 
the exact means establishments must use to ensure the safety of their 
products. Some specify, for example, precise cooking time-and-
temperature combinations. Further, many of these regulations require 
prior approval of equipment and procedures by FSIS, thereby assigning 
the Agency responsibility for the means used by establishments to 
comply with the regulations. As a general matter, command-and-control 
regulations are incompatible with HACCP because they deprive plants of 
the flexibility to innovate and undercut the clear delineation of 
responsibility for food safety. Therefore, to prepare for the 
implementation of HACCP, FSIS is conducting a thorough review of its 
current regulations and, to the maximum extent possible, converting its 
command-and-control regulations to performance standards. Some of the 
Agency's recent and planned initiatives, both to convert command-and-
control regulations to performance standards and to generally 
streamline and simplify the regulations, follow:
 FSIS is converting to performance standards the current 
            regulations governing the production of cooked beef 
            products, uncured meat patties, and certain poultry 
            products.
 FSIS has proposed streamlining, consolidating, and making 
            consistent with HACCP the rules of practice regarding 
            suspension and withdrawal of inspection.
 FSIS has proposed to consolidate the sanitation regulations 
            into a single part of the Code of Federal Regulations 
            applicable to both meat and poultry establishments, 
            eliminate unnecessary differences between the meat and 
            poultry sanitation requirements, and convert many of the 
            highly prescriptive requirements to performance standards.
 FSIS will be proposing to remove most requirements pertaining 
            to partial quality control programs.
Risk Management Agency
Mission: The Risk Management Agency (RMA) provides and supports cost-
effective means of managing risk for agricultural producers in order to 
improve the economic stability of agriculture.
Priorities: RMA's priority for 1999 will be to strengthen the safety 
net for agricultural producers through sound risk management programs 
and education by:
 Developing new programs and improving existing programs to 
            ensure producers have economically sound risk management 
            tools available to meet their needs;
 Promoting a risk management education effort to increase 
            producers' awareness and effective utilization of risk 
            management tools;
 Fostering a better public-private partnership with the crop 
            insurance industry to facilitate the delivery of 
            actuarially sound and affordable risk management products 
            to the Nation's farmers;
 Providing reinsurance in circumstances where private crop 
            insurance companies cannot accept excessive program risk; 
            and
 Improving existing management programs to ensure wise 
            management and protection of taxpayer funds.
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC)

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

1. GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS; NONSTANDARD UNDERWRITING 
CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


 7 USC 1506(l); 7 USC 1506(p)


CFR Citation:


 7 CFR 400


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Federal Crop Insurance Corporation proposes to remove and reserve 
subpart O of the General Administrative Regulations, effective for the 
1999 (2000 for Texas and Arizona and California Citrus) and succeeding 
crop years. This proposed action is intended to eliminate the 
unintended adverse effects of the Nonstandard Classification System 
(NCS), simplify and update program underwriting rules consistent with 
the program's current and future anticipated experience, and ensure 
that crop insurance premiums are applied to all producers in a fair and 
consistent manner.


Statement of Need:


This rule is being published as an initiative to respond to the needs 
of areas suffering repeated disasters and the complaints that the 
current system: (1) does not adequately exclude widespread causes of 
loss (disaster adjustment); (2) fails to recognize diverse conditions 
within a county; (3) unfairly hits new or struggling producers caught 
by repetitive disasters; (4) sets too high a premium for those 
producers listed on the NCS; and (5) applies unfairly to non-NCS 
insureds through share arrangements with insureds selected for NCS. 
Additionally, the current NCS process can be complicated to explain to 
insureds and agents who service crop insurance policies. The NCS 
process is also labor intensive for the Risk Management Agency and 
insurance providers at a time of increasingly smaller budgets and 
reduced resources. Reducing or eliminating program regulations that 
provide little benefit or can be accomplished through other more 
appropriate or cost efficient means is consistent with the Federal Crop 
Insurance Act requirement for simplification and the Administration's 
emphasis for regulatory reduction. It is for these reasons that this 
subpart is being suspended. FCIC will, during this suspension, consider 
and propose for comments an alternate method to the NCS program for the 
purpose of fairly and accurately determining coverage and premium 
consistent with the risk conditions under which the insurance offer is 
made.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


7 USC 1506(l); 7 USC 1506(p)


Alternatives:


None at this time.

[[Page 61213]]

Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The review indicated that NCS had been applied to only a small 
percentage of the total number of insureds who had collected at least 
three losses, had adverse loss ratios, and were responsible for a 
significant share of the losses paid. The analysis also indicated that 
the number of active NCS policies had declined 52 percent from 1996 to 
1997 (4,800 to 2,300) and that the liability associated with NCS 
policies declined from $37 million in 1996 to only $20 million in 1997. 
The results indicated that many insureds selected for NCS canceled 
their insurance policies because, in general, NCS was applied after 
losses had reached a point where the cost was too high for these 
insureds to continue to participate in the program. In summary, the 
analysis indicates that the costs of replacing NCS with a more 
efficient and effective process affects producers, taxpayers, and 
insurance providers differently. Estimated costs to producers increased 
by about $35 million for out-of-pocket premium costs. This amount is in 
lieu of premiums that ultimately would be assessed under the NCS 
procedures if producers elected to insure once they were identified 
under the system. Costs about equal the benefits to taxpayers as the 
increased subsidies associated with the higher premiums are offset by 
reduced excess losses. Taxpayers might have a small gain. Insurance 
providers gain additional administrative and operating subsidies and 
underwriting gains with the higher premiums.


Risks:


Any risks with eliminating the NCS program are minimal. Producers 
previously identified by the program will be able to purchase crop 
insurance at standard premium rates. Eliminating the program will 
assist the Risk Management Agency's effort to simplify the crop 
insurance program.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM           62 FR 48798                                    09/17/97
ANPRM Comment Period End                                       10/17/97
NPRM            63 FR 46703                                    09/02/98
Final Action                                                   12/00/98
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Diana Moslak
Regulatory Review Officer
Department of Agriculture
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation
1400 Independence Ave. SW.
Washington, DC 20250-0801
Phone: 202 720-2832
Fax: 202 690-5879
RIN: 0563-AB66
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FCIC
2.  GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS; SUBPART T - REGULATIONS 
FOR THE 1999 AND SUBSEQUENT REINSURANCE YEARS
Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


 7 USC 1506(l); 7 USC 1506(p)


CFR Citation:


 7 CFR 400; 7 CFR 457


Legal Deadline:


 Final, Statutory, July 1, 1998.


Abstract:


The Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC) amends subpart T in the 
General Administrative Regulations and the Common Crop Insurance 
Regulations, Basic Provisions, to conform with the statutory mandates 
of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 
1998 and to move those provisions that are terms of insurance from 
subpart T into the Basic Provisions. FCIC will also remove those 
provisions of subpart T that have been moved to the Basic Provisions.


Statement of Need:


On Thursday, July 30, 1998, the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation 
(FCIC) published an interim rule to amend subpart T in the General 
Administrative Regulations, to conform with the statutory mandates of 
the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998 
(1998 Research Act), and to move provisions that are terms of insurance 
from subpart T into the Common Crop Insurance Regulations, Basic 
Provisions. The rule changes the administrative fee charged to 
producers who elect the Catastrophic Risk Protection (CAT) level of 
coverage or additional coverage. The effective date of the interim rule 
was July 1, 1998. Written comments and opinions on this rule will be 
accepted until the close of business September 28, 1998, and will be 
considered when the rule is to be made final. Producers that are 
affected by this rule must make critical risk management decisions and 
the deadline for the first 1999 crop year decisions is less than 60 
days from the July 1, 1998, effective date of the 1998 Research Act. 
Further, FCIC was required to revise the Standard Reinsurance Agreement 
before the July 1, 1998, start of the 1999 reinsurance year to 
implement the provisions of the 1998 Research Act.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


7 USC 1506(l); 7 USC 1506 (p)


Alternatives:


None at this time.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


To be determined. The interim rule published on Thursday, July 30, 
1998, stated that FCIC will complete the required cost-benefit analysis 
within 90 days of publication of the interim rule.


Risks:


The increased fees, as mandated by the 1998 Research Act, will either 
encourage producers to purchase higher levels of crop insurance 
coverage or may result in some producers declining to participate in 
the program.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Interim Final Ru63 FR 40632                                    07/30/98
Final Action                                                   12/00/98
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Diana Moslak
Regulatory Review Officer
Department of Agriculture
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation
1400 Independence Ave SW.
Washington DC 20250-0801
Phone: 202 720-2832
Fax: 202 690-5879
RIN: 0563-AB67

[[Page 61214]]

_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FCIC
3.  GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS; SUBPART U; AND 
CATASTROPHIC RISK PROTECTION ENDORSEMENT - REGULATIONS FOR THE 1999 AND 
SUBSEQUENT REINSURANCE YEARS
Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


 7 USC 1506(l); 7 USC 1506(p)


CFR Citation:


 7 CFR 400; 7 CFR 402


Legal Deadline:


 Final, Statutory, July 1, 1998.


Abstract:


The Federal Crop Insurance Corporation amends the General 
Administrative Regulations, subpart U - Ineligibility for Programs 
Under the Federal Crop Insurance Act and the Catastrophic Risk 
Protection Endorsement to conform with the statutory mandates of the 
Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998.


Statement of Need:


On Thursday, July 30, 1998, the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation 
(FCIC) published an interim rule to amend subpart U in the General 
Administrative Regulations and part 402 to conform with the statutory 
mandates of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform 
Act of 1998 (1998 Research Act). The rule allows unpaid administrative 
fees as required by the 1998 Research Act to be treated as debt. 
Therefore, producers who fail to pay applicable administrative fees may 
have their crop insurance policy canceled. The rule also changes the 
administrative fees charged to producers who elect the Catastrophic 
Risk Protection (CAT) level of coverage. The effective date of the 
interim rule was July 1, 1998. Written comments and opinions on this 
rule will be accepted until the close of business September 28, 1998, 
and will be considered when the rule is to be made final. Producers 
that are affected by this rule must make critical risk management 
decisions and the deadline for the first 1999 crop year decisions is 
less than 60 days from the July 1, 1998, effective date of the 1998 
Research Act. Further, FCIC was required to revise the Standard 
Reinsurance Agreement before the July 1, 1998, start of the 1999 
reinsurance year to implement the provisions of the 1998 Research Act.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


7 USC 1506(l); 7 USC 1506(p)


Alternatives:


None at this time.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


To be determined. The interim rule published on Thursday, July 30, 1998 
stated that FCIC will complete the required cost-benefit analysis 
within 90 days of publication of the interim rule.


Risks:


Subpart U - Producers who fail to pay their administrative fees may 
have their crop insurance policy canceled for subsequent crop years. 
This could result in such producers being ineligible for other USDA 
program benefits. Part 402 - The increased fees, as mandated by the 
1998 Research Act, will either encourage CAT producers to purchase 
higher levels of crop insurance coverage or may result in some CAT 
producers declining to participate in the program.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Interim Final Ru63 FR 40630                                    07/30/98
Final Action                                                   12/00/98
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Diana Moslak
Regulatory Review Officer
Department of Agriculture
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation
1400 Independence Ave SW.
Washington DC 20250-0801
Phone: 202 720-2832
Fax: 202 690-5879
RIN: 0563-AB68
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--Food and Nutrition Service (FNS)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

4. SPECIAL SUPPLEMENTAL FOOD PROGRAM FOR WOMEN, INFANTS, AND CHILDREN 
(WIC): FOOD DELIVERY SYSTEMS INTEGRITY
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


 42 USC 1786


CFR Citation:


 7 CFR 246


Legal Deadline:


 Final, Statutory, March 31, 2000.


Abstract:


A proposed rule addressing WIC Food Delivery Systems was published on 
December 28, 1990 (55 FR 53446). The Department provided a 120-day 
comment period for the proposed rule, which closed on April 28, 1991. 
Nearly 1,100 comments were received from a wide variety of sources. 
Despite the degree of preliminary input to the December 28, 1990, 
proposed rule, many of the commenters responding during the formal 
comment period suggested that the Department's food delivery 
regulations needed to be proposed again, rather than proceeding 
directly to a final rule. In addition, several members of Congress 
requested that the rule be reproposed in light of its impact on State 
agency food delivery systems. Therefore, the Department intends to 
issue a second proposed rule addressing WIC food delivery systems and 
requirements. This second rule will address all of the provisions 
contained in the previous rulemaking, but will contain significant 
modifications to some of the proposed provisions, as well as 
clarifications of several provisions that may not have been clearly 
understood in the earlier rule.


Statement of Need:


On December 28, 1990, the Department published a proposed rule designed 
primarily to strengthen State agency operations in vendor management 
and related food delivery areas for the WIC Program. This proposal was 
developed with input over several years' time from State agency experts 
in food delivery, and with the full support of and encouragement from 
Congress and the Department's Office of Inspector General (OIG). The 
Department provided a 120-day comment period for the proposed rule, 
which closed on April 28, 1991. During this comment period, nearly 
1,100 comments were received from State and local WIC agencies, 
vendors, and associated groups, public interest groups, members of 
Congress, members of the public, and WIC participants.
Despite the degree of preliminary input to the December 28, 1990, 
proposed rule, many of the commenters

[[Page 61215]]

suggested that the Department's food delivery regulations needed to be 
proposed again, rather than proceeding directly to a final rule. In 
addition, several members of Congress requested that the rule be 
reproposed in light of its impact on State agency food delivery 
systems.
The Department has therefore drafted a second proposed rule addressing 
WIC food delivery systems integrity and procedural requirements. This 
second rule addresses all of the provisions contained in the previous 
rulemaking, and contains significant modifications to some of the 
proposed revisions, as well as clarifications to a number of provisions 
that may not have been clearly understood in the earlier rule. The rule 
will provide for more cost effective and efficient management of WIC 
vendors by State agencies. A 120-day public comment period will be 
provided with this proposed rule. The Department intends to publish a 
final rule, based on all of the comments received, by the end of fiscal 
year 1999.
Although this rule does not have a direct impact on reducing risks to 
public health, safety, or the environment, it will significantly 
improve the operation and accountability of the WIC Program nationwide.


Alternatives:


Given the intensive input that has been gathered for the development of 
this rule since it was recommended by the General Accounting Office in 
1988, and the comments that were received pertaining to the first 
proposed version of the rule in December 1990, the Department has 
determined that there are no viable alternatives to the provisions 
included in this reproposal. The alternative of proceeding directly to 
promulgation of a final rule based on the 1990 proposal has been 
rejected by Congress.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The costs of this action include costs due to vendor overcharges and 
costs associated with the proposal. The estimated costs for 
implementation of the proposal include a shift of not more than $2.0 
million in WIC Program Nutrition Services and Administration (NSA) 
funds within the 87 State agencies, partially from reduced requirements 
for management evaluations of local agencies and reduced costs due to 
elimination of representative on-site monitoring. They also include 
$0.5 million in additional costs to vendors to meet the proposed 
minimum training and authorization requirements. It should be noted 
that all the vendors are currently required to participate in some type 
of training and complete an application form for program authorization. 
The estimated $0.5 million in additional costs therefore represents 
those instances where current training and authorization requirements 
are below the level established in the proposal. In these instances, 
vendors may incur costs in attending more frequent training sessions or 
may be required to complete an application form at more frequent 
intervals. The estimated cost does not represent charges to the vendor 
for training or authorization. Rather, the cost represents the 
estimated cost of the vendor's time to participate in the training 
session and to complete the application form.
The gross benefit results from a significant reduction in vendor 
overcharges. A significant net benefit of $37 million is expected, as 
vendor overcharges are estimated at $39.5 million and costs associated 
with the proposal are a maximum of $2.5 million.


Risks:


This rule is intended to reduce and minimize the risk of vendor fraud 
and abuse of the WIC program.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           03/00/99
NPRM Comment Period End                                        06/00/99
Final Action                                                   03/00/00
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local, Tribal


Sectors Affected:


 None


Agency Contact:
Sheri Ackerman
Agency Regulatory Officer
Department of Agriculture
Food and Nutrition Service
3101 Park Center Drive
Room 308
Alexandria, VA 22302
Phone: 703 305-2246
RIN: 0584-AA80
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FNS
5. FOOD STAMP PROGRAM: REVISIONS TO THE RETAIL FOOD STORE DEFINITION 
AND PROGRAM AUTHORIZATION GUIDANCE
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


 PL 103-225; 7 USC 2012; 7 USC 2018


CFR Citation:


 7 CFR 271; 7 CFR 278


Legal Deadline:


 Final, Statutory, March 25, 1994.


Abstract:


This proposed rule would implement provisions of Public Law 103-225 
requiring firms to offer a variety of staple food items for sale or to 
have more than 50 percent of gross retail sales in staple foods. This 
rule also addresses the requirement in Public Law 103-225 to provide 
periodic notices to participating firms, clarifying certain eligibility 
criteria.


Statement of Need:


Public Law 103-225 amends the Food Stamp Act of 1977, to make changes 
in eligibility requirements for retail food stores to participate in 
the Food Stamp Program. Prior to enactment of these changes, a retail 
food store qualified to participate in the Food Stamp Program if more 
than 50 percent of its total eligible food sales were in staple foods. 
The new law changes that to require 50 percent of its total gross sales 
in staple foods. It also provides another option for stores not meeting 
the new 50 percent rule. Those stores can now qualify if they offer for 
sale, on a continuous basis, a variety of food in each of four 
categories of staple foods. The staple food categories are defined as 
``(1) meat, poultry, or fish; (2) bread or cereals; (3) vegetables or 
fruits; or (4) dairy products.'' This statutory change in eligibility 
will require developing policy definitions for the terms ``continuous 
basis,'' ``variety,'' and ``perishable.''


Alternatives:


None. The new law also requires the Secretary to issue new rules 
providing for the periodic reauthorization of retail food stores and 
wholesale food concerns. This must include providing periodic notice of 
the definitions for ``retail food stores,'' ``staple foods,'' and 
``perishable foods.''

[[Page 61216]]

Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


It is not anticipated that this proposed rule will impact program 
costs. It is anticipated that the clarifications of program eligibility 
criteria in this proposed rule will make it easier for firms to 
understand and for the Food and Consumer Service to administer.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           12/00/98
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Sheri Ackerman
Agency Regulatory Officer
Department of Agriculture
Food and Nutrition Service
3101 Park Center Drive, Room 308
Alexandria, VA 22302
Phone: 703 305-2246
RIN: 0584-AB90
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FNS
6. FSP: PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY PROVISIONS OF THE PERSONAL 
RESPONSIBILITY AND WORK OPPORTUNITY RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1996
Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Reinventing Government:


This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will 
revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline 
requirements.


Legal Authority:


 PL 104-193


CFR Citation:


 7 CFR 271; 7 CFR 272; 7 CFR 273


Legal Deadline:


 Other, Statutory, August 22, 1996.


Stat. implementation deadline of 8/22/96 for sec 813, 814, 820, 821, 
837, and 911 of PL 104-193; stat. implementation deadline of 7/1/97 for 
sec 115, and 11/22/96 for sec 824 of PL 104-193.


Abstract:


This rule will implement 13 provisions of the Personal Responsibility 
and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996.


Statement of Need:


P.L. 104-193, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity 
Reconciliation Act of 1996, amends the Food Stamp Act of 1977, to add 
some new eligibility requirements and disqualifiers and increase some 
existing penalties for noncompliance with food stamp rules. The new 
law: (1) makes individuals convicted of drug-related felonies 
ineligible for food stamps; (2) doubles the penalties for violating 
food stamp program requirements; (3) permanently disqualifies 
individuals convicted of trafficking in food stamp benefits of $500 or 
more; (4) allows States to disqualify an individual from food stamps if 
the individual is disqualified from another means-tested program for 
failure to perform an action required by that program; (5) makes 
individuals ineligible for 10 years if they misrepresent their identity 
or residence in order to receive multiple food stamp benefits; (6) 
makes fleeing felons and probation and parole violators ineligible for 
the food stamp program; (7) allows States to require food stamp 
recipients to cooperate with child support agencies as a condition of 
food stamp eligibility; (8) allows States to disqualify individuals who 
are in arrears in court-ordered child support payments; (9) limits the 
food stamp participation of most able-bodied adults without dependents 
to three months in a three-year period during times the individual is 
not working or participating in a work program; (10) prohibits an 
increase in food stamp benefits when households' income is reduced 
because of a penalty imposed under a Federal, State, or local means-
tested public assistance program for failure to perform a required 
action; (11) requires States to provide households' addresses, social 
security numbers, or photographs to law enforcement officers to assist 
them in locating fugitive felons or probation or parole violators; and 
(12) prohibits an increase in food stamp benefits when households' 
income is reduced because of a penalty imposed under a Federal, State, 
or local means-tested public assistance program for an act of fraud by 
the individual under the program.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


All of the provisions of this rule are mandated by P.L. 104-193, the 
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 
1996.


Alternatives:


None.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Over 7 years, the provisions are expected to reduce the cost of the 
Food Stamp Program by approximately $5.565 billion.


Risks:


None.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           12/00/98
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local, Federal


Agency Contact:
Sheri Ackerman
Agency Regulatory Officer
Department of Agriculture
Food and Nutrition Service
3101 Park Center Drive, Room 308
Alexandria, VA 22302
Phone: 703 305-2246
RIN: 0584-AC39
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FNS
7. FSP: STATE FLEXIBILITY AND CERTIFICATION PROVISIONS OF PUBLIC LAW 
104-193
Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Reinventing Government:


This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will 
revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline 
requirements.


Legal Authority:


 PL 104-193; PL 104-208; 7 USC 2011 to 2032


CFR Citation:


 7 CFR 272.3; 7 CFR 273.1; 7 CFR 273.2; 7 CFR 273.4; 7 CFR 273.9(c); 7 
CFR 273.9(d); 7 CFR 273.10(a); 7 CFR 273.10(c) to 273.10(f); 7 CFR 
273.11(a) to 273.11(c); 7 CFR 273.11(e); 7 CFR 273.11(j); 7 CFR 273.13; 
7 CFR 273.14(b); 7 CFR 273.14(e)


Legal Deadline:


 Other, Statutory, August 22, 1996.

[[Page 61217]]

For provisions effective upon enactment, the statutory implementation 
date is August 22, 1996.


Abstract:


This rule proposes to amend Food Stamp Program regulations to implement 
14 provisions of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity 
Reconciliation Act of 1996 and one provision of the Omnibus 
Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1996. These provisions would 
increase State agency flexibility in processing applications for the 
Food Stamp Program and allow greater use of standard amounts for 
determining deductions and self-employment expenses. The provisions 
would also give State agencies options to issue partial allotments for 
households in treatment centers, count all of the income of an 
ineligible noncitizen in determining the benefits of the rest of the 
household, issue combined allotments to certain expedited service 
households, and certify elderly or disabled households for 24 months. 
Other changes would revise requirements for determining noncitizen 
eligibility and the eligibility and benefits of sponsored noncitizens, 
eliminate the exclusion of certain transitional housing payments and 
State and local energy assistance, exclude the earnings of students 
under 18, and require proration of benefits following any break in 
certification.


Statement of Need:


This action is required by P. L. 104-193, P. L. 104-208, P. L. 105-53, 
and P. L. 105-185.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


This rule is required to implement the provisions of sections 402, 421, 
801, 807, 808, 809, 811, 812, 818, 827, 828, 830, and 835 of P. L. 104-
193; section 552 of P. L. 104-208; sections 5302, 5305, 5306, 5562, 
5563, 5571, 5572, and 5573 of P. L. 105-53; and section 503 of P. L. 
105-185.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The provision of this rule would reduce Food Stamp Program costs for FY 
1997-2002 by approximately $6.605 billion.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           02/00/99
NPRM Comment Period End                                        04/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local, Federal


Agency Contact:
Sheri Ackerman
Agency Regulatory Officer
Department of Agriculture
Food and Nutrition Service
3101 Park Center Drive, Room 308
Alexandria, VA 22302
Phone: 703 305-2246
RIN: 0584-AC40
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FNS
8. FSP: NONDISCRETIONARY PROVISIONS OF THE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND 
WORK OPPORTUNITY RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1996
Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Reinventing Government:


This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will 
revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline 
requirements.


Legal Authority:


 PL 104-193, sec 803; PL 104-193, sec 804; PL 104-193, sec 805; PL 104-
193, sec 809; PL 104-193, sec 810; PL 104-193, sec 838; PL 104-193, sec 
109; PL 104-193, sec 826


CFR Citation:


 7 CFR 271.2; 7 CFR 273.1; 7 CFR 273.2; 7 CFR 273.8; 7 CFR 273.9; 7 CFR 
273.10; 7 CFR 276.2(e)


Legal Deadline:


 Other, Statutory.


Statutory Implementation Dates: PL 104-193, sec 809 - 1/1/97; PL 104-
193, sec 803, 805 and 838 - 08/22/96; PL 104-193, sec 804 and 810 - 10/
01/96.


Abstract:


This proposed rule amends the Food Stamp Program regulations to 
implement 8 provisions of the Personal Responsibility and Work 
Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. These provisions require no 
interpretation or discretion: 1) freeze the minimum allotment at $10; 
2) change the way the maximum allotments are calculated to use 100% of 
the Thrifty Food Plan as opposed to 103%; 3) freeze the standard 
deduction at current level and eliminate the adjustment procedures; 4) 
cap the excess shelter expense deduction; 5) change the household 
composition definition so that children under 22 years of age and 
living with their parents cannot be a separate household; 6) increase 
the time frame from 5 to 7 days for expedited service; 7) set a time 
limit of not more than 90 days living in another person's house for 
considering a person homeless; and 8) set the fair market value of 
vehicles at $4,600 through 9/30/96 and raise it to $4,650 effective 10/
1/96 and eliminate future adjustments.


Statement of Need:


This action is required by P.L. 104-193.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


This rule is required to implement the provisions of sections 109, 803, 
804, 805, 809, 810, 826, and 838 of P.L. 104-193, the Personal 
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996.


Alternatives:


None. The provisions are mandated by statute.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The provisions of this rule would reduce Food Stamp Program costs for 
FY 1997-2002 by $11.2 billion.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           10/00/98
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local


Agency Contact:
Sheri Ackerman
Agency Regulatory Officer
Department of Agriculture
Food and Nutrition Service
3101 Park Center Drive
Room 308
Alexandria, VA 22302
Phone: 703 305-2246
RIN: 0584-AC41

[[Page 61218]]

_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FNS
9. FOOD STAMP PROGRAM: WORK PROVISIONS OF THE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY 
AND WORK OPPORTUNITY RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1996
Priority:


Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.


Legal Authority:


 PL 104-193


CFR Citation:


 7 CFR 273.7; 7 CFR 273.22


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This proposed rule will implement revisions to the Food Stamp Program's 
work and employment and training requirements, as well as new 
provisions for a work supplementation or support program and an 
employment initiative program.


Statement of Need:


This rule is necessary to implement revisions to the Food Stamp 
Program's work requirements.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


All provisions of this proposed rule are mandated by Public Law 104-
193.


Alternatives:


The alternative is not to revise current rules. This is not practical. 
The current rules have been superseded by changes brought about by 
Public Law 104-193.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Federal costs will increase by $15 million between Fiscal Year 1997 and 
Fiscal Year 2002. State agencies will benefit by achieving greater 
flexibility to encourage work and foster personal responsibility and 
independence.


Risks:


An increase in food stamp rolls would result by not implementing this 
rule.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           10/00/98
NPRM Comment Period End                                        12/00/98
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local


Agency Contact:
Sheri Ackerman
Agency Regulatory Officer
Department of Agriculture
Food and Nutrition Service
3101 Park Center Drive
Alexandria, VA 22302-1594
Phone: 703 305-2246
RIN: 0584-AC45
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FNS

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

10. FOOD STAMP PROGRAM: FOOD STAMP RECIPIENT CLAIM ESTABLISHMENT AND 
COLLECTION STANDARDS
Priority:


Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.


Reinventing Government:


This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will 
revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline 
requirements.


Legal Authority:


 7 USC 2011 to 2032


CFR Citation:


 7 CFR 272; 7 CFR 273


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Food and Nutrition Service is revising Food Stamp Program 
regulations which cover the establishment and collection of recipient 
claims. This action is the result of the enactment of the Personal 
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) 
and is consistent with the President's regulatory reform effort. In 
addition, this rule revises existing discretionary areas to improve 
claim establishment and promote effective management. The inability of 
State agencies to establish and collect claims has continuously been 
cited as a deficiency by the Department's Office of Inspector General. 
The last significant revision to these regulations was in 1983. 
Subsequent activities, such as technological advances and general debt 
management regulations, have rendered many portions of the current rule 
obsolete. In addition, the current rule has been found to place 
unnecessary burdens on State agencies. State agencies are responsible 
for establishing and collecting recipient claims.


Statement of Need:


In addition to implementing PRWORA, this rule is necessary to improve 
the establishment and collection of recipient claims. The last 
significant revision to these regulations was in 1983. Subsequent 
activities, such as technological advances and general debt management 
regulations, have rendered many portions of the current rule obsolete. 
The current rule has also been found to place unnecessary burdens on 
State agencies. State agencies are responsible for establishing and 
collecting recipient claims. This rule will address two dimensions of 
the overissuance problem: establishing claims on excess allowances, and 
recovering overages where possible. Data from the food stamp quality 
control system for 1997 show that overissuances to recipients totaled 
over $1.4 billion, 7.28 percent of the $19.5 billion in total food 
stamp issuances that year. Claims against recipients are a direct means 
to recover overissuances and, to the extent that recipients know that 
recovery of overissuances will be sought, represent a deterrent to 
households who quietly accept the extra food benefits.


Alternatives:


The alternative is not to revise the current rule governing this aspect 
of the Program. In addition, the existing regulations must be changed 
to conform with the new legislative requirement. The current rule is 
not adequate to facilitate effective and efficient debt management. The 
inability of State agencies to establish and collect claims has 
continuously been cited as a deficiency by the Department's Office of 
Inspector General.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Nationwide, as of October 1, 1997, there was over $1.2 billion in 
uncollected recipient claims. Inspector General reports have also noted 
that, in addition to large accounts receivable for established, 
uncollected claims, there are backlogs of hundreds of millions of 
claims that have not yet been established. These unestablished claims 
represent the most current, and typically the most collectable losses 
to the program. Updated regulations that incorporate recent debt 
management rules and technological advances, as well as practical 
suggestions and feedback received from State agencies,

[[Page 61219]]

should improve the establishment and collection of recipient claims in 
the Food Stamp Program. In addition, efforts will be made to increase 
the degree of conformity with claims-related issues and procedures 
currently used in other social programs.


Risks:


The tolerance of program abuse or even the perception of such 
undermines the fundamental mission of the Food Stamp Program. The 
efficient and effective establishment and collection of recipient 
claims, which this rulemaking addresses, is essential in ensuring that 
this does not occur.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            63 FR 29303                                    05/28/98
NPRM Comment Period End                                        08/26/98
Final Action                                                   09/00/99
Final Action Effective                                         03/00/00
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local


Agency Contact:
Sheri Ackerman
Agency Regulatory Officer
Department of Agriculture
Food and Nutrition Service
3101 Park Center Drive, Room 308
Alexandria, VA 22302
Phone: 703 305-2246
RIN: 0584-AB88
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

11. ELIMINATION OF REQUIREMENTS FOR PARTIAL QUALITY CONTROL PROGRAMS
Priority:


Other Significant


Reinventing Government:


This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will 
eliminate existing text in the CFR.


Legal Authority:


 21 USC 451 et seq; 21 USC 601 et seq


CFR Citation:


 9 CFR 317; 9 CFR 318; 9 CFR 319; 9 CFR 381


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This proposed rule would amend the meat and poultry inspection 
regulations by removing most requirements pertaining to partial quality 
control (PQC) programs. A PQC program controls a single product, 
operation, or part of an operation in a meat or poultry establishment. 
The proposal would remove the design requirements affecting most PQC 
programs that establishments have and most requirements for 
establishments to have PQC programs for certain products or processes. 
The proposal would also remove from the thermal processing regulations 
the requirements for FSIS prior approval, or approval before use, of 
systems and devices not specified in the regulations and all 
requirements concerning PQC programs. The proposal would expand the 
alternatives available to establishments under the thermal processing 
regulations for ensuring the safety of their products. However, the 
requirements for establishments to have quality control programs to 
control food irradiation processing and certain slaughtering inspection 
systems for poultry and the requirements concerning the design and 
content of those programs would be unaffected by this rulemaking. This 
proposal is intended to allow establishments under inspection 
additional flexibility, consistent with the Pathogen Reduction/Hazard 
Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) regulations, to adopt new 
technologies and methods that will improve food safety and other 
consumer protections.


Statement of Need:


FSIS carries out programs designed to ensure that meat, poultry, and 
egg products are wholesome, not adulterated, and properly marked, 
labeled, and packaged. FSIS is implementing the ``Pathogen Reduction; 
Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) Systems'' final rule 
promulgated July 25, 1996 (61 FR 38806), to reduce the risk of 
foodborne illness associated with consumption of meat and poultry 
products to the maximum extent possible. Under the Pathogen Reduction/
HACCP final rule, establishments are to accomplish this objective by 
taking appropriate and feasible measures to prevent or reduce the 
likelihood of physical, chemical, and microbiological hazards in the 
production of meat and poultry products.
FSIS is reviewing its other regulations to determine how they can be 
made more consistent with the Pathogen Reduction/HACCP regulations and 
the regulations and the regulatory approach they embody. Included in 
this review are regulations concerning sanitation standards, the 
exclusion from the food supply of meat and poultry products with 
visible defects affecting safety or quality, and preventing the 
economic adulteration of meat and poultry products.
As stated in the December 29, 1995, advance notice of proposed 
rulemaking (ANPRM) ``FSIS Agenda for Change'' (60 FR 67469), FSIS plans 
to eliminate regulations that are unnecessary and, to the extent 
possible, modify or replace command-and-control prescriptions with 
performance standards. Command-and-control requirements specify, often 
in great detail, how a plant is to achieve particular food safety or 
other regulatory objectives, while performance standards state the 
objectives or levels of performance to be achieved, and the plant can 
then choose how to achieve them. Replacing command-and-control 
requirements with performance standards will afford inspected 
establishments the flexibility to adopt technological innovations that 
can yield food safety benefits.
This change is also compelled by the philosophy underlying HACCP 
systems. Under the HACCP approach, plant management builds into its 
food production processes science-based controls and related measures--
the HACCP plans--required to ensure food safety. The HACCP plans can 
vary from plant to plant.
Where appropriate, command-and-control regulations must be changed to 
provide greater flexibility for industry to design and implement 
processes and HACCP systems of control, tailored to the circumstances 
of each plant. This is consistent with the HACCP approach, which 
clearly delineates industry and Government responsibility for food 
safety, with plants establishing procedures they will follow to ensure 
the production of safe food.
Among the regulations FSIS has identified as candidates for 
modification or elimination to be consistent with HACCP are 
restrictive, command-and-control-type regulations which delimit 
processing and treatment methods intended to eliminate specific food 
safety hazards and requirements concerning PQC programs. Among these 
are requirements that establishments have such programs for their 
products or processes and

[[Page 61220]]

requirements concerning the design of such programs.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


Under the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 USC 601 et seq.) and the 
Poultry Products Inspection Act (21 USC 451 et seq.), FSIS issues 
regulations governing the production of meat and poultry products 
prepared for distribution in interstate commerce. The Agency also 
issues regulations concerning the sanitation conditions under which 
such products are prepared.


Alternatives:


The alternatives to this proposed rulemaking that FSIS considered were, 
in addition to the alternative of no rulemaking, market sampling of 
finished products, mandating additional in-plant controls, sampling 
finished products for chemical analysis, general requirements and 
standards for PQC programs, and the elimination of all TQC and PQC 
requirements.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The proposed rule could save the regulated industry up to $14,000,000 
in costs associated with developing PQC programs according to FSIS 
specifications and in operating PQC programs that are mandated by the 
regulations.


Risks:


None.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           11/00/98
NPRM Comment Period End                                        02/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


State, Federal


Agency Contact:
Patricia Stolfa
Assistant Deputy Administrator
Regulations and Inspection
Department of Agriculture
Food Safety and Inspection Service
Washington, DC 20250-3700
Phone: 202 205-0699
RIN: 0583-AC35
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FSIS

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

12. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR CERTAIN MEAT PRODUCTS AND POULTRY 
PRODUCTS
Priority:


Other Significant


Reinventing Government:


This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will 
revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline 
requirements.


Legal Authority:


 21 USC 451 et seq; 21 USC 60 et seq


CFR Citation:


 9 CFR 301; 9 CFR 318; 9 CFR 320; 9 CFR 381


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is amending the Federal 
meat and poultry inspection regulations by converting the current 
regulations governing the production of cooked beef products, uncured 
meat patties, and certain poultry products into performance standards. 
The performance standards spell out the objective level of performance 
establishments must meet during their operations in order to produce 
safe products, but allow the use of plant-specific processing 
procedures other than the procedures prescribed in the current 
regulations. All of the provisions in the previous regulations meet the 
proposed performance standards. Therefore, establishments probably 
would not be required to change any current practices in response to 
this proposed rule. Establishments that do not wish to change their 
processing practices may continue following the previous requirements 
for these products, which will be disseminated as ``safe harbors'' in 
Agency guidance materials.


Statement of Need:


Under the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 USC 601 et seq.) and the 
Poultry Products Inspection Act (21 USC 451 et seq.), FSIS issues 
regulations governing the production of meat and poultry products 
prepared for distribution in interstate commerce. Many of these 
regulations employ the command-and-control approach, prescribing a 
precise sequence of steps to be followed when producing food that is 
safe and not adulterated. The command-and-control approach to 
rulemaking has ensured that all establishments are subject to the same 
rules and that no establishment has a technological advantage over 
another. However, this approach has several drawbacks: it can stifle 
innovation in meat and poultry processing technology; it does not 
account for the uniqueness of individual processing procedures and 
needs within different establishments; and it produces regulations that 
can have a negative economic impact on small businesses. Command-and-
control rulemaking often fails to account for the development of 
innovative processing technologies. By prescribing specific steps 
establishments must take during processing, command-and-control 
regulations often do not allow establishments to employ innovations in 
processing technology that may produce meat and poultry products that 
are as safe as, or even safer than, those produced in accordance with 
the command-and-control regulations. While FSIS endeavors to account 
for technological innovation when rulemaking, new processing 
technologies are developed at a faster pace than the Agency can amend 
the regulations. Also, command-and-control regulations often do not 
account for the uniqueness of individual processing procedures and 
needs within different establishments. FSIS command-and-control 
regulations require all establishments to produce meat and poultry 
products in the same manner. Such prescriptive regulations are 
impractical in many settings. Further, they can have disparate economic 
effects on establishments producing different volumes of the same 
product. By promulgating command-and-control regulations mandating the 
use of specific processes or technologies, FSIS often inadvertently 
imposes significant economic burdens on small businesses. Small 
establishments producing meat and poultry products at low volumes often 
must pay a high cost per product unit when required to employ a 
specific process or technology. Large establishments, however, are able 
to spread the cost of a required process or technology over their 
higher production volumes. While FSIS has attempted to incorporate 
prevailing industry processing practices into its command-and-control 
regulations in order to lessen the economic burden

[[Page 61221]]

imposed on small establishments, many small establishments often find 
prevailing industry processing practices to be impractical and/or 
expensive. In light of these general problems, FSIS is substituting 
performance standards for the current command-and-control regulations 
governing the production of cooked beef products, uncured meat patties, 
and certain fully and partially cooked poultry products. The 
performance standards spell out the objective level of performance that 
establishments must meet during their operations in order to produce 
safe and nonadulterated products, but allow the use of plant-specific 
processing procedures other than the procedures prescribed in the 
current regulations. Accordingly, establishments may employ innovative 
or unique processing procedures customized to the nature and volume of 
their production, as long as their products meet the proposed 
performance standards for safe, nonadulterated food. Furthermore, all 
of the prescriptive, command-and-control provisions in the current 
regulations governing cooked beef products, uncured meat patties, and 
certain fully and partially cooked poultry products meet the proposed 
standards. Therefore, establishments producing these products will not 
be required to change any current practices in response to this 
proposed rule. By making final performance standards that may be met 
through adherence to the previous regulations, FSIS creates a ``safe 
harbor'' for establishments content with the previous regulations and 
mitigates any negative impact this proposal could have on such 
establishments.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


Under the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 USC 601 et seq.) and the 
Poultry Products Inspection Act (21 USC 451 et seq.), FSIS issues 
regulations governing the production of meat and poultry products 
prepared for distribution in interstate commerce.


Alternatives:


FSIS could have maintained the command-and-control regulations 
governing cooked beef products, uncured meat patties, and certain 
poultry products. However, as explained above, these regulations have 
several drawbacks: they stifle innovation in meat and poultry 
processing technology; they do not account for the uniqueness of 
individual processing procedures and needs within different 
establishments; and they can have a negative economic impact on small 
businesses.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


By allowing establishments to meet performance standards for cooked 
beef products, uncured meat patties, and certain poultry products by 
means other than those prescribed in the current regulations, FSIS 
hopes to encourage innovation in meat and poultry processing technology 
and allow establishments to customize processes to meet their 
individual needs. Because employing alternative means to meet the 
proposed performance standards would be optional, FSIS concludes that 
this action would not have a significant economic impact on small or 
large establishments.


Risks:


The proposed performance standards would maintain a level of food 
safety equivalent to that which is ensured by the current regulations.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            61 FR 19564                                    05/02/96
Comment Period E61 FR 35990                                    09/09/96
Final Action                                                   11/00/98
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Patricia F. Stolfa
Assistant Deputy Administrator
Regulations and Inspection
Department of Agriculture
Food Safety and Inspection Service
Washington, DC 20250-3700
Phone: 202 205-0699
RIN: 0583-AB94
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FSIS
13. RULES OF PRACTICE
Priority:


Substantive, Nonsignificant


Reinventing Government:


This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will 
eliminate existing text in the CFR.


Legal Authority:


 21 USC 601; 21 USC 451


CFR Citation:


 9 CFR 304; 9 CFR 305; 9 CFR 306; 9 CFR 327; 9 CFR 335; 9 CFR 381; 9 
CFR 460


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is proposing to revise 
and consolidate the regulations that address the rules of practice FSIS 
follows when inspection services are refused, suspended, or withdrawn. 
FSIS is proposing to add specific language regarding the refusal, 
suspension, or withdrawal of inspection when the Agency determines that 
an establishment's Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) 
system is inadequate, an establishment is not meeting the Salmonella 
pathogen reduction performance standards, an establishment's Sanitation 
Standard Operating Procedure is inadequate, or an establishment is not 
conducting generic E. coli testing. Additionally, FSIS proposes to 
revise and consolidate the regulations regarding the procedures for 
appealing Agency decisions.


Statement of Need:


For the most part, FSIS's Supplemental Rules of Practice duplicate the 
Department's Uniform Rules of Practice regulations. FSIS's regulations 
do, however, establish procedures related to the suspension of 
inspection. However, these regulations are difficult to read and do not 
clearly outline the process.
Therefore, as part of FSIS's ongoing efforts to simplify, consolidate, 
and streamline the meat and poultry inspection regulations, FSIS is 
proposing to revise these regulations. FSIS intends to eliminate 
redundancy between its regulations and the Department's regulations and 
to more clearly identify the process and situations involved when FSIS 
suspends inspection prior to filing a complaint to withdraw the grant 
of inspection.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


Under the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 USC 601 et seq.) and the 
Poultry Products Inspection Act (21 USC 451 et seq.), FSIS issues 
regulations governing the production of meat and poultry products 
prepared for distribution in interstate commerce. The Agency also 
issues regulations concerning the sanitation conditions

[[Page 61222]]

under which such products are prepared.


Alternatives:


No action.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


There are no direct costs or benefits associated with this proposal. At 
present time, there is no way to predict whether industry ``down time'' 
will increase or decrease under the proposed rules of practice. To the 
extent that disputes can be resolved in a timely and more efficient 
manner, there are potential benefits to both industry and the 
government. To the extent that clear rules of practice promote timely 
regulatory action there would be consumer protection benefits.


Risks:


None.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            63 FR 1797                                     01/12/98
NPRM Comment Period End                                        03/13/98
Final Action                                                   11/00/98
Final Action Effective                                         12/00/98
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Patricia Stolfa
Assistant Deputy Administrator
Regulations and Inspection
Department of Agriculture
Food Safety and Inspection Service
Washington, DC 20240-3700
Phone: 202 205-0699
RIN: 0583-AC34
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FSIS
14. SANITATION REQUIREMENTS FOR OFFICIAL MEAT AND POULTRY 
ESTABLISHMENTS
Priority:


Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Reinventing Government:


This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will 
revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline 
requirements.


Legal Authority:


 21 USC 451 et seq; 21 USC 601 et seq


CFR Citation:


 9 CFR 303; 9 CFR 308; 9 CFR 381; 9 CFR 416


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


FSIS is consolidating the sanitation regulations into a single part 
applicable to both meat and poultry establishments, eliminating 
unnecessary differences between the meat and poultry sanitation 
requirements, and converting many of the highly prescriptive sanitation 
requirements to performance standards.


Statement of Need:


In the course of its ongoing regulatory review, FSIS identified the 
need to revise its sanitation requirements for official meat and 
poultry establishments. A number of the existing sanitation 
requirements are difficult to understand, redundant, or outdated. Also, 
there are unnecessary differences between the sanitation requirements 
for meat and poultry establishments. Further, some of the existing 
sanitation requirements are no longer needed in light of the Agency's 
recently finalized HACCP and Sanitation Standard Operating Procedure 
(SOP) requirements. Finally, some of the current sanitation regulations 
are unnecessarily prescriptive, may impede innovation, and blur the 
distinction between establishment and inspector responsibilities for 
maintaining sanitary conditions.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


Under the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 USC 601 et seq.) and the 
Poultry Products Inspection Act (21 USC 451 et seq.), FSIS issues 
regulations governing the production of meat and poultry products 
prepared for distribution in interstate commerce. The Agency also 
issues regulations concerning the sanitation conditions under which 
such products are prepared.


Alternatives:


FSIS could put into place more comprehensive and prescriptive 
sanitation regulations. The requirements would then include very 
specific definitions of terms, such as definitions for food contact 
surfaces or premises; more prescriptive performance standards, such as 
microbial criteria for recently cleaned and sanitized food contact 
surfaces; detailed requirements currently contained in Agency guidance 
materials, such as an ambient temperature requirement for rooms in 
which certain processes are conducted; and a list of specific 
regulatory prohibitions, again largely drawn from existing regulatory 
and guidance material.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


In general, the streamlining, clarification, and consolidation of the 
sanitation regulations will benefit FSIS, the regulated industry, and 
consumers. User-friendly regulations simplify compliance and therefore 
bring about food safety enhancements in individual establishments. 
Further, consolidation of the separate sanitation requirements for meat 
and poultry products and the consequent elimination of unnecessary 
inconsistencies could enhance competition.
This rule allows individual establishments to develop and implement 
customized sanitation procedures other than those currently mandated, 
as long as those procedures produced sanitary conditions meeting the 
proposed performance standards. Establishments taking advantage of the 
performance standards to innovate thus can benefit from savings accrued 
through increased efficiency. However, since the currently mandated 
sanitation procedures meet the proposed performance standards, 
establishments lacking the resources to innovate could choose to 
continue employing current procedures. Such establishments should incur 
no additional expenses as a result of this rule. FSIS therefore 
anticipates that sanitation performance standards will have a generally 
favorable economic impact on all establishments, regardless of size.


Risks:


None.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            62 FR 45045                                    08/25/97
NPRM Comment Period End                                        10/24/97
Final Action                                                   11/00/98
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes

[[Page 61223]]

Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


Federal


Agency Contact:
Patricia Stolfa
Assistant Deputy Administrator
Regulations and Inspection
Department of Agriculture
Food Safety and Inspection Service
Washington DC 20250-3700
Phone: 202 205-0699
RIN: 0583-AC39
BILLING CODE 3410-90-F

[[Page 61224]]

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE (DOC)
Statement of Regulatory and Deregulatory Priorities
Sustainable, long-term economic growth is a central focus of the 
President's policies and priorities. The mission of the Department of 
Commerce is to promote job creation, economic growth, sustainable 
development, and improved living standards for all Americans by working 
in partnership with business, universities, communities, and workers 
to:
 Build for the future and promote U.S. competitiveness in the 
            global marketplace by strengthening and safeguarding the 
            Nation's economic infrastructure;
 Keep America competitive with cutting-edge science and 
            technology and an unrivaled information base; and
 Provide effective management and stewardship of our Nation's 
            resources and assets to ensure sustainable economic 
            opportunities.
The Commerce mission statement, containing our three strategic themes, 
provides the vehicle for understanding Commerce's aims, how they 
interlock, and how they are to be implemented through our programs. 
Working collectively, the bureaus of the Department (including the 
Office of the Secretary) developed it with the intent that it serve as 
both a statement of departmental philosophy and as the guiding force 
behind the Department's programs.
The importance that this mission statement and these strategic themes 
have for the Nation is amplified by the vision they pursue for 
America's communities, businesses, and families. Commerce is the 
smallest Cabinet agency, yet our presence is felt, and our 
contributions are found, in every State.
The Commerce Department touches Americans daily in many ways--we make 
possible the weather reports that all of us hear every morning; we 
facilitate the technology that all of us use in the workplace and in 
the home each day; we support the development, gathering, and 
transmitting of information essential to competitive business; we make 
possible the diversity of companies and goods found in America's (and 
the world's) marketplace; we support environmental and economic health 
for the communities in which Americans live.
The Department of Commerce has a clear and powerful vision for itself, 
for its role in the Federal Government, and for its roles supporting 
the American people, now and in the future. We confront the 
intersection of trade promotion, civilian technology, economic 
development, sustainable development, and economic analysis, and we 
want to provide leadership in these areas for the Nation. As a 
Department, we aspire to provide programs and services which serve our 
country's businesses, communities, and families, as initiated and 
supported by the President and the Congress. We are dedicated to making 
those programs and services as effective as possible and to their being 
delivered in cost-effective ways. We seek to function in close concert 
with other agencies having complementary responsibilities so that, 
collectively, our impact can be accurate and powerful. We seek to meet 
the needs of our customers quickly and efficiently with the programs, 
information, and services they require and deserve.
As a permanent part of the Federal Government, but serving an 
Administration and Congress that can vary with election results, we 
seek to serve the unchanging needs of the Nation, according to the 
priorities of the President and the Congress. We are able to do this 
effectively by functioning in accordance with the legislation that 
undergirds our programs and by working closely with the President and 
the committees in Congress which have program and financial oversight 
for our programs.
In his 1996 State of the Union message, the President said: ``Now we 
move to an age of technology, information, and global competition. 
These changes have opened vast new opportunities, but they have also 
presented us with stiff challenges.'' The Vice President sounded a 
similar call: ``Americans also understand that in a global economy, the 
only way to maintain America's competitive edge is to lead the world in 
innovation and new technologies. Investments in science and technology 
mean better jobs, higher wages, and a growing economy.'' In the 1997 
State of the Union address, the President said: ``Over the last four 
years, we have brought new economic growth by investing in our people, 
expanding our exports, cutting our deficits, creating over 11 million 
new jobs, a four-year record.... We face no imminent threat, but we do 
have an enemy. The enemy of our time is inaction.'' He continued: ``To 
prepare America for the 21st century, we must harness the powerful 
forces of science and technology to benefit all Americans.'' Again, in 
the 1998 State of the Union message, the President said: ``Rarely have 
Americans lived through so much change, in so many ways, in so short a 
time. Quietly, but with gathering force, the ground has shifted beneath 
our feet as we have moved into an Information Age, a global economy, a 
truly new world. ... As we enter the 21st century, the global economy 
requires us to seek opportunity not just at home, but in all the 
markets of the world. We must shape this global economy, not shrink 
from it. ... Today, record high exports account for fully one-third of 
our economic growth. I want to keep them going, because that's the way 
to keep America growing and to advance a safer, more stable world.''
These words help to make clear the role of the Commerce Department: To 
help keep America as the world's technology leader, to help American 
companies compete globally, to enable communities to conquer economic 
challenges, to stimulate the growth of high-pay, high-quality jobs, to 
preserve and protect the environment and our natural resources as well 
as safeguarding the public from the adverse impacts of undesirable 
environmental changes, and to provide information vital for good 
business and policy decisions.
Commerce promotes and expedites American exports, helps nurture 
business contacts abroad, protects our firms from unfair foreign 
competition, and makes how-to-export information accessible to small- 
and mid-sized companies throughout the Nation so that market 
opportunities span the globe.
Commerce encourages development in every community by clearing the way 
for private sector growth by building or rebuilding economically 
deprived and distressed communities. We promote minority 
entrepreneurship to establish businesses that frequently anchor 
neighborhoods and create new job opportunities. We work with the 
private sector to enhance competitive assets.
As the Nation looks to revitalize our industries and communities, 
Commerce works as a partner with private entities to build America with 
an eye on the future. So through technology, research and development, 
and innovation, we are making sure America is on the winning side.
Commerce's considerable information capacities help businesses 
understand clearly where our national and world economies are going and 
to take advantage of that knowledge by

[[Page 61225]]

planning the road ahead. Armed with this information, businesses can 
undertake the new ventures, investments, and expansions that make our 
economy grow.
The capacity for managing the Nation's assets and resources is another 
key policy driver for Commerce, an essential one in our ability to help 
the Nation succeed in the future. These activities--ranging from 
protecting our fisheries to controlling the radio frequency spectrum to 
protecting intellectual property--affect the economy directly.
This Department of Commerce has instituted the programs and policies 
that mean cutting-edge, competitive, better paying jobs. We work 
everyday to boost exports, to deregulate business, to help smaller 
manufacturers battle foreign competition, to advance the technologies 
critical to our future prosperity, to invest in our communities, and to 
fuse economic and environmental goals.
The Department of Commerce is American business' surest ally in job 
creation, serving as a vital resource base, a tireless advocate, and 
its Cabinet-level voice.
The Department's regulatory plan directly tracks these policy and 
program priorities, only a few of which involve regulation of the 
private sector by the Department.
Responding to the Administration's Regulatory Philosophy and Principles
The vast majority of the Department's programs and activities do not 
involve regulation. Of the Department's 12 primary operating units, 
only 5--the Bureau of Export Administration, the International Trade 
Administration (ITA), the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 
and the Patent and Trademark Office--plan significant preregulatory or 
regulatory actions for the Regulatory Plan year. Only two of these 
operating units--ITA and NOAA--have a regulatory action rising to the 
level of the most important of the Department's significant regulatory 
actions planned for the Regulatory Plan year.
Though not principally a regulatory agency, the Department of Commerce 
has long been a leader in advocating and using market-oriented 
regulatory approaches in lieu of traditional command-and-control 
regulations when such approaches offer a better alternative. All 
regulations are designed and implemented to maximize societal benefits 
while placing the smallest possible burden on those being regulated.
The Commerce Department is also refocusing on its regulatory mission by 
taking into account, among other things, the President's regulatory 
principles. To the extent permitted by law, all preregulatory and 
regulatory activities and decisions adhere to the Administration's 
statement of regulatory philosophy and principles, as set forth in 
section 1 of Executive Order 12866. Moreover, we have made bold and 
dramatic changes, never being satisfied with the status quo. Over the 
past 5 years, we have emphasized, initiated, and expanded programs that 
work in partnership with the American people to secure the Nation's 
economic future. At the same time, we have down-sized, cut regulations, 
closed offices, and eliminated programs and jobs that are not part of 
our core mission. The bottom line is that, after much thought and 
debate, we have made many hard choices needed to make this Department 
``state of the art.''
The Secretary has prohibited 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 in 
simple, plain English and be understandable to those affected by them. 
The Secretary also requires that the Department afford the public the 
maximum possible opportunity to participate in departmental 
rulemakings, even where public participation is not required by law.
Compliance with the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) 
requires, among other things, that agencies regulating the activities 
of small businesses establish two related programs. Section 213 of 
SBREFA requires each such agency to have a program for providing 
regulatory compliance guidance to small businesses. Section 223 
requires agencies regulating the activities of small businesses to 
establish a program for reduction and, in appropriate cases, waiver of 
civil penalties for violations of a statutory or regulatory requirement 
by a small entity.
Within the Commerce Department, two agencies regulate the activities of 
small business, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
(NOAA) and the Bureau of Export Administration (BXA). Both NOAA and BXA 
have established programs to comply with the requirements of SBREFA.
With respect to section 223, NOAA has established a Fix-It Notice (FIN) 
program for the reduction or waiver of civil penalties under several of 
the natural resource protection statutes NOAA enforces, including the 
Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the 
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Under the FIN 
program, dozens of minor, first-time violations, which are of a 
technical nature and which do not have a direct natural resource 
impact, receive a Fix-It Notice which allows the violation to be 
corrected in lieu of a penalty. The Fix-It Notice identifies the 
violation and allows the violator a specified amount of time to ``fix'' 
the violation. At this time, there are over 130 types of violations 
that have been included in the FIN program. NOAA's Civil Administrative 
Penalty Schedule has been amended to reflect the FIN program.
Fix-It Notices may be issued by either the National Marine Fisheries 
Service Office for Law Enforcement or by U.S. Coast Guard Boarding 
Officers operating in their deputized capacity. Since March 1996, 
approximately 208 Fix-It Notices were issued in lieu of penalties, many 
to small entities. The FIN program has helped NOAA achieve compliance 
and has had a positive response from the regulated community, many of 
whom are small entities.
NOAA issues written warnings rather than penalties for many minor 
violations. Since March 1996, NOAA issued approximately 908 written 
warnings. In addition, NOAA has a ``Summary Settlement System'' which 
allows violators, including small entities, to choose not to contest an 
alleged violation and to pay a reduced penalty within a specified time 
period following receipt of the Summary Settlement Notice. Since March 
1996, approximately 392 Summary Settlement offers were extended by 
NOAA.
With respect to section 213, NOAA has a comprehensive program for 
providing regulatory guidance to small entities, which comprise much of 
NOAA's regulated community. It has long been NOAA's practice to answer 
inquiries by small entities whenever appropriate in the interest of 
administering statutes and regulations. Inquiries are received via 
telephone, mail, and electronic mail; during public hearings, town hall 
meetings, and workshops held by NOAA throughout

[[Page 61226]]

the year; and in the day-to-day interactions that small entities have 
with NOAA personnel. As a result, NOAA answers tens of thousands of 
inquiries from small entities each year.
BXA administers a classification and advisory opinion program. Under 
the Export Administration Regulations (EAR), which sets the criteria 
for export of dual-use items, commercial items with potential military 
or weapons proliferation applications, an exporter has a responsibility 
to classify the item it seeks to export to determine if an export 
license is required. In light of this responsibility, BXA has 
established a program whereby an exporter can ask BXA whether the item 
is subject to the EAR and, if so, the correct classification of that 
item. Further, for a given end-use, end-user, or destination, BXA will 
advise an exporter whether an export license is required or likely to 
be granted. The regulations describing this program can be found at 15 
CFR 748.3.
In addition, BXA spends a great deal of time working with industry to 
educate them about the export control provisions of the EAR. BXA has an 
aggressive outreach program which has trained over 3,000 exporters 
during fiscal year 1998. For example, as a standard part of the 
seminar, BXA provides guidelines entitled ``Export Management System 
Guidelines'' to assist firms in ensuring that their exports and export 
decisions are consistent with the EAR. The EAR also contain ``Know Your 
Customer'' guidelines and ``red flag'' indicators, designed to assist 
exporters in complying with regulatory requirements.
As violations of the EAR have significant national security and foreign 
policy implications, we do not believe it appropriate for BXA to 
develop a penalty reduction or waiver program for violations of the 
provisions of the EAR. Small and large businesses alike bear 
responsibility for safeguarding this Nation's overall security and 
foreign policy interests.
Description of Agency Regulations
International Trade Administration
The International Trade Administration (ITA) is responsible for most 
nonagricultural trade promotion and enforcement activities of the 
Federal Government. It works with the Office of the U.S. Trade 
Representative in coordinating U.S. trade policy. A large component of 
ITA's activities do not involve regulation. However, ITA has important 
regulatory authority under a number of U.S. trade laws.
ITA administers programs to strengthen domestic export competitiveness 
and to promote U.S. industry's increased participation in international 
markets. ITA's trade development program includes policy development, 
industry analysis, and promotion organized by industrial sectors such 
as science and electronics, basic industries, chemicals and allied 
products, energy, and textiles and apparel. Among its regulatory 
activities, ITA issues certificates of review providing export trading 
companies with limited immunity from liability under antitrust laws.
ITA helps achieve the major departmental goal of opening and expanding 
foreign markets and promoting increased exports of U.S. goods and 
services in markets with the highest potential for growth, such as Asia 
and Latin America, and in important growing sectors, such as computers, 
telecommunications, and environmental technologies. The report of the 
Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee outlined more than 60 specific 
actions to strengthen U.S. export promotion efforts. Many of these 
actions, such as increasing U.S. businesses' awareness of sources of 
and access to trade finance and the establishment of one-stop U.S. 
Export Assistance Centers, directly involve ITA but do not involve 
regulation.
ITA also enforces our trade laws to ensure free and fair competition in 
our domestic market between U.S.- and foreign-manufactured goods. It 
administers and enforces the antidumping and countervailing duty laws 
of the United States. It investigates whether exports to the United 
States are subsidized or sold at less than fair value; when it finds 
that they are, and the U.S. International Trade Commission finds that a 
U.S. industry has been injured or threatened with material injury as a 
result, it issues an order to the U.S. Customs Service to impose 
offsetting duties. In addition, ITA administers the Foreign Trade Zone 
and Watch Quota Programs and the Educational, Scientific, and Cultural 
Materials Importation Act.
Antidumping and Countervailing Duties Regulations
The top regulatory priority of ITA is completing revision of the 
countervailing duty regulations to conform to legislation implementing 
the results of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations.
The Subsidies/Countervailing Measures Agreement of the Uruguay Round 
(Agreement) establishes general principles regarding the administration 
of the countervailing duty law. In order to facilitate the 
administration of this law and to provide greater predictability for 
private parties affected by this law, it will be necessary to 
promulgate regulations which, where appropriate and feasible, translate 
the principles of the Agreement and the implementing legislation into 
specific and predictable rules. By clarifying the methodologies and 
procedures used in administering the countervailing duty law, the 
efficiency and fairness of this law will be enhanced at little, if any, 
additional cost. The manner in which these regulations are drafted 
could have a significant impact on various important sectors of the 
economy, including steel and lumber.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 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 services vital to public safety and 
to the Nation's economy, such as weather forecasts and storm warnings. 
It is a source of objective information on the state of the 
environment. NOAA plays the lead role in achieving the departmental 
goal of promoting stewardship and assessment of the global environment.
In recognition that economic growth must go hand-in-hand with 
environmental stewardship, the Commerce Department, 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 saving 
fisheries and confronting short-term economic dislocation, while 
boosting long-term economic growth. The Department of 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 Service 
(NMFS), the National Ocean Service (NOS), and the National 
Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service (NESDIS), 
exercise regulatory authority.
NMFS oversees the management and conservation of the Nation's marine

[[Page 61227]]

fisheries, protects marine mammals, and promotes the economic 
development of the U.S. fishing industries. NOS assists the coastal 
States in their management of land and ocean resources in their coastal 
zones, including estuarine research reserves; manages the Nation's 
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.
The Administration is committed to an environmental strategy that 
promotes sustainable economic development and rejects the false choice 
between environmental goals and economic growth. The intent is to have 
the Government's economic decisions be guided by a comprehensive 
understanding of the environment. The Department of 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 the sound scientific observations, assessments, and 
forecasts of environmental phenomena on which resource management and 
other societal decisions can be made.
In the environmental stewardship area, NOAA's goals include rebuilding 
U.S. fisheries by refocusing policies and fishery management planning 
on increased scientific information; increasing the populations of 
depleted, threatened, or endangered species of 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 
modernizing 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 Act Rulemakings
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-
Stevens Act) rulemakings concern the conservation and management of 
fishery resources in the U.S. 3-to-200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone 
(EEZ). Among the several hundred rulemakings that NOAA plans to issue 
in the Regulatory Plan year, 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 and by other circumstances which cannot be predicted. Once a 
rulemaking is triggered by a FMC, the Magnuson-Stevens Act places 
stringent deadlines upon NMFS in which it must exercise its rulemaking 
responsibilities. Most of these rulemakings will be minor, involving 
only the opening or closing of a fishery under an existing FMP. While 
no one Magnuson-Stevens Act rulemaking is among the Department's most 
important significant regulatory actions, and therefore none is 
specifically described below, the sum of these actions, and a few of 
the individual actions themselves, are highly significant.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act, which is the primary legal authority for 
Federal regulation to conserve and manage fishery resources, 
establishes eight regional FMCs responsible for preparing FMPs and FMP 
amendments. NMFS issues regulations to implement FMPs and FMP 
amendments. FMPs address a variety of fishery matters, including 
depressed stocks, over-fished stocks, gear conflicts, and foreign 
fishing. One of the problems that FMPs may use is preventing 
overcapitalization (preventing excess fishing capacity) of fisheries by 
limiting access to those dependent on the fishery in the past and/or by 
allocating the resource through individual transferable quotas which 
can be sold on the open market to other participants or those wishing 
access. Quotas set on good 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.
NMFS favors the concept of framework FMPs where applicable. Such FMPs 
provide ranges, boundaries, and decision rules within which NMFS can 
change management measures without formally amending the FMP. Further, 
consistent with the recommendations on improving regulatory systems 
accompanying the Report of the National Performance Review, NMFS favors 
using market-oriented approaches in managing fisheries. Open-access 
fisheries are destined to have too many people investing too much money 
in vessels and equipment. Access controls (e.g., a limited number of 
permits) represent a rational approach for managing fishery resources; 
they can be used to control fishing mortality levels and to prevent 
over-fishing, economic dissipation, and subsequent economic and social 
dislocation. Of course overall quotas will need to be set based on the 
best scientific information available as to such things as stock status 
and optimum yields.
The FMCs provide a forum for public debate and, using the best 
scientific information available, make the judgments needed to 
determine optimum yield on a fishery-by-fishery basis. Optional 
management measures are examined and selected in accordance with the 
national standards set forth in the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This process, 
including the selection of the preferred management measures, 
constitutes the development, in simplified form, of an FMP. The FMP, 
together with draft implementing regulations and supporting 
documentation, is submitted to NMFS for review against the national 
standards set forth in the Magnuson-Stevens Act, in other provisions of 
the Act, and other applicable laws. The same process applies to 
amending an existing approved FMP.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act contains 10 national standards against which 
fishery management measures are judged. NMFS has supplemented the 
standards with guidelines interpreting each standard and is currently 
in the process of updating and adding to those guidelines. One of the 
national standards requires that management measures, where 
practicable, minimize costs and avoid unnecessary duplication. Under 
the guidelines, NMFS will not approve management measures submitted by 
an FMC unless the fishery is in need of management.

[[Page 61228]]

Together, the standards and the guidelines correspond to many of the 
Administration's principles of regulation as set forth in section 1(b) 
of Executive Order 12866. One of the national standards establishes a 
qualitative equivalent to the Executive Order's ``net benefits'' 
requirement--one of the focuses of the Administration's statement of 
regulatory philosophy as stated in section 1(a) of the Order.
Licensing of Private Commercial Remote-Sensing Satellite Systems
NOAA/NESDIS is planning to issue final regulations revising its 
procedures governing the licensing of private commercial Earth remote-
sensing space systems under title II of the Land Remote Sensing Policy 
Act of 1992, 15 U.S.C. 5601 et seq. (1992 Act).
Title II of the 1992 Act requires that any person subject to the 
jurisdiction or control of the United States obtain a license from the 
Secretary of Commerce before operating a private remote-sensing space 
system. The authority to issue licenses has been delegated to the 
Administrator of NOAA and redelegated to the Assistant Administrator 
for Satellite and Information Services.
On July 10, 1987, NOAA published final regulations implementing title 
IV of the Land Remote Sensing Act of 1984 (the 1984 Act) setting forth 
the procedural requirements for obtaining a license. In 1988, the Radio 
Television News Directors Association (RTNDA) filed a Petition for 
Rulemaking requesting NOAA to reopen these regulations in light of the 
President's January 5, 1988, Decision Directive encouraging commercial 
space development. On January 18, 1989, NOAA responded to this 
Petition, agreeing to reopen the regulations and incorporate certain 
principles favorable to commercial development that were consistent 
with the Directive. (See 54 FR 1945.)
Shortly thereafter, Congress began to review the 1984 Act and, on 
October 28, 1992, enacted the 1992 Act, which repealed and succeeded 
the 1984 Act. The 1992 Act made significant changes to the 1984 Act, 
particularly with regard to the latter's requirement that all 
unenhanced data must be provided on a nondiscriminatory basis. The 1992 
Act also provided for judicial review of certain licensing and 
enforcement actions. NOAA has issued 10 licenses under the regime 
established in the 1992 Act.
On March 9, 1994, the President issued a Policy Decision to ``support 
and enhance U.S. competitiveness in the field of remote-sensing space 
capabilities while at the same time protecting U.S. interests in 
national security and international obligations.'' This policy 
established a number of policies that promote an appropriate balance 
between these interests. Specifically, the President's policy announced 
the goal of enhancing U.S. competitiveness in a market that is 
projected to be worth approximately $2 billion worldwide by the year 
2000, while at the same time addressing the national security concerns 
brought up by other Government agencies. The President's policy covers 
foreign access to remote-sensing systems, technology, products, and 
data. It states that there is a presumption that systems whose 
capabilities are already available in the global marketplace will be 
``favorably considered.'' It also elaborated eight more conditions that 
are to be applied to any license. The most significant of these 
conditions are:
  1) During periods when national security or international obligations 
            and/or foreign policies may be compromised, as defined by 
            the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of State 
            respectively, the Secretary of Commerce may, after 
            consultation with the appropriate agencies, require the 
            licensee to limit data collection and/or distribution by 
            the system to the extent necessitated by the given 
            situation. Decisions to impose such limits only will be 
            made by the Secretary of Commerce in consultation with the 
            Secretary of Defense or Secretary of State, as appropriate. 
            Disagreements between Cabinet Secretaries may be appealed 
            to the President;
  2) that the licenses are not subject to foreign ownership, above a 
            specified threshold, without the explicit permission of the 
            Secretary of Commerce; and
  3) licensees must notify the U.S. Government of its intent to enter 
            into significant or substantial agreements with new foreign 
            customers. Interested agencies are to be given advance 
            notice of such agreements to allow them to review the 
            proposed agreement in light of national security, 
            international obligations, and foreign policy concerns. The 
            President's policy stated that the definition of a 
            significant or substantial agreement, as well as the time 
            frames and other details of this process, were to be 
            defined by the Commerce Department in regulations.
On December 4, 1995, a Notice of Inquiry and Request for Public Comment 
was published in the Federal Register, wherein NOAA sought public 
comment to decide whether, and to what extent, the 1987 regulations 
needed revision in light of the President's Policy and the 1992 Act 
and, if so, which issues should be addressed. NOAA received seven sets 
of comments. Additionally, NOAA held a public hearing at the Department 
of Commerce on June 14, 1996, at which it received additional input 
from interested parties. The main theme that emerged at the public 
hearing was the need for transparency and predictability in the 
regulations.
On November 3, 1997, NOAA issued a proposed rule to revise its remote-
sensing licensing procedures. The proposed regulations would update the 
1987 regulations to reflect the above described intervening events and 
information gathered through the public process, as well as the 
experience gained during recent licensing procedures. The intent of the 
proposed regulations would be to help promote the development of the 
commercial remote-sensing industry by keeping Government oversight to 
the minimum necessary to ensure protection of U.S. national security 
and foreign policy interests and by making that role predictable and 
transparent to the affected applicants and licensees. An underlying 
premise is that the long-term national security and foreign policy 
interests of the United States are best served by helping the U.S. 
industry to lead this emerging market.
The November 3, 1997, proposed regulations incorporate the basic 
regulatory principle that any restrictions on a licensee, including 
those required for national security and foreign policy purposes, must 
be the least burdensome possible to achieve the stated objective. 
Further, the proposed rule would establish a notice mechanism for 
allowing up to 49 percent foreign ownership in the licensee and 
monitoring domestic investment so that control of the remote-sensing 
system cannot be transferred without a formal amendment to the license. 
As required by the President's 1994 policy, the rule sought to define 
what foreign agreements are significant or substantial and must be 
submitted for review. Agency actions under the regulation would be 
reviewable by an administrative law judge.
On April 1, 1998, NOAA held a public meeting to listen to public 
comments on the proposed regulations. The public comment period ended 
the next day, April 2, 1998. NOAA received 18 sets of substantive 
comments on the

[[Page 61229]]

regulations and is currently reviewing these and revising the proposed 
regulations accordingly.
_______________________________________________________________________
DOC--International Trade Administration (ITA)

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

15. ANTIDUMPING DUTIES; COUNTERVAILING DUTIES
Priority:


Other Significant


Reinventing Government:


This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will 
revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline 
requirements.


Legal Authority:


 19 USC 1671 et seq; 19 USC 1673 et seq; 19 USC 1303


CFR Citation:


 19 CFR 351; 19 CFR 353; 19 CFR 355


Legal Deadline:


 Other, Statutory, January 1, 1996.


Section 103(b) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act establishes January 
1, 1996, as the deadline for interim final regulations.


Abstract:


Revisions of the countervailing duty regulations are necessary due to 
enactment of legislation implementing the results of the Uruguay Round 
multilateral trade negotiations. By clarifying the methodologies and 
procedures used in administering the countervailing duty law, the 
efficiency and fairness of this law will be enhanced at little, if any, 
additional cost.


Statement of Need:


Regulations are needed to implement the results of the Uruguay Round 
with respect to the administration of the countervailing duty laws. The 
Subsidies/Countervailing Measures Agreement establishes general 
principles regarding the administration of this law. In order to 
facilitate the administration of this law and to provide greater 
predictability for private parties affected by it, it will be necessary 
to promulgate regulations which, where appropriate and feasible, 
translate the principles of the Agreement and the implementing 
legislation into specific and predictable rules. Amendments conforming 
the antidumping regulations with the Uruguay Round Agreements Act were 
issued in May 1997.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


The Secretary of Commerce is responsible for administering the 
countervailing duty laws pursuant to 19 USC 1671 et seq. The law 
conforms to the Agreement and reflects internationally agreed rules 
regarding unfair trade. The Secretary, acting through the Import 
Administration of the International Trade Administration, is 
responsible for processing petitions from firms that allege they have 
been harmed by unfair competition from imports, making preliminary and 
final determinations about whether such competition was subsidized and 
conducting periodic administrative reviews of countervailing duty 
orders. Merchandise found to be benefiting from subsidies is subject to 
duties in the amount of the subsidization.


Alternatives:


The Subsidies/Countervailing Measures Agreement establishes clearer 
rules and stronger disciplines in the subsidies area while also making 
certain subsidies nonactionable, provided they are subject to 
conditions designed to limit distorting effects. The Agreements create 
three categories of subsidies and remedies: (1) prohibited subsidies; 
(2) permissible subsidies which are actionable if they cause adverse 
trade effects; and (3) permissible subsidies which are nonactionable if 
they are structured according to criteria intended to limit their 
potential for distortion.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The Uruguay Round agreements are anticipated to create hundreds of 
thousands of high-wage, high-skilled jobs in the United States. 
Further, economists estimate that the Uruguay Round will increase trade 
and will add between $100 and $200 billion to the United States economy 
after the Round is fully implemented. Finally, the Uruguay Round 
agreements create an effective set of rules for the prompt settlement 
of disputes by eliminating shortcomings in the current system that 
allows parties to prolong the process and block adverse determinations.
The costs of administering the countervailing duty system will be 
increased pursuant to the rules established in the Uruguay Round and 
the implementing legislation. The agreements dictate a number of new 
obligations in the investigation of petitions and the conduct of 
administrative reviews. Binding dispute settlement under the World 
Trade Organization (WTO) will also increase legal costs because 
substantially more challenges to ITA determinations will be brought to 
the WTO forum.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM           60 FR 80                                       01/03/95
ANPRM Comment Period End                                       02/24/95
Interim Final Ru60 FR 25130                                    05/11/95
NPRM - Antidumpi61 FR 7308                                     02/27/96
NPRM Comment Period End                                        06/17/96
NPRM - Counterva62 FR 8818es                                   02/26/97
Final Rule - Ant62 FR 27296gulations                           05/19/97
Final Rule - Countervailing Duties                             11/00/98
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Robert LaRussa
Assistant Secretary
Import Administration
Department of Commerce
International Trade Administration
Room 3099B
14th Street & Constitution Avenue NW.
Washington, DC 20230
Phone: 202 482-1780
RIN: 0625-AA45
_______________________________________________________________________
DOC--National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

16. LICENSING OF PRIVATE COMMERCIAL REMOTE-SENSING SATELLITE SYSTEMS
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


 15 USC 5601 et seq


CFR Citation:


 50 CFR 960.1 et seq

[[Page 61230]]

Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The final regulations would update the 1987 regulations to reflect the 
intervening events and information gathered through the public process, 
as well as the experience gained during recent licensing procedures. 
The intent of the regulations is to help promote the development of the 
commercial remote-sensing industry by keeping Government oversight to 
the minimum necessary to ensure protection of U.S. national security 
and foreign policy interests and by making that role predictable and 
transparent to the affected applicants and licensees. An underlying 
premise is that the long-term national security and foreign policy 
interests of the United States are best served by helping the U.S. 
industry to lead this emerging market.


Statement of Need:


On July 10, 1987, NOAA published final regulations implementing title 
IV of the Land Remote Sensing Act of 1984 (the 1984 Act) setting forth 
the procedural requirements for obtaining a license. In 1988, the Radio 
Television News Directors Association (RTNDA) filed a Petition for 
Rulemaking requesting NOAA to reopen these regulations in light of the 
President's January 5, 1988 Decision Directive encouraging commercial 
space development. On January 18, 1989, NOAA responded to this 
Petition, agreeing to reopen the regulations and incorporate certain 
principles favorable to commercial development that were consistent 
with the Directive (see 54 FR 1945).
Shortly thereafter, Congress began to review the 1984 Act and, in 
October 1992, enacted the 1992 Act, which repealed and succeeded the 
1984 Act. The 1992 Act made significant changes to the 1984 Act, 
particularly with regard to the latter's requirement that all 
unenhanced data must be provided on a nondiscriminatory basis. The 1992 
Act also provided for judicial review of certain licensing and 
enforcement actions.
On November 3, 1997, NOAA issued proposed regulations revising its 
procedures governing the licensing of private commercial Earth remote-
sensing space systems under title II of the Land Remote Sensing Policy 
Act of 1992, 15 U.S.C. 5601 et seq. (1992 Act). On April 1, 1998, NOAA 
held a public meeting to listen to public comments on the proposed 
regulations. The public comment period ended the next day, April 2, 
1998. NOAA received 18 sets of substantive comments on the regulations, 
and is currently reviewing these and revising the proposed regulations 
accordingly.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


Title II of the 1992 Act requires that any person subject to the 
jurisdiction or control of the United States obtain a license from the 
Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) before operating a private remote-
sensing space system. The authority to issue licenses has been 
delegated to the Administrator of NOAA and redelegated to the Assistant 
Administrator for Satellite and Information Services.


Alternatives:


The November 3, 1997, proposed regulations incorporate the basic 
regulatory principle that any restrictions on a licensee, including 
those required for national security and foreign policy purposes, must 
be the least burdensome possible to achieve the stated objective. 
Further, the proposed rule would establish a notice mechanism for 
allowing up to 49 percent foreign ownership in the licensee and 
monitoring domestic investment so that control of the remote-sensing 
system can not be transferred without a formal amendment to the 
license. As required by the President's 1994 policy, the proposed rule 
would define what foreign agreements are significant or substantial and 
must be submitted for review. Agency actions would be reviewable by an 
administrative law judge.
The fundamental goal of the proposed rule was to support and enhance 
U.S. industrial competitiveness in the field of remote-sensing space 
capabilities while at the same time protecting U.S. national security 
and foreign policy interests. The measures included in the proposed 
rule are those necessary to protect U.S. interests. The alternatives to 
the measures proposed would be the establishment of national security 
and foreign policy controls that would hinder or prevent growth of the 
commercial market or allowing unrestricted commercial operations that 
could harm U.S. national security and foreign policy interests. The 
final regulations will achieve this goal.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The intent of the regulations is to help promote the development of the 
commercial remote-sensing industry by keeping Government oversight to 
the minimum necessary to ensure protection of U.S. national security 
and foreign policy interests and by making that role predictable and 
transparent to the affected applicants and licensees. An underlying 
premise is that the long-term national security and foreign policy 
interests of the United States are best served by helping the U.S. 
industry to lead this emerging market. Failure to provide a regulatory 
regime which nurtures and fosters the development of this high-skilled, 
high-wage industry is likely to result in the United States losing not 
only its advantage in this technology, but also a great percentage of 
the projected growth in economic value of this industry. The costs of 
the licensing procedures would be borne, for the most part, by the 
Federal Government and would not be significant.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM           60 FR 62054                                    12/04/95
Notice of Public61 FR 24480                                    05/14/96
NPRM            62 FR 59317                                    11/03/97
Notice of Public63 FR 10785                                    03/05/98
NPRM Comment Per62 FR 65384                                    04/02/98
Final Action                                                   12/00/98
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Federal


Agency Contact:
Charles Wooldridge
Licensing Coordinator
Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NOAA/NESDIS
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Phone: 301 713-2024
Fax: 301 713-2032
RIN: 0648-AC64
BILLING CODE 3510-BW-F

[[Page 61231]]

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (DOD)
Statement of Regulatory Priorities
Background
The Department of Defense (DoD) is the largest Federal department 
consisting of 3 military departments (Army, Navy, and Air Force), 9 
unified combatant commands, 15 Defense agencies, and 8 DoD field 
activities. It has over 1,395,000 military personnel and 725,000 
civilians assigned as of May 31, 1998, and over 500 military 
installations and properties in the continental United States, U. S. 
territories, and foreign countries. The overall size, composition, and 
dispersion of the Department of Defense, coupled with an innovative 
regulatory program, presents a challenge to the management of the 
Defense regulatory efforts under Executive Order 12866 ``Regulatory 
Planning and Review'' of September 30, 1993.
Because of its diversified nature, DoD is impacted by the regulations 
issued by regulatory agencies such as the Departments of Energy, Health 
and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Labor, 
Transportation, and the Environmental Protection Agency. In order to 
develop the best possible regulations that embody the principles and 
objectives embedded in Executive Order 12866, there must be 
coordination of proposed regulations among the regulating agencies and 
the affected Defense components. Coordinating the proposed regulations 
in advance throughout an organization as large as DoD is 
straightforward, yet a formidable undertaking.
DoD is not a regulatory agency but occasionally issues regulations that 
have an impact on the public. These regulations, while small in number 
compared to the regulating agencies, can be significant as defined in 
Executive Order 12866. In addition, some of DoD's regulations may 
impact the regulatory agencies. DoD, as an integral part of its 
program, not only receives coordinating actions from the regulating 
agencies, but coordinates with the agencies that are impacted by its 
regulations, as well.
The Regulatory Program within DoD fully incorporates the provisions of 
the President's priorities and objectives under Executive Order 12866. 
Promulgating and implementing the regulatory program throughout DoD 
presents a unique challenge to the management of our regulatory 
efforts.
Coordination
Interagency
DoD annually receives regulatory plans from those agencies that impact 
the operation of the Department through the issuance of regulations. A 
system for coordinating the review process is in place, regulations are 
reviewed, and comments are forwarded to the Office of Management and 
Budget. The system is working in the Department, and the feedback from 
the Defense components is most encouraging since they are able to see 
and comment on regulations from the other agencies before they are 
required to comply with them. The coordination process in DoD continues 
to work as outlined in Executive Order 12866.
Internal
Through regulatory program points of contact in the Department, we have 
established a system that provides information from the Vice President 
and the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs (OIRA) to the personnel responsible for the development and 
implementation of DoD regulations. Conversely, the system can provide 
feedback from DoD regulatory personnel to the Administrator, OIRA. DoD 
continues to refine its internal procedures, and this ongoing effort to 
improve coordination and communication practices is well received and 
supported within the Department.
Overall Priorities
The Department of Defense 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 at a time when there is a significant ongoing 
downsizing in the Department and it must react to the contradictory 
pressures of providing more services with fewer resources.
The Department of Defense, as a matter of overall priority for its 
regulatory program, adheres to the general principles set forth in 
Executive Order 12866 as amplified below.
Problem Identification
Congress typically passes legislation to authorize or require an agency 
to issue regulations and often is quite specific about the problem 
identified for correction. Therefore, DoD does not generally initiate 
regulations as a part of its mission.
Conflicting Regulations
Since DoD does not plan to issue any significant regulations this year, 
the probability of developing conflicting regulations is low. 
Conversely, DoD is impacted to a great degree by the regulating 
agencies. From that perspective, DoD is in a position to advise the 
regulatory agencies of conflicts that appear to exist using the 
coordination processes that exist in the DoD and other Federal agency 
regulatory programs. It is a priority in the Department to communicate 
with other agencies and the affected public to identify and proactively 
pursue regulatory problems that occur as a result of conflicting 
regulations both within and outside the Department.
Alternatives
DoD will identify feasible alternatives that will obtain the desired 
regulatory objectives. Where possible, the Department encourages the 
use of incentives to include financial, quality of life, and others to 
achieve the desired regulatory results.
Risk Assessment
Assessing and managing risk is a high priority in the DoD regulatory 
program. The Department is committed to risk prioritization and an 
``anticipatory'' approach to regulatory planning which focuses 
attention on the identification of future risk. Predicting future 
regulatory risk is exceedingly difficult due to rapid introduction of 
new technologies, side effects of Government intervention, and changing 
societal concerns. These difficulties can be mitigated to a manageable 
degree through the incorporation of risk prioritization and 
anticipatory regulatory planning into DoD's decisionmaking process 
which results in an improved regulatory process and increases the 
customer's understanding of risk.
Cost-Effectiveness
One of the highest priority objectives of DoD is to obtain the desired 
regulatory objective by the most cost-effective method available. This 
may or may not be through the regulatory process. When a regulation is 
required, DoD considers incentives for innovation to achieve desired 
results, consistency in the application of the regulation, 
predictability of the activity outcome (achieving the expected 
results), and the costs for regulation development, enforcement, and 
compliance. These will include costs to the public, Government, and 
regulated entities, using the best available data or parametric 
analysis methods, in the

[[Page 61232]]

cost-benefit analysis and the decisionmaking process.
Cost-Benefit
Conducting cost-benefit analyses on regulation alternatives is a 
priority in the Department of Defense so as to ensure that the 
potential benefits to society outweigh the costs. Evaluations of these 
alternatives are done quantitatively or qualitatively or both, 
depending on the nature of the problem being solved and the type of 
information and data available on the subject. DoD is committed to 
considering the most important alternative approaches to the problem 
being solved and providing the reasoning for selecting the proposed 
regulatory change over the other alternatives.
Information-Based Decisions
The Defense Department uses the latest technology to provide access to 
the most current technical, scientific, and demographic information in 
a timely manner through the world-wide communications capabilities 
which are available on the ``information highway.'' Realizing that 
increased public participation in the rulemaking process improves the 
quality and acceptability of regulations, DoD is committed to exploring 
the use of Information Technology (IT) in rule development and 
implementation. IT provides the public with easier and more meaningful 
access to the processing of regulations. Furthermore, the Department 
endeavors to increase the use of automation in the Notice and Comment 
Rulemaking process in an effort to reduce time pressures in the 
regulatory process.
Performance-Based Regulations
Where appropriate, DoD is incorporating performance-based standards 
that allow the regulated parties to achieve the regulatory objective in 
the most cost-effective manner.
Outreach Initiatives
DoD endeavors to obtain the views of appropriate State, local, and 
tribal officials and the public in implementing measures to enhance 
public awareness and participation both in developing and implementing 
regulatory efforts. Historically, this has included such activities as 
receiving comments from the public, holding hearings, and conducting 
focus groups. This reaching out to organizations and individuals who 
are affected by or involved in a particular regulatory action remains a 
significant regulatory priority of the Department and, we feel, results 
in much better regulations.
Coordination
DoD has enthusiastically embraced the coordination process between and 
among other Federal agencies in the development of new and revised 
regulations. Annually, DoD receives regulatory plans from key 
regulatory agencies and has established a systematic approach to 
providing the plans to the appropriate policy officials within the 
Department. Feedback from the DoD components indicates that this 
communication among the Federal agencies is a major step forward in 
improving regulations and the regulatory process, as well as in 
improving Government operations.
Minimize Burden
In the regulatory process, there are more complaints concerning burden 
than anything else. In DoD, much of the burden is in the acquisition 
area. Over the years, acquisition regulations have grown and become 
burdensome principally because of legislative action. But, in 
coordination with Congress, the Office of Federal Procurement Policy, 
and the public, DoD is initiating significant reforms in acquisition so 
as to effect major reductions in the regulatory burden on personnel in 
Government and the private sector.
DoD implemented a multi-year strategy for reducing the paperwork burden 
imposed on the public. This plan shows that DoD has met and will exceed 
the goals set forth in the Paperwork Reduction Act, which requires a 25 
percent reduction in each agency's burden by the end of FY 1998. The 
Department achieved a 25 percent reduction by the end of FY 1996, and 
an additional 9 percent in FY 1997. During FY 1998, DoD achieved its 
second largest reduction ever, for a single collection, by reducing the 
paperwork burden by 17.2 million hours through program changes. Another 
significant reduction in the burden imposed on the public was achieved 
as a result of the review of the information collection requirement in 
support of the solicitation phase of the Department of Defense 
acquisition process. The information collection requirement pertains to 
information that an offeror must submit to DoD in response to DoD 
solicitations not covered by another OMB clearance. As a result of 
recent revisions to the duty-free entry information collection 
requirements, DoD reduced the burden hours imposed on the public under 
this information collection requirement by 530,884 hours per year. 
Further, DoD reduced 88,711 hours per year from the burden imposed on 
the public to support foreign acquisitions. This reduction is based on 
the most current data available in DoD data bases, as well as other 
information from other sources, such as the number of duty-free entry 
certificates processed and the number of reports received relating to 
contract performance outside the United States. It is the goal of the 
Department of Defense to impose upon the public the smallest burden 
viable, as infrequently as possible, and for no longer than absolutely 
necessary.
Plain Language
Ensuring that regulations are simple and easy to understand is a high 
regulatory priority in the Department of Defense. All too often, the 
regulations are complicated, difficult to understand, and subject to 
misinterpretation, all of which can result in the costly process of 
litigation. The objective in the development of regulations is to write 
them in clear, concise language that is simple and easy to understand.
DoD recognizes that it has a responsibility for drafting clearly 
written rules that are reader-oriented and easily understood. Rules 
will be written for the customer using natural expressions and simple 
words. Stilted jargon and complex construction will be avoided. Clearly 
written rules will tell our customers what to do and how to do it. DoD 
is committed to a more customer-oriented approach and uses Plain 
Language rules thereby improving compliance and reducing litigation. 
The Department will adhere to the timetable established in the 
President's memorandum of June 1, 1998, regarding Plain Language in 
Government Writing, for incorporation of plain writing techniques in 
official documents.
In summary, the rulemaking process in DoD should produce a rule that 
addresses an identifiable problem, implements the law, incorporates the 
President's policies defined in Executive Order 12866, is in the public 
interest, is consistent with other rules and policies, is based on the 
best information available, is rationally justified, is cost-effective, 
can actually be implemented, is acceptable and enforceable, is easily 
understood, and stays in effect only as long as is necessary. Moreover, 
the proposed rule or the elimination of a rule should simply make 
sense.
Specific Priorities
For this regulatory plan, there are three specific DoD priorities, all 
of

[[Page 61233]]

which reflect the established regulatory principles. In those areas 
where rulemaking or participation in the regulatory process is 
required, DoD has studied and developed policy and regulation which 
incorporate not only the provisions of the President's priorities and 
objectives under the Executive order but also the National Performance 
Review, dated September 1993.
DoD has focused its regulatory resources on the most serious 
environmental, health, and safety risks. Perhaps most significant is 
that each of the three 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 wetlands, acquisition, and health care delivery.
Preserve Quality and Quantity of Wetlands
During FY 1999, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is not proposing any 
significant regulations as defined by Executive Order 12866. The Office 
of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) and the Corps will 
propose and complete two regulations initiated as part of the 
President's August 24, 1993, Wetlands Protection Plan and the 
President's 1995 Regulatory Reinvention Initiative. The wetlands 
protection plan provides for a fair, flexible, and effective approach 
to protecting America's wetlands through both regulatory and 
nonregulatory mechanisms. The regulatory reinvention initiative 
reinforced those provisions and included additional regulatory reform 
and streamlining provisions.
During 1998 and 1999, the Corps will propose and finalize two 
regulations pursuant to its authorities under section 404 of the Clean 
Water Act and section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. The 
first regulation will establish an administrative appeal process 
whereby permit applicants and landowners can appeal permit denial 
decisions. This regulation was proposed on July 19, 1995, with a 
similar regulation on appealing jurisdictional determinations. The 
permit denial appeal regulation will be finalized in 1999. The 
administrative appeal process will increase fairness to applicants and 
landowners in the permitting process by establishing a recourse to 
Corps permit denial decisions without pursuing litigation. The process 
will also provide for interested party involvement when the Corps 
reconsiders a previous denial. The jurisdictional determination appeal 
regulation has been deferred, pending adequate funding from Congress.
The second regulation will be to clarify the scope of analysis that the 
Corps has responsibility for under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). 
The Corps scope of analysis for the National Environmental Policy Act 
and the National Historic Preservation Act is established in 33 CFR 
part 325, appendices B and C, respectively. This regulation will adopt 
the Corps ESA scope of analysis consistent with the ESA, the ESA 
regulations, and the Corps authorities.
Reform Defense Acquisition
The Department continues its efforts to reengineer its acquisition 
system to achieve its vision of an acquisition system which is 
recognized as being the smartest, most efficient, most responsive buyer 
of best value goods and services which meet the warfighter's needs from 
a globally competitive base. To achieve this vision, the Department 
will focus in the acquisition regulations arena during this next year 
on implementing and institutionalizing initiatives which may include 
additional changes to existing and recently modified regulations to 
ensure that we are achieving the outcomes we desire (continuous process 
improvement). The Department will focus on reengineering the process by 
which it acquires services, focusing on the use of performance-based 
work statements. The Department also intends to improve its use of 
electronic commerce/electronic data interchange.
The Department is committed to acquisition reform and continues to make 
significant improvements in this area, consistent with the National 
Performance Review and Executive Order 12866. DoD is leading the 
following initiatives to reform the acquisition process, which include 
integrating commercial and military facilities and expanding the 
ability to buy commercial products and expanding the use of commercial 
procedures.
Integration of commercial and military facilities is critical to enable 
the Department to capitalize on and access commercial technology and 
generate funds for modernization, all within a balanced-budget 
environment. To accomplish civil-military integration, DoD is 
developing a plan to remove the current barriers to this integration 
and provide guidelines and incentives for industry to achieve the 
desired objective. The 1994 Coopers & Lybrand (C&L)/TASC, Inc., report 
``The DoD Cost Premium: A Quantitative Assessment'' formed the basis 
for expectations of possible future cost reductions by defining the 
cost premium differential between the commercial and military sectors. 
The Department's plan is to capitalize on the foundation established by 
this effort.
The C&L/TASC, Inc., report identified the regulatory cost drivers that 
contributed to the average 18 percent premium that DoD pays for goods 
and services. In 1996, DoD developed comprehensive action plan 
assessments for the top 24 cost drivers and addressed the next 35 cost 
drivers. These assessments were last updated in June 1996. DoD is 
currently updating those regulatory cost driver plans. In those 
updates, the Department will address unresolved implementation 
challenges and other collateral reform efforts, as well as integrate 
Defense Reform Initiative, Management Reform Memorandum, and National 
Performance Review activities. In the fall of 1998, the Department will 
select a number of regulatory candidates designed to further integrate 
commercial and military facilities.
In addition to the need to integrate commercial and military 
facilities, the Department must expand on the ability to buy commercial 
products and expand the use of commercial procedures. DoD continuously 
reviews its supplement to the Federal Acquisition Regulation and 
continues to lead Governmentwide efforts to simplify the following 
acquisition processes:
 Rewrite of FAR part 45, Government Property. The goals of the 
            FAR part 45 rewrite are to reduce contractor and Government 
            costs to manage property in the possession of contractors 
            by streamlining recordkeeping requirements; to eliminate 
            requirements to track, report, and inventory property 
            valued at $1,500 or less during contract performance; to 
            replace five inventory schedules with a single inventory 
            disposal schedule; and to shorten screening times prior to 
            property disposal. The FAR part 45 rewrite also encourages 
            the dual use of Government property introducing commercial 
            rental practices and reducing property rental costs.
 Rewrite the FAR guidance pertaining to Progress Payments. The 
            goal of this initiative is to simplify the progress 
            payments process and to minimize the burdens imposed on 
            contractors and contracting officers.
 Review of FAR representations. The goal of this initiative is 
            to remove or reduce certain requirements for

[[Page 61234]]

            representations and other statements from offerors and 
            contractors. Removing or reducing these requirements will 
            eliminate unnecessary burdens that are placed on offerors 
            and contractors.
 Review of various FAR cost principles. The goal of this 
            initiative is to determine whether certain FAR cost 
            principles are still relevant in today's business 
            environment, whether they place an unnecessary 
            administrative burden on contractors and the Government, 
            and whether they can be streamlined or simplified. For 
            example, we are considering: (1) Revising the Relocation 
            Cost Principle to remove ceilings imposed on specific 
            relocation costs and to recognize the growing commercial 
            practice of reimbursing relocation costs on a lump-sum 
            basis; (2) deleting the Civil Defense Cost Principle since, 
            with the end of the Cold War, the special guidance provided 
            is no longer deemed necessary; (3) revising the 
            Recruitment/Public Relations and Advertising Cost Principle 
            to remove excessive wording and details for streamlining 
            purposes; and (4) revising the Insurance and 
            Indemnification Cost Principle to streamline the guidance.
Improve Health Care Delivery in the Defense Department
The Department of Defense is able to meet its dual mission of wartime 
readiness and peacetime healthcare by operating an extensive network of 
medical treatment facilities. This network includes DoD's own military 
treatment facilities and the civilian healthcare providers, facilities, 
and services under contract to DoD through the TRICARE program. TRICARE 
is a major healthcare initiative designed to improve the management and 
integration of DoD's healthcare delivery system. The program's goal is 
to increase access to healthcare services, improve healthcare quality, 
and control healthcare costs. TRICARE offers enrollment in an HMO-like 
option (Prime) and two options that do not require enrollment: A 
preferred provider-like option (Extra) and a fee for service option 
(Standard), formally known as CHAMPUS. Like the old CHAMPUS program, 
under TRICARE, DoD continues to share the cost of civilian healthcare 
with its eligible beneficiaries when services are not available in the 
military medical treatment facility. DoD initiated the TRICARE Senior 
Prime Demonstration Project with the Health Care Financing 
Administration (HCFA). This program enables DoD to offer beneficiaries 
over the age of 65 years the ability to enroll in the TRICARE HMO 
option. Once DoD meets the prescribed level of effort in providing 
healthcare to this population, HCFA will share the cost of the benefit 
with DoD. This demonstration project is conducted under the authority 
of section 1896 of the Social Security Act, as added by section 4015 of 
the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (Pub. L. 105-33).
The principal health-related regulatory publications of the Department 
are based on CHAMPUS, the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the 
Uniformed Services (32 CFR part 199). CHAMPUS regulations are 
comprehensive and address issues such as: Eligibility, benefits, 
authorized providers, claims payment, appeals procedures, and the 
healthcare delivery options available under TRICARE.
DoD coordinates changes to CHAMPUS regulations with the Departments of 
Transportation (U. S. Coast Guard), Health and Human Services (Public 
Health Service), and Commerce (National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration) whose beneficiaries are also eligible for CHAMPUS.
Revisions in the TRICARE/CHAMPUS Program's statutory base or DoD 
initiatives to improve the program may result in amendments to the 
regulation. DoD's regulatory priorities for the upcoming year include: 
Promulgation of regulations governing enrollment in military health 
system managed care programs and the management of high cost health 
care cases.
BILLING CODE 5000-04-F

[[Page 61235]]

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (ED)
Statement of Regulatory and Deregulatory Priorities
General
The Department supports States, local communities, institutions of 
higher education, and others to improve education nationwide. The 
Department's roles include leadership and financial support for 
education to agencies, institutions, and individuals in situations 
where there is a national interest; monitoring and enforcing of civil 
rights in the area of education; and supporting research, evaluation, 
and dissemination of findings to improve the quality of education. ED 
works in partnership with parents, neighborhoods, schools, colleges, 
educators, business leaders, communities, and States across the 
country.
Since the announcement of President Clinton's ``Regulatory Reinvention 
Initiative'' on March 4, 1995, the Department has conducted a 
comprehensive review of its programs, legislation, and implementing 
regulations to enhance partnerships, increase flexibility, and improve 
accountability. In response to the initiative, the Department has 
eliminated approximately 39 percent of the pages of its regulations 
published in the Code of Federal Regulations--including a full 2/3 of 
the regulations applicable to elementary and secondary education 
programs--and simplified another third. Changes in additional 
regulations have also been proposed as a result of recently enacted or 
currently pending legislation.
The Department has accomplished these results through a departmentwide 
effort that recognizes that students and educational partners are best 
served by regulations that focus on critical steps and results, allow 
as much flexibility as possible consistent with statutory and program 
goals, and impose the least possible burden.
As part of its regulatory reinvention efforts and in response to the 
President's memorandum of June 1, 1998, on ``Plain Language in 
Government Writing,'' the Department also seeks to draft all of its 
regulations and related documents clearly and concisely in plain 
language, so that potential program beneficiaries will better 
understand benefits and requirements.
Woven throughout the Department's reinvention is a commitment to 
provide quality customer service in the spirit of continuous 
improvement to assure that we are truly ``putting people first.'' The 
Department listens to our customers to identify their needs and 
incorporates their suggestions into program goals and strategies.
In order to provide information and support enhanced exchange, the 
Department instituted 1-800-USA-LEARN to connect our customers to a 
``one-stop-shopping'' center for information about departmental 
programs and initiatives; 1-800-4FED-AID for information on student 
aid; and an on-line library of information on education legislation, 
research, statistics, and promising programs. Internet address: http://
www.ed.gov. More than 10,000 people take advantage of these resources 
every week.
The Department has forged effective partnerships with customers and 
others to develop policies, regulations, guidance, technical 
assistance, and compliance approaches. The Department has an impressive 
record of successful communication and shared policy development with 
affected persons and groups, including parents, representatives of 
State and local government, institutions of higher education, school 
administrators, teachers, students, special education and 
rehabilitation service providers, professional associations, advocacy 
organizations, business, and labor.
In particular, the Department continues to seek greater and more useful 
customer participation in its rulemaking activities through the use of 
consensual rulemaking and new technology. When rulemaking is determined 
to be absolutely necessary, customer participation is essential and 
sought at all stages--in advance of formal rulemaking, during 
rulemaking, and after rulemaking is completed in anticipation of 
further improvements through statutory or regulatory changes. The 
Department has expanded its outreach efforts through the use of 
satellite broadcasts, electronic bulletin boards, and teleconferencing. 
For example, the Department invites comments on all proposed rules 
through the Internet.
The Department is streamlining information collections, reducing burden 
on information providers involved in ED programs, and making 
information maintained by the Department easily available to the 
public. Coordinating similar information collections across programs 
may be one approach to reduce overlapping and inconsistent paperwork 
requirements. To the extent permitted by statute, regulations will be 
revised to eliminate barriers that inhibit coordination across programs 
(such as by creating common definitions), to reduce the frequency of 
reports, and to eliminate unnecessary data requirements. ED has reduced 
the information collection burden imposed on the public by 14.7 percent 
in fiscal year (FY) 1996, by 11 percent in FY 1997, and expects to 
achieve its goal of another 5 percent reduction in FY 1998.
The Department's Principles for Regulating, developed in October 1994 
during planning to implement the Improving America's Schools Act of 
1994, determine when and how it will regulate. Through aggressive 
application of the following principles, the Department has eliminated 
outdated or unnecessary regulations and identified situations in which 
major programs could be implemented without any regulations or with 
only limited regulations.
Principles for Regulating
The Department will regulate only if regulating improves the quality 
and equality of services to the Department's customers, learners of all 
ages. The Department will regulate only when absolutely necessary and 
then in the most flexible, most equitable, and least burdensome way 
possible.
Whether to Regulate:
 When essential to promote quality and equality of opportunity 
            in education.
 When a demonstrated problem cannot be resolved without 
            regulation.
 When necessary to provide legally binding interpretation to 
            resolve ambiguity.
 Not if entities or situations to be regulated are so diverse 
            that a uniform approach does more harm than good.
How to regulate:
 Regulate no more than necessary.
 Minimize burden and promote multiple approaches to meeting 
            statutory requirements.
 Encourage federally funded activities to be integrated with 
            State and local reform activities.
 Ensure that benefits justify costs of regulation.
 Establish performance objectives rather than specify 
            compliance behavior.
 Encourage flexibility so institutional forces and incentives 
            achieve desired results.
Regulatory and Deregulatory Priorities for the Next Year
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997
On June 4, 1997, the President signed into law Public Law 105-17, the

[[Page 61236]]

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997, 
amending the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). 
Enactment of these amendments provides an opportunity to consider 
improvements in all of the regulations implementing the IDEA, including 
both formula and discretionary grant programs, that would strengthen 
the Federal effort to give every child a world-class education based on 
high standards. The Department is also reviewing the impact of these 
regulations on small entities in accordance with section 610(c) of the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Secretary invited public comment on the 
development of the regulations for educating all children with 
disabilities in a notice published in the Federal Register on June 27, 
1997 (62 FR 35052), and published a notice of proposed rulemaking on 
October 22, 1997 (62 FR 55026). The comment period ended on January 20, 
1998, and more than 4,500 written comments were received.
Higher Education Amendments of 1998
Legislation reauthorizing the Higher Education Act has recently been 
enacted (Pub. L. 105-244, enacted October 7, 1998). Development of any 
regulations necessary to implement the new law will be a Department 
priority in 1999. However, no specific regulations can be scheduled or 
anticipated at this time. To the extent regulations are necessary, they 
will be developed through regulatory negotiation with the participation 
of interested parties.
_______________________________________________________________________
ED--Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS)

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

17. ASSISTANCE FOR EDUCATION OF ALL CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES (SECTION 
610 REVIEW)
Priority:


Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.


Reinventing Government:


This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will 
revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline 
requirements.


Legal Authority:


 20 USC 1400 et seq


CFR Citation:


 34 CFR 300; 34 CFR 301; 34 CFR 303


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


These regulations would implement the Individuals with Disabilities 
Education Act Amendments of 1997 (Pub. L. 105-17, enacted June 4, 
1997). This regulatory action includes a review of existing regulations 
in 34 CFR parts 300 and 301 pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act 
(5 USC 610), although the proposed regulatory changes have been 
determined not to have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. Regulations are needed to ensure that the 
rights of children with disabilities and their parents under this 
statute are protected. Public comments are invited respecting the 
current regulations as well as the regulatory changes needed to 
implement Pub. L. 105-17.


Statement of Need:


These regulations would implement new legislation and are expected to 
reduce regulatory burden and increase flexibility by improving the 
regulations implementing the Individuals with Disabilities Education 
Act (IDEA). The Department is also completing its scheduled review of 
these regulations under section 610(c) of the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


Pub. L. 105-17, enacted June 4, 1997.


Alternatives:


In addition to implementing new legislation, the purpose of reviewing 
these regulations is to determine whether there are appropriate 
alternatives.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Existing regulatory provisions may be eliminated or improved as a 
result of this review.


Risks:


These proposed regulations would not address a risk to public health, 
safety, or the environment.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Notice          62 FR 35052                                    06/27/97
NPRM            62 FR 55026                                    10/22/97
Final Action                                                   11/00/98
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Thomas Irvin
Department of Education
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services
Room 4067, Switzer Building
Washington, DC 20202
Phone: 202 205-8825
RIN: 1820-AB40
BILLING CODE 4000-01-F

[[Page 61237]]

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (DOE)
Statement of Regulatory Priorities
The Department makes vital contributions to the Nation's welfare 
through its extraordinary scientific and technical capabilities in 
energy research, environmental remediation, and national security. The 
Department's top priorities are:

 Enhancing the Nation's energy security by developing and 
            deploying clean and affordable energy supplies and by 
            improving the energy efficiency of our economy;

 Ensuring a safe and reliable nuclear weapons stockpile and 
            reducing the global nuclear danger;

 Cleaning up former nuclear weapons sites and addressing the 
            complex challenge of disposing of nuclear wastes; and

 Leveraging science and technology to advance fundamental 
            knowledge and our country's competitiveness with stronger 
            partnership with the private sector.

The Department of Energy's 1998 regulatory plan reflects the 
Department's continuing commitment to enhance safety, cut costs, reduce 
regulatory burden, and increase responsiveness to the public. While not 
primarily a major Federal regulatory agency, the Department's 
regulatory activities are essential to achieving its critical mission 
and priorities.

Energy Efficiency Program for Consumer Products and Commercial 
Equipment
In April 1997, the Department published a final rule (62 FR 23101) to 
revise energy efficiency standards for refrigerators and freezers 
manufactured after January 1, 2001. The energy savings from the new 
efficiency standards for refrigerators are expected to be 6.7 
quadrillion BTUs or more than 580 billion kilowatt hours of electricity 
over 30 years. ``That is equivalent to 4 years of electric power 
generated by the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Nation's largest 
public utility. It represents a mountain of coal a half mile high that 
doesn't have to be burned,'' said Vice President Al Gore. The new 
refrigerators, which will use 30 percent less energy, will save 
consumers over $1 billion in 2010 and over $2 billion in 2020.
In September 1997, the Department published a final rule (62 FR 50122) 
to establish energy efficiency standards for room air conditioners, 
which will result in a 10 percent energy saving. With more than 4.8 
million room air conditioners sold annually in the United States, the 
new standards will save consumers up to 450 million dollars by 2030. 
The new room air conditioner standards are the result of a cooperative 
effort among industry, environmentalists, consumer advocates, 
utilities, and the Department. The new standards will reduce carbon 
dioxide emissions by 54 million metric tons over 30 years--or the 
equivalent of burning a football field full of coal three-and-a-half 
miles high. Saving the Nation the equivalent of 110 million barrels of 
oil over a 30-year period, the new standards are good for industry, 
good for consumers, and good for the environment.
In a final rule published in September 1998, the Department determined 
that new or revised energy efficiency standards for electric cooking 
products (i.e., kitchen ranges, ovens, and microwaves) could not be 
economically justified.
The Department established an Advisory Committee on Appliance Energy 
Efficiency Standards in January 1997. The advisory committee is made up 
of interested stakeholders and is chaired by the Assistant Secretary 
for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. In April 1998, the 
committee made its most recent recommendations to the Department. The 
Department will be collecting data to implement these recommendations 
in future rulemaking analyses, including the use of marginal energy 
rates, a range of future energy prices, and primary energy conversion 
factors.
The Department's rulemaking activities related to energy efficiency 
standards and determinations have been categorized as high, medium, or 
low priority. The schedules in this regulatory plan and the Unified 
Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions reflect 
priorities established with significant input from the public. The 
standards rulemakings will incorporate the process improvements 
established in July 1996, including more workshops to collect public 
input and new, more transparent forecasting models developed with the 
help of industry experts, including manufacturers.
During fiscal year 1999, the Department expects to take substantial 
action with respect to the high priority standards rulemakings (i.e., 
clothes washers, fluorescent lamp ballasts, water heaters, and 
residential central air conditioning and central air conditioning heat 
pumps). Additional information and timetables for these actions are 
presented below. Information concerning the medium priority rulemakings 
(i.e., small electric motors and high intensity discharge lamps) and 
low priority rulemakings (i.e., clothes dryers, dishwashers, mobile 
home furnaces, residential furnaces and boilers, pool heaters, direct 
heating equipment, 1-200 HP motors, and fluorescent and incandescent 
lamps) and the test procedures rulemakings can be found in the 
Department's regulatory agenda, which appears elsewhere.
Nuclear Safety Regulations
The Department is committed to openness and public participation as it 
addresses one of its greatest challenges--managing the environment, 
health, and safety risks posed by its nuclear activities. A key element 
in the management of these risks is to establish the Department's 
expectations and requirements relative to nuclear safety and to hold 
its contractors accountable for safety performance. The 1988 Price-
Anderson Amendments Act revisions to the Atomic Energy Act required the 
Department to enforce contractor violations of nuclear safety 
requirements through the imposition of civil and criminal penalties. As 
a result, new nuclear safety requirements were initiated with the 
publication of four notices of proposed rulemaking for review and 
comment in 1991. The Department's nuclear safety procedural regulations 
(10 CFR part 820) were published as a final rule in 1993. The 
Department is revising two rules on radiation protection (10 CFR parts 
834 and 835) to establish additional reporting, monitoring, and 
discharge requirements and a dose limitation system for protecting the 
environment and the public, as well as the Department's Federal and 
contractor work force. Part 835 was published as a final rule in 
December 1994. Revisions to part 835 based on a comprehensive 
evaluation of the Department's radiation protection program are 
expected to be finalized this fall. The new nuclear safety management 
rule (10 CFR part 830) will codify and strengthen requirements 
applicable to contractors and subcontractors who manage and operate the 
Department's nuclear facilities. The quality assurance regulations of 
this rule (10 CFR 830.120) were published as a final rule in April 
1995.
In August 1995, the Department published a notice of limited reopening 
of the comment period to request public

[[Page 61238]]

comments on the remaining part 830 and part 834 rulemakings. The 
Department has substantially completed the comment resolution process 
and has addressed the major issues raised by the Defense Nuclear 
Facilities Safety Board snd the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 
The Department expects to complete final action on the part 834 
rulemaking before July 1999.
The Department recently established an integrated safety management 
initiative to ensure that safety activities at a DOE site or facility 
are integrated and appropriate for the work and hazards. One outcome of 
this initiative, incorporated as part of the contract reform final rule 
published on June 27, 1997, requires contractors to manage and perform 
work in accordance with a documented safety management system that 
ensures that safety is integrated into all phases of work. Part 830 is 
being reviewed to ensure its regulatory framework is consistent with 
integrated safety management and to avoid duplication and 
counterproductive efforts. The part 830 rulemaking will be completed in 
2 phases. Phase 1 will address such issues as the conduct of 
operations, technical safety training, and safety reporting. Phase 2 
will establish requirements for nuclear design criteria, fire 
protection, natural phenomena hazards mitigation, and nuclear 
criticality safety. The Department expects to complete final action on 
phase 1 and to issue a proposed rule on phase 2 of part 830 by the 
middle of 1999.
Additionally, the Department is conducting pilot projects to assess the 
feasibility of external regulation of its nuclear facilities and 
activities by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Both DOE and NRC 
are reviewing their respective nuclear safety rules as part of an 
ongoing pilot program. These reviews will determine (a) whether DOE 
facilities, which were designed, built, and operated under DOE 
requirements, could be operated and regulated under current NRC 
requirements and (b) whether any transition would be facilitated by 
revisions to either DOE or NRC rules. The time necessary to conduct 
these reviews is reflected in the revised schedule for completing the 
part 830 rule, which addresses facilities safety requirements.
In May 1997, the Department issued a notice of intent to form an 
advisory committee on beryllium. The purpose of this committee was to 
provide advice, information, and recommendations for a proposed 
rulemaking on occupational exposures to beryllium, which the Department 
expects to publish for comment in November 1998. As an interim measure, 
the Department issued an administrative directive to establish a 
chronic beryllium disease prevention program that enhances an existing 
worker protection program.

Regulatory Reform
The Department is committed to making its regulations less burdensome, 
more cost-effective, and more responsive to the needs of our 
stakeholders. Since 1995, the Department has eliminated over one-third 
of its regulations and reduced by one-quarter the paperwork burden it 
imposes on the public. In addition, the Department has revised over the 
past 3 years more than half of its existing regulations in an effort to 
make them simpler and easier to understand.
In June 1998, the President directed agencies to use plain language in 
regulations issued after January 1, 1999. In response to this 
initiative, the Department is including the use of plain language in 
its rulemaking development training program. The Department also is 
conducting a sunset review of its internal regulations (i.e., 
directives, manuals, and guides), which will provide an opportunity to 
either cancel old documents or revise them to make them more 
understandable.
_______________________________________________________________________
DOE--Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EE)

                              -----------

                             PRERULE STAGE

                              -----------

18. ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS RULEMAKINGS AND DETERMINATIONS FOR HIGH 
PRIORITY CONSUMER PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL EQUIPMENT
Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Unfunded Mandates:


This action may affect the private sector under PL 104-4.


Reinventing Government:


This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will 
revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline 
requirements.


Legal Authority:


 42 USC 6295


CFR Citation:


 10 CFR 430


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, January 1, 1992, (fluorescent lamp ballasts and water 
heaters).


Final, Statutory, January 1, 1994, (central air conditioners and heat 
pumps).


Final, Statutory, May 14, 1996, (clothes washers).


Abstract:


The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), as amended, establishes 
initial energy efficiency standard levels for most types of major 
residential appliances and generally requires DOE to undergo two 
subsequent rulemakings, at specified times, to determine whether the 
current standard for a covered product should be amended.
This is the initial review of the statutory standards for fluorescent 
lamp ballasts, water heaters, and central air conditioners and heat 
pumps. This is the second review of the standard for clothes washers.
These actions are covered by RINs 1904-AA67, 1904-AA75, 1904-AA76, and 
1904-AA77.


Statement of Need:


These rulemakings are required by statute. Experience has shown that 
the choice of residential appliances and commercial equipment being 
purchased by both builders and building owners is generally based on 
the initial cost rather than on life-cycle cost. Thus, the law requires 
minimum energy efficiency standards for appliances to eliminate 
inefficient appliances and equipment from the market.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), as amended, establishes 
initial energy efficiency standard levels for most types of major 
residential appliances and certain types of commercial equipment and 
generally requires DOE to undergo rulemakings, at specified times, to 
determine whether the standard for a covered product should be made 
more stringent.


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

[[Page 61239]]

economically justified. In making this determination, the Department 
conducts a thorough analysis of alternative standard levels, including 
the existing standard, based on criteria specified by statute. The 
process improvements that were recently announced (61 FR 36974, July 
15, 1996) further enhance the analysis of alternative standards. For 
example, DOE will ask stakeholders and private sector technical experts 
to review its analyses of the likely impacts, costs, and benefits of 
alternative standard levels. In addition, the Department will solicit 
and consider information on non-regulatory approaches for encouraging 
the purchase of energy efficient products.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The specific costs and benefits for these rulemakings have not been 
established because the final standard levels have not been determined. 
Nevertheless, existing appliance standards are projected to save 23 
quadrillion Btu's of energy from 1993 to 2015, resulting in estimated 
consumer savings of $1.7 billion per year in the year 2000 and 
estimated annual emission reductions of 107 million tons of carbon 
dioxide and 280 thousand tons of nitrogen oxides in the year 2000. 
Under the existing standards, the discounted energy savings for 
consumers are 2.5 times greater than the up-front price premium paid 
for the appliance.


Risks:


Without appliance efficiency standards, energy use will continue to 
increase with resulting damage to the environment caused by atmospheric 
emissions. Enhancing appliance energy efficiency reduces atmospheric 
emissions of carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxides. Establishing standards 
that are too stringent could result in excessive increases in the cost 
of the product, possible reductions in product utility and may place an 
undue burden on manufacturers that could result in a loss of jobs or 
other adverse economic impacts.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
1904-AA67 (Clothes Washers)
ANPRM 11/14/94 (59 FR 56423)
Screening Workshop 11/15/96
Supplemental ANPRM 10/00/98
Impact Workshop 01/00/99
NPRM 03/00/99
Final Action 10/00/99
1904-AA75 (Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts)
ANPRM 09/28/90 (55 FR 39624)
NPRM 03/04/94 (59 FR 10464)
Impact Workshop 03/18/97
Reissue NPRM 02/00/99
Final Action 10/00/99
1904-AA76 (Water Heaters)
ANPRM 09/28/90 (55 FR 39624)
NPRM 03/04/94 (59 FR 10464)
Screening Workshop 06/24/97
Notice of Availability 01/14/98 (63 FR 2186)
Impact Workshop 11/00/98
Reissue NPRM 12/00/98
Final Action 12/00/99
1904-AA77 (Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps)
ANPRM 09/08/93 (58 FR 47326)
Screening Workshop 06/30/98
Supplemental ANPRM 07/00/99
NPRM 03/00/00
Final Action 11/00/00
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local


Additional Information:


Due to the Department's limited staff and financial resources, 
regulatory actions related to energy efficiency standards have been 
categorized as high, medium, and low priority based on significant 
input from the public. This action is a high priority, and the 
Department is working actively on this action.


Agency Contact:
Michael McCabe
Director
Office of Codes and Standards
Department of Energy
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
1000 Independence Ave. SW.
Washington, DC 20585
Phone: 202 586-9127
RIN: 1904-AA67
_______________________________________________________________________
DOE--Departmental and Others (ENDEP)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

19. CHRONIC BERYLLIUM DISEASE PREVENTION PROGRAM
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 7191


CFR Citation:


 10 CFR 850


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This action will add requirements for the control of occupational 
exposures to beryllium at DOE and DOE contractor facilities and 
operations. This action reflects the Department's ongoing commitment to 
strengthen the protection of health, safety, and the environment from 
the hazards posed by its facilities.


Statement of Need:


The purpose of this rule is to ensure that the Department's obligation 
to provide a safe and healthy workplace is fulfilled.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


Under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Department of 
Energy has the authority to regulate activities at facilities under its 
jurisdiction. The Department is committed to honoring its obligation to 
ensure the health and safety of workers and the public affected by its 
operations.


Alternatives:


The Department could continue to impose health and safety requirements 
through directives made applicable to DOE contractors through the terms 
of their contracts.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The incremental costs of the proposed rule should be minimal. Full 
compliance with these requirements will enhance occupational health and 
safety at certain DOE facilities.


Risks:


This rulemaking would reduce the risk of an occupational hazard by 
clarifying worker protection program requirements applicable to DOE 
contractors.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           11/00/98
Final Action                                                   12/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None

[[Page 61240]]

Agency Contact:
C. Rick Jones
Director, Office of Worker Protection Programs and Hazards Management
Department of Energy
19901 Germantown Road
EH-521/270CC
Germantown, MD 20874
Phone: 301 903-6061
Fax: 301 903-7773
RIN: 1901-AA75
_______________________________________________________________________
DOE--ENDEP

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

20. NUCLEAR SAFETY MANAGEMENT
Priority:


Other Significant


Reinventing Government:


This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will 
revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline 
requirements.


Legal Authority:


 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 7191


CFR Citation:


 10 CFR 830


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This action will add regulations under 10 CFR 830 to establish nuclear 
safety management requirements for the Department's nuclear facilities. 
These requirements stem from the Department's obligations to assure 
adequate protection and to hold contractors who manage and operate 
these facilities accountable and responsible for safe operations. Under 
phase 1 of this action, major requirements will include conduct of 
operations, safety analysis reports, technical safety requirements 
training, maintenance, unreviewed safety questions and occurrence 
reporting. Under phase 2 of this action, major requirements will 
include nuclear design criteria, fire protection, natural phenomena 
hazards mitigation, and nuclear criticality safety. An initial phase 
adopted a quality assurance rule and definitions.


Statement of Need:


The purpose of this rule is to ensure that the Department's obligation 
to protect health and safety is fulfilled and to provide, if needed, a 
basis for the assessment of civil and criminal penalties consistent 
with the Price-Anderson Amendments Act of 1988. This action is 
consistent with the Department's commitment to the issuance of all new 
nuclear safety requirements using notice and comment rulemaking.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


Under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Department of 
Energy has the authority to regulate activities at facilities under its 
jurisdiction. The Department is committed to honoring its obligation to 
ensure the health and safety of the public and workers affected by its 
operations.


Alternatives:


The Department could continue to impose nuclear safety requirements 
through directives made applicable to DOE contractors through the terms 
of their contracts.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The incremental costs of the proposed rules should be minimal because 
contractors are currently bound by comparable contractual obligations. 
Full compliance by contractors with nuclear safety standards will 
result in substantial societal benefits.


Risks:


This rulemaking should reduce the risk of nuclear safety problems by 
clarifying safety requirements applicable to DOE contractors and 
improving compliance.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Initial Phase
NPRM 12/09/91 (56 FR 64316)
Final Action 04/05/94 (59 FR 15843)
Phase 1
NPRM 12/09/91 (56 FR 64316)
Notice Reopening Comment Period 08/31/95 (60 FR 45381)
Final Action 12/00/98
Phase 2
NPRM 06/00/99
Final Action 12/00/00
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Richard Stark
Nuclear Safety and Policy Standards (EH-31)
Department of Energy
Washington, DC 20545
Phone: 301 903-4407
RIN: 1901-AA34
_______________________________________________________________________
DOE--ENDEP
21. RADIATION PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC AND THE ENVIRONMENT
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


 42 USC 2201; 42 USC 7191


CFR Citation:


 10 CFR 834


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This action would add a new 10 CFR 834 to DOE's regulations 
establishing a body of rules setting forth the basic requirements for 
ensuring radiation protection of the public and environment in 
connection with DOE nuclear activities. These requirements stem from 
the Department's ongoing effort to strengthen the protection of health, 
safety, and the environment from the nuclear, radiological, and 
chemical hazards posed by these DOE activities. Major elements of the 
proposal included a dose limitation system for protection of the 
public; requirements for liquid discharges; reporting and monitoring 
requirements; and residual radioactive material requirements.


Statement of Need:



The purpose of this rule is to ensure that the Department's obligation 
to protect health and safety is fulfilled and to provide, if needed, a 
basis for the assessment of civil and criminal penalties consistent 
with the Price-Anderson Amendments Act of 1988. This action is 
consistent with the Department's commitment to the issuance of all new 
nuclear safety requirements using notice and comment rulemaking.


Summary of the Legal Basis:



Under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Department of 
Energy has the authority to regulate activities at facilities under its 
jurisdiction. The Department is committed to honoring

[[Page 61241]]

its obligation to ensure the health and safety of the public and 
workers affected by its operations and the protection of the environs 
around its facilities.


Alternatives:



The Department could continue to impose nuclear safety requirements 
through directives made applicable to DOE contractors through the terms 
of their contracts.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:



The incremental costs of the proposed rules should be minimal because 
contractors are currently bound by comparable contractual obligations. 
Full compliance by contractors with nuclear safety standards will 
result in substantial societal benefits.


Risks:



This rulemaking should reduce the risk of nuclear safety problems by 
clarifying safety requirements applicable to DOE contractors and 
improving compliance.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            58 FR 16268                                    03/25/93
NPRM Comment Period End                                        06/22/93
Final Action                                                   06/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Federal


Agency Contact:
Andrew Wallo, III, Director
Air, Water and Radiation Div. (EH-232)
Office of Environmental Guidance
Department of Energy
1000 Independence Avenue SW.
Washington, DC 20585
Phone: 202 586-4996
RIN: 1901-AA38
BILLING CODE 6450-01-F

[[Page 61242]]

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES (HHS)
Statement of Regulatory and Deregulatory Priorities
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is the Federal 
Government's principal agency for protecting the health of all 
Americans and for providing essential human services, especially to 
those least able to help themselves.
The Department manages more than 300 programs, including some of the 
largest in the Federal Government such as Medicare and Medicaid, and 
some of the smallest. These programs range from efforts to improve 
infant health to programs providing home-delivered meals for the 
elderly; from the collecting of basic national health statistics to the 
providing of front-line clinical services; from the conduct of cutting-
edge biomedical research to the ensuring of the safety of the Nation's 
food and drug products--25 percent of the Nation's GNP. HHS is of 
course heavily involved in assisting the States in the historic effort 
to help all former welfare recipients who can work to go to work.
For the foreseeable future, the Department's regulatory priorities, as 
presented in the individual plan entries that follow, reflect primarily 
the imperatives for Medicare restructuring mandated by numerous 
provisions of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997; the streamlining of 
programs and practices within the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 
resulting from 1997's FDA Modernization Act; and implementation of 
welfare reform.
In addition, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 
1996 gave the Department major new responsibilities concerning health 
data standards and health record privacy; HHS has issued four notices 
of proposed rulemaking relating to the standards to be adopted. An 
additional NPRM and a Notice of Intent are under development.
Underlying our efforts to move forward in these areas in FY 1999 and 
beyond, there remains the new focus and discipline in regulatory policy 
established by the President's September 30, 1993, issuance of 
Executive Order 12866 ``Regulatory Planning and Review.'' Under the 
principles enunciated in this Order and through the Administration's 
subsequent regulatory reform initiatives, the Department assures that 
its rules:
 Emphasize performance standards and market incentives over 
            prescriptive, command-and-control requirements;
 Regularly use benefit-cost analysis to achieve policy 
            objectives in the most efficient manner;
 Are developed in consultation with those most affected, 
            especially our partners in the Federal system at the State 
            and local levels; and
 Focus specifically on clearly identified problems and avoid 
            overly broad, one-size-fits-all approaches to these 
            problems.
Efforts to comply with these principles have been a continuing HHS 
priority since 1993. The resulting changes in our rulemaking approaches 
are leading to reduced burden, better communication with our customers, 
solid consensus building, and a less adversarial environment, while 
maintaining the stewardships that the Department is statutorily 
obligated to provide.
A few recent illustrative examples of such regulatory actions include:
 A final rule published on July 24, 1998, after consulting 
            widely with grantees and other affected organizations, to 
            clarify, streamline, simplify, and unify the Federal child 
            care and development block grant program. Under this rule, 
            the Department revised existing regulations in light of the 
            child care amendments contained in the welfare reform 
            legislation, thus assuring the health and safety of 
            children in child care, achieving a balance between program 
            flexibility and accountability, and recognizing that child 
            care is a key support for work as envisioned in the 
            Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program.
 A regulation implementing the new Medicare+Choice program, 
            published on June 26, 1998, under which, starting January 
            1999, a broader array of health plans will join Medicare, 
            including preferred provider organizations, provider-
            sponsored organizations, private fee-for-service plans, and 
            a Medical Savings Account demonstration project. These 
            expanded health plan choices, known as Medicare+Choice, 
            will provide Medicare beneficiaries with expanded 
            opportunities to tailor their choice of health care plan to 
            their own needs.
 A proposal published on May 7, 1998, to streamline the 
            processing of health care claims and reduce the amount of 
            paperwork in the U.S. health care system. Under the 
            proposal, hospitals, doctors, nursing homes, and other 
            providers would use a unique alpha-numeric identifier when 
            filing claims for reimbursement. In addition, a standard 
            format for the electronic filing of these claims was 
            proposed. It is estimated that these measures will lead to 
            savings of at least $1.5 billion over the first 5 years 
            they are in effect.
 A final rule published on October 15, 1997, pertaining to 
            biologics establishments. Under preexisting regulations, 
            biological product manufacturers had to name a 
            ``responsible head'' who would exercise control of the 
            manufacturing establishment in all matters and would 
            represent the manufacturer in all pertinent matters with 
            the Food and Drug Administration. However, because 
            biological product manufacturing encompasses a range of 
            complex functions, each with its own specific expertise, it 
            became impractical to expect manufacturers to find a 
            ``responsibile head.'' Thus, to reduce unnecessary 
            regulatory burdens on the biologics industry, the 
            requirement was eliminated.
The bulk of HHS's regulatory activity emanates from programs of the 
Food and Drug Administration, the Health Care Financing Administration, 
and the Administration for Children and Families. There follow 
statements of regulatory priorities pertaining to these three HHS 
components, followed by their regulatory plan entries.
Food and Drug Administration
The Food and Drug Administration's regulatory strategy involves three 
main goals: (1) To reflect new technologies or programs that will 
benefit the public, affected industries, and the Agency or further 
protect the public health; (2) to provide more information to consumers 
so that they may use FDA-regulated products more safely or effectively; 
and (3) to eliminate unnecessary burdens on industry.
For example, on February 2, 1998, FDA issued regulations requiring the 
sponsor of any drug, including a biological product, or device 
marketing application (applicant), to submit certain information 
concerning the compensation to, and financial interests of, any 
clinical investigator conducting certain clinical studies. This 
requirement will apply to any covered clinical study of a drug or 
device submitted in a marketing application that the applicant or FDA 
relies on to establish that the product is effective, including studies 
that show equivalence to an effective product, or that make significant 
contribution to the demonstration of safety. This final rule requires 
applicants to certify to the absence of certain financial interests of

[[Page 61243]]

clinical investigators and/or disclose those financial interests, as 
required, when covered clinical studies are submitted to FDA in support 
of product marketing. This regulation is intended to ensure that 
financial interests and arrangements of clinical investigators that 
could affect reliability of data submitted to FDA in support of product 
marketing are identified and disclosed by the sponsor of any 
application.
On October 28, 1997, FDA published final Mammography Quality Standards 
Act (MQSA) regulations in the Federal Register. Most of these 
regulations will take effect on April 28, 1999, while some (equipment, 
quality control tests) will be phased in from a period of 18 months to 
5 years. The purpose of the regulations is to ensure high quality 
mammography for early breast cancer detection. The final regulations 
fulfill FDA's responsibility under MQSA to establish national quality 
standards for mammography services. All mammography facilities, except 
those of the Veterans Administration (VA), must meet these 
requirements. Facilities that do only interventional mammography are 
exempt at this time. The regulations establish criteria designed to 
enhance the quality of mammography services in a manner that is 
reasonably achievable by mammography facilities. The regulations 
substantially raise the standards for mammography personnel, equipment, 
quality assurance and control, patient notification of results, the 
mammography medical report, and performance of the accreditation body.
Better consumer information was the goal of the Juice Labeling final 
rule, which appeared in the Federal Register on July 8, 1998 (63 FR 
37029). In this rule, FDA is revising its food labeling regulations to 
require a warning statement on fruit and vegetable juice products that 
have not been processed to prevent, reduce, or eliminate pathogenic 
microorganisms that may be present. FDA is taking this action to inform 
consumers, particularly those at greatest risk, of the hazard posed by 
such juice products. FDA expects that providing this information to 
consumers will allow them to make informed decisions on whether to 
purchase and consume such juice products, thereby reducing the 
incidence of foodborne illness and deaths caused by the consumption of 
these products.
In addition to the relief provided to the biologics industry in the 
rulemaking on a ``responsible head'' of biologics establishments noted 
above, FDA proposed to reduce unnecessary burden on the device industry 
as well. On March 5, 1998, FDA proposed to reclassify over-the-counter 
(OTC) test sample collection systems for drugs of abuse testing from 
class III (premarket approval) into class I (general controls) and to 
exempt them from the premarket notification (501(k)) and current good 
manufacturing practice (CGMP) requirements. FDA also proposed to 
designate OTC test sample collection systems for drugs of abuse testing 
as restricted devices under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 
(the Act) and to establish restrictions intended to assure consumers 
that: The underlying laboratory test(s) are accurate and reliable; the 
laboratory performing the test(s) has adequate expertise and 
competency; and the product has adequate labeling and methods of 
communicating test results to consumers. Finally, FDA proposed a 
conforming amendment to the existing classification regulation for 
specimen transport and storage containers to clarify that it does not 
apply to specimen transport and storage containers that are part of an 
OTC test sample collection system for the purpose of testing for the 
presence of drugs of abuse or their metabolites in a laboratory.
Plan Entries
FDA's plan continues to reflect the Agency's goals of using new 
programs to benefit the public and affected industries and protecting 
the public, providing more information to consumers so that they may 
use FDA-regulated products more safely or effectively, and eliminating 
unnecessary burdens on the industry.
The plan includes a final rule that would establish requirements for a 
comprehensive food safety assurance program for domestically produced 
and imported juices based on Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points 
(HACCP) principles. This initiative is a response to several outbreaks 
of illness associated with juice products. FDA's current view is that a 
HACCP system of preventative controls would be an effective and 
efficient way to ensure that these products are safe.
Another final rule would require manufacturers of human cellular and 
tissue-based products to register with FDA and to submit a list of all 
products. The rule is designed to provide a rational, comprehensive, 
and clear framework for a rapidly growing industry that produces human 
cellular and tissue-based products.
A third final rule would establish procedures and requirements 
pertaining to the dissemination of information on unapproved uses (also 
referred to as ``new uses'' and ``off-label uses'') for marketed drugs, 
including biologics, and devices. The final rule would include 
requirements concerning submissions to the Food and Drug 
Administration, requests to extend the time period for completing 
studies needed to submit a supplemental application for a new use, 
applications for an exemption from the requirement to conduct studies, 
recordkeeping, and reporting. The final rule would also cover Agency 
actions on such submissions, requests, and applications, as well as 
orders to cease or to terminate dissemination of information.
Also included in the plan is a proposal that would amend the regulation 
for hearing aids. Current regulations require consumers to be examined 
by a physician before they purchase a hearing aid but also allow for a 
waiver. Because this waiver provision may be misused, FDA is 
considering whether to eliminate the waiver provision and instead 
require a medical evaluation when certain previously undiagnosed 
conditions are found or when the prospective hearing aid user is under 
18 years of age. Additionally, the proposal would restrict the 
dispensing of a hearing aid to patients who have undergone a 
comprehensive hearing assessment within the past 12 months. This 
proposal reflects changes in the nature of hearing aids because, in the 
past, hearing loss often was caused by medically treatable conditions. 
Due to advances in health care, such cases of hearing loss are less 
common today, so there may be less need for a medical examination. 
However, advances in hearing aid technology necessitate proper testing 
in order for a hearing aid to be effective.
In multiple rulemakings, the Food and Drug Administration is proposing 
to amend the biologics regulations by removing, revising, or updating 
specific regulations applicable to blood derivative products to be more 
consistent with current practices and to remove unnecessary or outdated 
requirements. This initiative is based on a comprehensive review of the 
regulations that has been performed. A key action is the ``Lookback'' 
requirements for hepatitis C virus (HCV). In this rulemaking, FDA will 
propose to amend the biolgics regulations to require that blood 
establishments prepare and follow written procedures for appropriate 
action when it is determined that blood and blood components at 
increased risk

[[Page 61244]]

for transmitting HCV infection have been collected from a donor who, at 
a later date, tested repeatedly reactive for evidence of HCV. For a 
complete listing of the rulemakings associated with the Blood 
Initative, see the Unified Agenda section. These actions are intended 
to help ensure the continued safety of the Nation's blood supply.
Another FDA final rule would create a standardized format and content 
requirements for over-the-counter (OTC) drug product labeling. As 
health costs increase and OTC drugs--including some drugs that were 
once available only by prescription--become increasingly available, 
consumers are engaging in self-medication. Consequently, it is 
increasingly important that consumers read and understand OTC drug 
product labeling, and so FDA's rule is intended to enable consumers to 
better read and understand OTC drug product labeling and to apply this 
information so they can use OTC drug products safely and effectively.
Lastly, a proposed rule highlighted in the Plan would amend the 
regulations governing the format and content of professional labeling 
for human prescription drug and biologic products. The proposal would 
also eliminate certain unnecessary statements that are currently 
required to appear on prescription drug labels and move certain 
information to patient labeling.
Administration for Children and Families
The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) continues to pursue 
regulatory reform as an integral part of the Agency's mission to 
improve the lives of children and families. With the passage of major 
welfare reform legislation in August 1996 (the Personal Responsibility 
and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996), ACF is committed to 
meeting its responsibilties to implement this comprehensive law in ways 
that reflect both the letter and spirit of the President's Regulatory 
Reinvention Initiative.
For example, in developing proposed and final regulations on the 
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, as well as on 
child care program, the child support enforcement program, and other 
welfare reform-related provisions, ACF conducted extensive 
consultations with hundreds of State and local government officials, 
advocates, labor organizations, academics, researchers, and technical 
experts. ACF also met with other Federal agencies and held a series of 
policy discussions within the Department. These productive 
consultations have informed our work through the regulatory development 
process. Once the proposed regulations were published, ACF considered 
carefully all the public comments received in developing final 
regulations. As a result, the proposed and final welfare reform 
regulations published to date have benefited from the broad input we 
received.
The following plan entry describes a final rule that will govern key 
provisions of the new welfare block grant program known as the 
Temporary Assistance for Needy Famililes--or TANF--program. The 
regulation addresses the work, accountability, 5-year time limit, and 
data collection and reporting provisions of the TANF program. It 
provides States with a basic set of rules which will assist them in 
implementing welfare reform; emphasizes the importance of work 
participation and the potential impact of TANF on needy children and 
families; demonstrates our good faith in implementing the law and 
assuming our new Federal role; and encourages and supports States' 
flexibility, innovation, and creativity.
ACF is committed to continuing this important process of consultation 
as we work with our partners in the coming year to develop and publish 
final regulations to implement the welfare reform law.
Health Care Financing Administration
The Balanced Budget Act
The short timeframe between the enactment of the Balanced Budget Act of 
1997 (BBA) on August 5, 1997, and the effective date of the 
legislation, October 1, 1997, required HCFA and other offices of the 
Department to work at a furious pace to put forth the necessary 
guidance and regulations to implement the provisions of the Act.
Children's Health Insurance Program
As part of the BBA, the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) 
provided for an optional program to allow States to initiate and expand 
child health assistance to uninsured, low-income children. Regulations 
to implement these provisions (HCFA-2114, State Child Health 
Initiative: State Allotments and Payments) will be published in the 
near future.
However, it is noteworthy that all of the guidance related to the 
Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), as authorized in the BBA, 
has been developed in less than a year's time and in the absence of 
formal regulations. Due to these extensive and continuing efforts, CHIP 
is now in operation prior to the completion of regulations.
While implementation of the new program involves a crosscutting effort 
throughout the Department, HCFA's Center for Medicaid and State 
Operations is administering the program. To assist States with 
developing their plans, a model application template was furnished that 
provides information on the requirements and options under the law. 
HCFA has developed and implemented a budget and expenditure reporting 
system and associated report forms for States to submit CHIP financial 
and statistical information. HCFA and the Department have also issued 
procedures for plan submittal and approval and for ensuring 
coordination with Medicaid programs.
To ensure clarity of program requirements and to foster enhanced State 
understanding of the complexity of statutory provisions, HCFA and the 
Department have worked with States as they develop their plans in 
accordance with the new law. HCFA sponsored nine regional conferences 
to help inform States of all the options available to cover children 
under CHIP. HCFA has also conducted onsite training for States in all 
10 HCFA Regional Offices on the CHIP allotment and payment processes, 
the CHIP-related budget and expenditure system, and State financial and 
statistical reporting requirements. In addition, HCFA and the 
Department have been soliciting input and feedback from interested 
consumer and advocacy groups, the National Governors' Association and 
other State and local government groups, as well as individual States, 
throughout the process. This input and feedback has been sought to 
continuously improve HCFA processes and to be responsive to State 
needs. Indicative of HCFA's goal to approve CHIP plans expeditiously, 
plans have been approved for 22 States or territories as of June 29, 
1998. Amendments have been approved for 2 States, and 19 States have 
submitted plans that are under review.
Medicare+Choice
Another significant program mandated by the BBA is the Medicare+ Choice 
program. HCFA published an interim final regulation implementing the 
new Medicare+Choice program on June 26, 1998. Starting in January 1999, 
in addition to original fee-for-service Medicare and health maintenance 
organizations, a broader array of health

[[Page 61245]]

plans will join Medicare, including preferred provider organizations, 
provider-sponsored organizations, private fee-for-service plans, and a 
Medical Savings Account demonstration project. Recognizing the myriad 
of health care delivery options that are emerging, Medicare+Choice 
provides Medicare beneficiaries with expanded opportunities to tailor 
their choice of health care plans to their own needs. The regulation 
established policies and standards for health plans and organizations 
to participate in the Medicare+Choice program. The standards cover 
enrollment, benefits, access and beneficiary protections, quality 
assurance, provider protections, payments, premiums, and sanctions. 
Access to Medicare+Choice options will depend on where the beneficiary 
lives and what types of plans are available in that community.
Given the array of new options that Medicare beneficiaries will soon 
have available to them, we are strongly committed to providing 
beneficiaries all the information they need to make the best possible 
decision about their health care. In the BBA, Congress directed us to 
embark on a broad educational effort, which we have named the National 
Medicare Education Campaign. This Campaign is designed to ensure that 
beneficiaries receive accurate and unbiased information about their 
benefits, rights, and health care options. This is the largest, most 
complex, and ambitious educational effort in the history of Medicare. 
We are committed to working with beneficiaries and their families, 
members of Congress, aging advocacy organziations, providers, and other 
experts to ensure that our educational program is the best that it can 
be.
This National Medicare Educational Program includes the mailing of the 
Medicare handbook ``Medicare & You'' and the establishment of a 
national 1-800 toll-free telephone number, which is being tested this 
year in five States and will be operating nationally by October 1999. 
In addition, a consumer-friendly Internet site, www.Medicare.gov, is 
already in place. This web-site offers information called Medicare 
Compare, which enables beneficiaries or those who assist them to 
compare health plans' benefits, out-of-pocket costs, and other 
important features.
PSO Solvency Standards
As part of its general implementation of the BBA, HCFA published three 
rules in 1998 concerning Provider-Sponsored Organizations (``PSOs''), a 
form of managed care entity that can now contract directly with 
Medicare. The BBA authorizes certain specifically defined types of PSOs 
to serve Medicare enrollees for up to 3 years without a State license 
as a risk-bearing entity. Under the terms of the exemption from State 
licensure (the ``Waiver''), HCFA assumes the responsibility for 
monitoring the financial solvency and other factors that affect the 
quality of care provided to Medicare enrollees.
On April 14, 1998, HCFA issued an interim final rule with comment 
period that established the definition requirements that PSOs must meet 
to obtain a Waiver.
On May 7, 1998, HCFA published an interim final rule with comment 
period that establish the Waiver application process and the solvency 
standards that entities must meet to obtain a Waiver. This rule was 
developed through the negotiated rulemaking process. Over 50 
individuals, representing over 25 different associations, coalitions, 
or companies were interviewed in order to identify relevant issues and 
to establish the negotiated rulemaking committee. The committee then 
met seven times from October 1997 to March 1998 to deliberate on 
relevant issues.
As mentioned earlier, HCFA published an interim final rule with comment 
period regarding the Medicare+Choice program on June 26, 1998. This 
rule, which enumerated the comprehensive provisions of the 
Medicare+Choice program, also defined the minimum enrollment 
requirements for PSOs and slightly modified the April and May rules 
mentioned previously.
HCFA anticipates signficiant implementation-related activity in fiscal 
year 1999. Such activity would include: Conducting beneficiary and 
provider information campaigns to clarify uncertainties about PSOs; 
developing administrative and operational policy; and communicating 
that policy via further regulation, policy statements, opinion letters, 
and statements of operating procedures. Note also that allowing certain 
PSOs to operate under a Federal Waiver without a State license will 
change the traditional model of shared Federal-State oversight and 
accountability for managed care organizations to a model of 
prinicipally Federal oversight and accountability. This change also 
represents a major increase in HCFA's responsibility.
Skilled Nursing Facilities
On May 12, 1998, HCFA published an interim final rule with a comment 
period (63 FR 26252) to implement changes made by section 4432 of the 
BBA with regard to skilled nursing facility (SNF) services. The rule 
establishes an SNF Prospective Payment System (PPS) for Part A stays, 
which makes a global per diem payment that is case-mix adjusted. The 
rule also describes the resident assessment procedures used in 
determining the appropriate classification for each resident. In 
addition, it establishes a consolidated billing requirement for SNFs 
under which almost all of the services that an SNF resident receives 
are billed to Medicare by the SNF itself, rather than by an outside 
supplier.
Other Current BBA Priorities
In addition to these efforts, HCFA currently has a number of other 
regulations under development to implement other provisions of the BBA.
One such regulation expands Medicare coverage for diabetes outpatient 
self-management training services. More than 16 million Americans have 
diabetes and nearly 75,000 new cases are reported every year. Newly 
expanded benefits will help provide people with the skills and 
resources that most diabetics need to control their diabetes.
Other BBA-related HCFA regulations included in the Department 
priorities include regulations to implement the Prospective Payment 
System (PPS) for Hospital Outpatient Services and for Home Health 
Agencies and regulations establishing rules related to quality of care 
and services under Medicaid managed care programs.
Additional Regulations
In addition to the activities related to the BBA, HCFA has also 
continued to work towards agency objectives such as increasing organ 
donations and combating fraud and abuse.
Organ Procurement
On June 22, 1998, HCFA-3005-F, Hospital Conditions of Participation; 
Identification of Potential Organ, Tissue, and Eye Donors and 
Transplant Hospitals Provision of Transplant-Related Data, was 
published in the Federal Register. This regulation is designed to 
increase organ donation and thus, lifesaving transplants, for 
individuals who need them. More than 10 individuals in the United 
States die every day while waiting for a transplant.
The provisions of the regulations are based on State ``routine 
referral'' laws, which have increased organ donations significantly in 
the States in which such

[[Page 61246]]

laws have been enacted. It is expected that the regulation will 
increase the Nation's organ donation and transplantation rates 20 
percent in the 2 years following the effective date of the rule.
Fraud and Abuse
On March 20, 1998, HCFA published its proposed rule to implement the 
Medicare Integrity Program. Under this rule, HCFA will contract with 
eligible entities who meet certain requirements and comply with 
conflict of interest standards. Medicare Integrity Program contractors 
will perform program integrity functions including medical review; 
fraud and utilization review; cost report audits; Medicare secondary 
payor activities; education of providers, suppliers, and beneficiaries 
regarding integrity and developing a list of durable medical equipment 
subject to prior authorization.
In addition, on July 8, 1998, HCFA published HCFA-6144-C Medicare 
Program; Incentive Programs-Fraud and Abuse. This regulation 
establishes a program to encourage individuals to report information on 
individuals and entities that are engaged in or have engaged in acts or 
omissions that constitute grounds for the imposition of a sanction or 
who have otherwise engaged in sanctionable fraud and abuse against the 
Medicare program. By increasing the incentives for concerned citizens 
to report evidence of suspected fraudulent behavior, Congress hopes to 
protect beneficiaries and the Medicare Trust Funds. It is specified 
that a monetary reward can be made only for information that leads to a 
minimum recovery of $100 of Medicare funds.
_______________________________________________________________________
HHS--Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

22. HEARING AIDS; PROFESSIONAL AND PATIENT LABELING; CONDITIONS FOR 
SALE
Priority:


Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.


Unfunded Mandates:


This action may affect State, local or tribal governments and the 
private sector.


Reinventing Government:


This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will 
revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline 
requirements.


Legal Authority:


 21 USC 351; 21 USC 352; 21 USC 360d; 21 USC 371; 21 USC 360j(e)


CFR Citation:


 21 CFR 801.420; 21 CFR 801.421


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


FDA is considering revising its present regulation governing the 
labeling and conditions for sale of hearing aids. The present rule 
requires an examination by a physician before purchase of a hearing 
aid, but permits an informed adult to waive that requirement. There is 
some evidence that this waiver provision is being misused. FDA is 
considering eliminating the waiver provision and instead requiring a 
medical evaluation when certain previously undiagnosed medical 
conditions are found or when the prospective hearing aid user is under 
18 years of age. In addition, FDA is considering restricting the 
dispensing of a hearing aid to patients who have undergone a 
comprehensive hearing assessment within the past 12 months and an 
evaluation to select and fit a hearing aid, both of which would be 
required to be conducted by hearing care professionals licensed by the 
States as competent to conduct such assessments and evaluations. FDA is 
also considering revisions to its professional and patient labeling 
requirements to require updated information.


Statement of Need:


FDA has become aware of changes in the nature of the causes of hearing 
loss and the technology of hearing aids that necessitate 
reconsideration of the regulations governing the types of testing 
needed before a hearing aid purchase and the labeling for health 
professionals and patients. In the past, hearing loss often was caused 
by medically treatable conditions. Today, medical and/or surgical 
intervention will correct hearing loss in only 5 to 10 percent of the 
cases. Therefore, there may be less of a need for medical evaluation. 
FDA believes, however, that patients should receive proper testing in 
order for a hearing aid to be effective.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


Under 21 USC 360j(e), FDA has the authority to restrict the sale, 
distribution, or use of a medical device, if FDA determines that, 
without such restrictions, there cannot be reasonable assurance of its 
safety and effectiveness. Under 21 USC 352, FDA has the authority to 
require that the labeling of a medical device include adequate 
directions for use.


Alternatives:


FDA considered applying the rule only to first time purchasers of 
hearing aids. FDA believes, however, that this would not adequately 
protect present users of inappropriate or unneeded hearing aids. FDA 
also considered requiring additional tests, but has preliminarily 
determined to list these tests as recommended only in order to provide 
additional flexibility.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


FDA has estimated the costs of the mandatory testing required by the 
rule would add an additional $24.8 million to $51.7 million depending 
upon the assumptions concerning present practices. On the average, FDA 
estimates that this would add about $24 to the cost of a hearing aid. 
FDA expects that the benefits from the rule would include: (1) 
Improving the quality of life of hearing aid users; (2) avoiding the 
cost of inappropriate hearing aid purchase; (3) reducing doctor visits 
for hearing aid evaluations; (4) lowering treatment costs due to early 
detection of serious conditions; and (5) encouraging the dissemination 
of accurate information concerning the benefits and limitations of 
hearing aids.


Risks:


If the hearing aid purchaser inappropriately waives the medical 
evaluation requirement under the existing rule, treatable causes of 
hearing loss may go undetected. Many purchasers who have not had proper 
testing before a hearing aid purchase will forego the use of a hearing 
aid because the one purchased does not adequately improve their hearing 
ability. At this time, FDA believes that many hearing impaired people 
who may benefit from a hearing aid do not purchase one because they 
fear that they will not benefit from one due to inaccurate information.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM           58 FR 59695                                    11/10/93

[[Page 61247]]

ANPRM Comment Period End                                       01/10/94
NPRM                                                           11/00/98
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


State


Additional Information:


Previously reported under RIN 0905-AE46.


Agency Contact:
Joseph M. Sheehan
Chief, Regulations Staff
Department of Health and Human Services
Food and Drug Administration
Center for Devices and Radiological Health (HFZ-215), 1350 Piccard 
Drive
Rockville, MD 20850
Phone: 301 594-4765
RIN: 0910-AA39
_______________________________________________________________________
HHS--FDA
23. LABELING FOR HUMAN PRESCRIPTION DRUGS; REVISED FORMAT
Priority:


Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Reinventing Government:


This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will 
revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline 
requirements.


Legal Authority:


 21 USC 321; 21 USC 331; 21 USC 351; 21 USC 352; 21 USC 353; 21 USC 
355; 21 USC 356; 21 USC 357; 21 USC 358; 21 USC 360; 21 USC 360b; 21 
USC 360gg to 360ss; 21 USC 371; 21 USC 374; 21 USC 379e


CFR Citation:


 21 CFR 201


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The proposed regulation would amend the regulations governing the 
format and content of professional labeling for human prescription drug 
and biologic products, 21 CFR 201.56 and 201.57. The proposal would 
require that professional labeling include a section containing 
highlights of prescribing information, a section containing an index to 
prescribing information, reorder currently required information and 
make minor changes to its content, and establish minimum graphical 
requirements for professional labeling. The proposal would also 
eliminate certain unnecessary statements that are currently required to 
appear on prescription drug labels and move certain information to 
patient labeling.


Statement of Need:


The current format and content requirements in sections 201.56 and 
201.57 were established to help ensure that labeling includes adequate 
information to enable health care practitioners to prescribe drugs 
safely and effectively. However, various developments in recent years, 
such as technological advances in drug product development, have 
contributed to an increase in the amount, detail, and complexity of 
labeling information. This has made it harder for practitioners to find 
specific information and to discern the most critical information in 
product labeling.
FDA took numerous steps to evaluate the usefulness of prescription drug 
labeling for its principle audience and to determine whether, and how, 
its format and content can be improved. The agency conducted focus 
groups and a national survey of office-based physicians to ascertain 
how prescription drug labeling is used by health care practitioners, 
what labeling information is most important to practitioners, and how 
professional labeling should be revised to improve its usefulness to 
prescribing practitioners.
Based on the concerns cited by practitioners in the focus groups and 
physician survey, FDA developed and tested two prototypes of revised 
labeling formats designed to facilitate access to important labeling 
information. Based on this testing, FDA developed a third revised 
prototype that it made available to the public for comment. Ten written 
comments were received on the prototype. FDA also presented the revised 
prototype at an informal public meeting held on October 30, 1995. At 
the public meeting, the agency also presented the background research 
and provided a forum for oral feedback from invited panelists and 
members of the audience. The panelists generally supported the 
prototype.
The proposed rule attempts to establish format and content standards 
for prescription drug labeling that incorporate information and ideas 
gathered during this process.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


The agency has broad authority under sections 502, 505, and 701 of the 
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act)(21 USC 352, 355, 371) 
and section 351 of the Public Health Service Act (42 USC 262) to 
regulate the content and format of prescription drug labeling to help 
ensure that products are safe and effective for their intended uses. A 
major part of FDA's efforts regarding the safe and effective use of 
drug products involves FDA's review, approval, and monitoring of drug 
labeling. Under section 502(f)(1) of the act, a drug is misbranded 
unless its labeling bears ``adequate directions for use'' or it is 
exempted from this requirement by regulation. Under section 201.100 (21 
CFR 201.100), a prescription drug is exempted from the requirement in 
section 502(f)(1) only if, among other things, it contains the 
information required, in the format specified, by sections 201.56 and 
201.57.
Under section 502(a) of the act, a drug product is misbranded if its 
labeling is false or misleading in any particular. Under section 505(d) 
and 505(e) of the act, FDA must refuse to approve an application and 
may withdraw the approval of an application if the labeling for the 
drug is false or misleading in any particular. Section 201(n) of the 
act provides that in determining whether the labeling of a drug is 
misleading, there shall be taken into account not only representations 
or suggestions made in the labeling, but also the extent to which the 
labeling fails to reveal facts that are material in light of such 
representations or material with respect to the consequences which may 
result from use of the drug product under the conditions of use 
prescribed in the labeling or under customary usual conditions of use.
These statutory provisions, combined with section 701(a) of the act and 
section 351 of the Public Health Service Act, clearly authorize FDA to 
promulgate a regulation designed to help ensure that practitioners 
prescribing drugs (including biological products) will receive 
information essential to their safe and effective use

[[Page 61248]]

in a format that makes the information easier to access, read, and use.


Alternatives:


The alternatives to the proposal include not amending the content and 
format requirements in sections 201.56 and 201.57 at all, or amending 
them to a lesser extent. The agency has determined that although drug 
product labeling, as currently designed, is useful to physicians, many 
find it difficult to locate specific information in labeling, and some 
of the most frequently consulted and most important information is 
obscured by other information. In addition, the agency's research 
showed that physicians strongly support the concept of including a 
summary of the most important prescribing information, an index and 
numbering system that permits specific information to be easily 
located, and other proposed requirements, such as the requirement for a 
minimum type size. Thus, the agency believes that the proposed 
requirements will greatly facilitate health care practitioners' access 
and use of prescription drug and biological labeling information.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The expected benefits from the proposed rule include reduced time 
needed for health care professionals to read or review labeling for 
desired information, increased effectiveness of treatment, and a 
decrease in adverse events resulting from avoidable drug-related 
errors. For example, the proposed revised format is expected to 
significantly reduce the time spent on reading labeling by highlighting 
often used information at the beginning of labeling and facilitating 
access to detailed information.
The potential costs associated with the proposed rule include the cost 
of redesigning labeling for previously approved products to which the 
proposed rule would apply and submitting the new labeling to FDA for 
approval. In addition, one-time and ongoing incremental costs would be 
associated with printing the longer labeling that would result from 
additional required sections. These costs would be minimized by 
applying the amended requirements only to newer products and by 
staggering the implementation date for previously approved products.


Risks:


None.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           01/00/99
NPRM Comment Period End                                        04/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Additional Information:


Legal Authority continued: 42 USC 216; 42 USC 241; 42 USC 262; 42 USC 
264


Agency Contact:
Nancy Ostrove
Division of Drug Marketing, Advertising and Communications
Department of Health and Human Services
Food and Drug Administration
Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (HFD-40), 5600 Fishers Lane
Rockville, MD 20857
Phone: 301 827-2828
Fax: 301 594-6759
  
Lee Korb
Regulatory Counsel
Department of Health and Human Services
Food and Drug Administration
Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (HFD-7), 1451 Rockville Pike, 
suite 3047
Rockville, MD 20852
Phone: 301 594-5626
Fax: 301 827-5562
RIN: 0910-AA94
_______________________________________________________________________
HHS--FDA
24.  CURRENT GOOD MANUFACTURING PRACTICES FOR BLOOD AND BLOOD 
COMPONENTS: NOTIFICATION OF CONSIGNEES RECEIVING BLOOD AND BLOOD 
COMPONENTS AT INCREASED RISK FOR TRANSMITTING HCV INFECTION
Priority:


Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Legal Authority:


 21 USC 321; 21 USC 331; 21 USC 351; 21 USC 352; 21 USC 353; 21 USC 
355; 21 USC 360; 21 USC 371; 21 USC 374; 42 USC 216; 42 USC 262; 42 USC 
263; 42 USC 263a; 42 USC 264; 42 USC 300aa-25


CFR Citation:


 21 CFR 606; 21 CFR 610


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rulemaking is one of a number of actions being taken to amend the 
biologics regulations to remove, revise, or update the regulations 
applicable to blood, blood components, and blood derivatives. These 
actions are based on a comprehensive review of the regulations 
performed by FDA, and are also based on reports by the U.S. House of 
Representatives Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, 
Subcommittee on House Resources and Intergovernmental Relations; the 
General Accounting Office; the Institute of Medicine, as well as public 
comments. In this rulemaking, FDA will propose to amend the biologics 
regulations to require that blood establishments prepare and follow 
written procedures for appropriate action when it is determined that 
blood and blood components at increased risk for transmitting hepatitis 
C virus (HCV) infection have been collected from a donor who, at a 
later date, tested repeatedly reactive for evidence of HCV.


Statement of Need:


In the Federal Register of March 20, 1998 (63 FR 13675), FDA announced 
the availability of guidance, which updated previous guidance, 
providing recommendations for donor screening and further testing for 
antibody to HCV, notification of consignees, transfusion recipient 
tracing and notification, and counseling by physicians regarding 
transfusion with blood components at increased risk for transmitting 
HCV (often called ``Lookback''). While available evidence indicates 
that blood establishments are following these recommendations, FDA 
believes that regulations should be codified, consistent with the 
previous recommendations, to assure there is clear enforcement 
authority in case deficiencies in an establishment's lookback program 
are found and to provide clear instructions for continuing lookback 
activities.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


The Public Health Service Act (21 USC 216 et seq.) and the Federal 
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 USC 321 et seq.) authorize FDA to 
regulate biological

[[Page 61249]]

products and to ensure that the products are safe, pure, potent, and 
effective. The Public Health Service Act also contains the authority 
under which FDA can promulgate regulations to prevent the spread of 
communicable diseases. These regulations would assure that appropriate 
action is taken when blood components have been transfused which may 
potentially be capable of transmitting HCV, that persons who may have 
been transfused with such blood components receive proper counseling 
and treatment, and to help prevent the further transmission of HCV.


Alternatives:


FDA has considered permitting the continued voluntary compliance with 
the recommendations that have already issued. However, the ability of 
FDA to enforce appropriate lookback procedures would be unclear. In 
addition, because lookback will remain appropriate for the foreseeable 
future, FDA believes that the procedures should be clearly established 
in the regulations.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


FDA is in the process of analyzing the costs related to the rulemaking. 
Monetary burdens will be associated to the tracing of previous 
donations of donors, identifying the recipients of these previous blood 
donations, and notifying these recipients, as appropriate. FDA believes 
these costs will be more than compensated by the public health 
benefits, including benefits related to the notification of past 
transfusion recipients who may be unaware that they may be infected 
with HCV.


Risks:


FDA believes there are minimum risks posed by requiring that 
appropriate lookback procedures for HCV be prepared and followed.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           12/00/98
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


Additional Information:


See RIN 0910-AB26.


Agency Contact:
Steven F. Falter
Director, Regulations and Policy Staff
Department of Health and Human Services
Food and Drug Administration
Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (HFM-17), 1401 Rockville 
Pike
Suite 200N, Rockville, MD 20852
Phone: 301 827-6210
RIN: 0910-AB76
_______________________________________________________________________
HHS--FDA

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

25. FRUIT AND VEGETABLE JUICES: DEVELOPMENT OF HACCP AND LABEL WARNING 
STATEMENTS FOR JUICES
Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


 21 USC 321 et seq; 42 USC 264


CFR Citation:


 21 CFR 120


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced in an advance notice 
of proposed rulemaking of August 4, 1994, its plans to consider the 
development of regulations establishing requirements for a new 
comprehensive food safety assurance program for both domestically 
produced and imported foods that would be based on the principles of 
Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points (HACCP). The new food safety 
program would respond to new challenges, such as new food processing 
and packaging technologies, new food distribution and consumption 
patterns, exposure to industrial chemicals and chemical waste, the 
increasing importation of foods, new microbial pathogens, and resource 
constraints. Current information shows that the most serious of these 
challenges is presented by food-borne pathogens. The number of 
recognized food-borne pathogens has broadened considerably, as has the 
awareness of long-term complications from certain food-borne illnesses-
-such as arthritis, heart disease, and kidney and neurological damage. 
To meet such challenges, FDA intends to shift the focus of its food 
safety assurance program away from periodic visual inspection and end-
product testing and toward prevention of food safety risks and 
problems, utilizing the state-of-the-art HACCP preventive approach. A 
first step was taken when FDA published a HACCP regulation for fish and 
fishery products on December 18, 1995. Consistent with FDA's HACCP 
efforts, USDA published a HACCP regulation for meat and poultry on July 
25, 1996. As a next step in this food safety program, FDA proposed on 
April 24, 1998 to adopt a HACCP regulation for the processing of juice. 
As part of the development of this document, FDA considered information 
obtained during agency HACCP pilot activities, and comments and 
scientific and technological information relating to fresh juices 
provided during and after an agency public meeting on juice held on 
December 16 and 17, 1996. On July 8, 1998, the agency finalized 
regulations requiring warning statements on the labels or in labeling 
for juice products that have not been processed to reduce, control, or 
eliminate the presence of harmful bacteria. Such labeling will serve to 
reduce the risk of food-borne illness, pending development of a final 
HACCP rule for juice.


Statement of Need:


FDA is adopting regulations that would establish requirements for a new 
comprehensive food safety assurance program for both domestically 
produced and imported fruit and vegetable juices that would be based on 
the principles of Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points (HACCP). FDA 
intends to adopt a juice HACCP regulation because there have been a 
number of outbreaks of illnesses associated with juice products, 
including some directly affecting children, and because the agency 
believes that a system of preventive controls is the most effective and 
efficient way to ensure that these products will be safe.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


Failure of a processor to have and implement a HACCP system will render 
the food products of that processor adulterated under section 402(a)(4) 
of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Whether a processor's 
actions are consistent with ensuring the safety of food will be 
determined through an evaluation of the overall implementation of the 
firm's HACCP system.

[[Page 61250]]

Alternatives:


The two principal alternatives to HACCP are end-product testing and 
comprehensive current good manufacturing practices (CGMPs). FDA has 
concluded, based on information available at this time, that these 
alternatives lack the distinct advantages of a HACCP-based approach. 
End-product testing does not address the root causes of food safety 
problems, is not preventive by design, and requires that a large number 
of samples be analyzed to ensure product integrity. CGMPs are not 
practical because they are plant-wide operating procedures and do not 
concentrate on the identification and prevention of food hazards.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


In general terms, HACCP focuses on prevention and is designed to 
prevent the occurrence of hazards affecting food; HACCP permits more 
effective and efficient oversight by Federal, State, and local 
governments; and HACCP appropriately places primary responsibility for 
ensuring food safety on the food manufacturer/distributor to analyze, 
in a rational, scientific manner, its production processes in order to 
identify critical control points and establish critical limits and 
monitoring procedures. FDA anticipates that costs to industry generated 
by implementation of HACCP would be offset in four ways: (1) by 
reducing the amount of food-borne illnesses (for example, total illness 
reduction benefits estimated to result from FDA's HACCP-based 
requirements for seafood regulation are between $15 and $75 million per 
year); (2) by increasing public confidence in the Nation's food supply; 
(3) by enabling U.S. food companies to compete more effectively in the 
world market (for example, current recommendations of the Codex 
Alimentarius Commission's Committee on Food Hygiene encourage the use 
of the HACCP system, and the European Community (EC) has begun to 
require that foods produced within the EC be processed under HACCP 
requirements); and (4) by decreasing the number of future product 
recalls.


Risks:


Any potential for contamination of the food supply with industrial 
chemicals or microbial pathogens must be considered a very serious risk 
because of the possibility that such contamination could be widespread, 
affecting whole segments of the population, causing some severe long-
term effects and even loss of life. FDA made a decision to adopt a 
HACCP-based approach to regulate seafood, based on a considerable body 
of literature and expertise in this area. Likewise, FDA has reviewed 
current information on hazards associated with unprocessed juice, and 
intends to propose that processors use HACCP in the manufacture of 
certain juice products.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM           59 FR 39888                                    08/04/94
ANPRM Comment Period End                                       12/02/94
Economic Analysis for Juice HACCP and Labeling
PRIA 05/01/98 (63 FR 24254)
PRIA Comment Period End 06/22/98
HACCP for Juice
NPRM 04/24/98 (63 FR 20450)
NPRM Comment Period End 08/07/98
Final Action 04/00/99
Label Warning Statements for Juice
Notice of Intent 08/28/97 (62 FR 45593)
NPRM 04/24/98 (63 FR 20496)
NPRM Comment Period End 06/21/98
Final Action 07/08/98 (63 FR 37029)
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


Federal


Additional Information:


Previously reported under RIN 0905-AE60.


Agency Contact:
John E. Kvenberg
Department of Health and Human Services
Food and Drug Administration
Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-10), 200 C Street SW.
Washington, DC 20204
Phone: 202 205-4020
Fax: 202 205-4018
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0910-AA43
_______________________________________________________________________
HHS--FDA
26. OVER-THE-COUNTER HUMAN DRUGS; LABELING REQUIREMENTS
Priority:


Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Legal Authority:


 21 USC 321; 21 USC 351; 21 USC 352; 21 USC 353; 21 USC 355; 21 USC 
360; 21 USC 371


CFR Citation:


 21 CFR 201; 21 CFR 330


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The final rule will provide standardized format and content 
requirements for over-the-counter (OTC) drug product labeling, 
including legibility and design features of such information as the 
uses for the drug, directions for use, warnings, drug interactions, 
active ingredients, and other information that the consumer would need 
to know to use the product safely and effectively.


Statement of Need:


Currently, the design, format, and placement of required labeling 
information varies considerably among OTC drug products. As a result, 
consumers often have difficulty finding, reading, and understanding 
this important labeling information. Modifying and simplifying the 
manner in which the information is presented can improve the legibility 
and understandability of OTC drug product labeling. Therefore, this 
final rule will establish a standardized format for the labeling of all 
marketed OTC drug products. This action is intended to enable consumers 
to better read and understand OTC drug product labeling and to apply 
this information to the safe and effective use of OTC drug products.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


FDA's legal authority to modify and simplify the manner in which 
certain information is presented in OTC drug product labeling derives 
from sections 201, 502, 505, and 701 of the Federal Food, Drug, and 
Cosmetic Act (the act). Regulating the order, appearance, and format of 
OTC drug product labeling is consistent with the agency's authority to 
ensure that drug labeling convey all material information to the 
consumer (21 USC 321(n) and 352(a)), and that the labeling communicates 
this information in a manner that is ``likely to be read and understood 
by the ordinary individual under customary conditions of purchase and 
use.'' (21 USC 352(c)). Regulating the content of OTC drug product 
labeling is consistent with FDA's authority to ensure that the products 
are safe and effective for use

[[Page 61251]]

(sections 201(n) and (p), 502, and 505 of the act).


Alternatives:


FDA considered several alternatives. First, the agency considered but 
rejected a voluntary labeling scheme, since previous industry efforts 
have been unsuccessful in achieving both a uniform format and an 
acceptable minimum print size for a majority of the products on the 
market. Second, the agency considered but rejected revising all OTC 
monographs on an individual basis because this approach would not 
achieve a standardized labeling format for a majority of the marketed 
products in a timely manner. Third, the agency considered alternative 
implementation periods but chose the option proposed because it 
believed that the chosen approach provides significant reduction in 
cost while meeting the agency objective of achieving a standardized 
labeling format for a majority of the products in a timely manner.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The proposed rule was estimated to cost a total of $14 million when 
implemented. This cost includes a 1-year extension for implementation 
time of individual OTC drug products having sales of less than $25,000 
per year. However, based on comments received for the proposed rule and 
amendments contained in the final rule, the agency is currently re-
evaluating the estimated costs.
In general, the rule will benefit consumers by allowing them to make 
more appropriate choices for self-treatment, and to reduce trial and 
error approaches to self-medication. Consequently, this could lead to 
decreased overall health care costs resulting from reduced visits to 
the doctor or hospital for treatment. Additionally, the easy to read, 
standardized format will directly benefit consumers by helping ensure 
the safe and effective use of the product.


Risks:


None.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            62 FR 9024                                     02/27/97
NPRM Comment Per62 FR 33379                                    10/06/97
Reopening of Com62 FR 67770 (Study B)                          12/30/97
Reopening of Com63 FR 7331d (Study A)                          02/13/98
Final Action                                                   12/00/98
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Cazemiro Martin
Division of OTC Drug Evaluation
Department of Health and Human Services
Food and Drug Administration
Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (HFD-560), 9201 Corporate Blvd.
Rockville, MD 20850
Phone: 301 827-2222
RIN: 0910-AA79
_______________________________________________________________________
HHS--FDA
27. ESTABLISHMENT REGISTRATION AND LISTING OF HUMAN CELLULAR AND 
TISSUE-BASED PRODUCTS
Priority:


Other Significant


Reinventing Government:


This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will 
revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline 
requirements.


Legal Authority:


 42 USC 264


CFR Citation:


 21 CFR 207; 21 CFR 807; 21 CFR 1271


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This action is a continuation of FDA's approach for the regulation of 
human tissues and is part of FDA's reinventing government initiative. 
The final rule requires manufacturers of human cellular and tissue-
based products to register with the agency and submit a list of all 
such products produced. Future regulations would include the 
promulgation of good tissue practices (GTP) that will provide good 
manufacturing standards and regulations for donor screening and 
testing, promotion and labeling, and compliance and procedural issues. 
The proposed approach would provide a rational, comprehensive, and 
clear framework under which tissue processors can develop and market 
their products without being subjected to unnecessary regulation and 
without sacrificing the protection of the public health.


Statement of Need:


Presently, FDA can only approximate the numbers of manufacturers 
involved in the production of human cellular and tissue-based products. 
Recent innovations in the methods of manipulating human cells and 
tissues for therapeutic purposes have resulted in the rapid growth of 
the industry producing human cellular and tissue-based products. The 
growth has occurred in industry segments that normally communicate with 
the agency as well as in segments that have not previously had any 
contact with FDA. In order to characterize the industry and establish a 
basis for communication with that industry, FDA is requiring that all 
manufacturers of human cellular and tissue-based products register with 
FDA and submit lists of all their products to the agency.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


The Public Health Service Act (42 USC 216 et seq.) and the Federal 
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 USC 321 et seq.) authorize FDA to 
regulate biological products and to ensure that the products are safe, 
pure, potent, and effective. The Public Health Service Act also 
contains the authority under which FDA can promulgate regulations 
designed to prevent the spread of communicable diseases. In order to 
meet these objectives, FDA must be able to identify those manufacturers 
participating in activities that may be subject to regulation. FDA is 
establishing the registration and listing as a simple and efficient 
means of acquiring the needed information.


Alternatives:


FDA has considered two alternatives. The first alternative would be an 
information collection undertaken by the agency that would be entirely 
dependent on voluntary compliance. FDA considers this alternative 
inefficient and lacking in inducements to ensure compliance.
The second alternative is to compel the registration of manufacturers 
and require registrants to list their products with the agency. Such a 
system has been proposed to industry and gained

[[Page 61252]]

general acceptance. Manufacturers would simply fill out an 
electronically available registration and listing form and fax or mail 
the completed form to the agency with periodic updates. No other 
paperwork should be required.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Registration and listing will enable FDA to characterize the industry 
without imposing any significant procedural or monetary burdens. 
Registration and listing would provide effective means by which FDA can 
monitor the production of human cellular and tissue-based products. The 
costs of registration and listing are expected to be minimal because, 
as stated above, the process will require only the information 
necessary for FDA to identify the affected industry.


Risks:


FDA believes that the risks posed by requiring registration and listing 
of human cellular and tissue-based products are minimal. In contrast, 
failure to identify manufacturers involved in the production of human 
cellular and tissue-based products would subject the public to the 
great and avoidable risk of contracting debilitating communicable 
diseases. Without any mechanism to target regulations intended to 
reduce the risk of transmission of communicable diseases through the 
use of human cellular and tissue-based products, FDA's oversight of the 
industry would be severely hindered and the protection of the public 
health jeopardized.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            63 FR 26744                                    05/14/98
NPRM Comment Period End                                        08/12/98
Final Action                                                   04/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Dano B. Murphy
Regulatory Counsel
Department of Health and Human Services
Food and Drug Administration
Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (HFM-17), 1401 Rockville 
Pike
Suite 200N, Rockville MD 20852
Phone: 301 827-6210
RIN: 0910-AB05
_______________________________________________________________________
HHS--FDA
28. DISSEMINATION OF TREATMENT INFORMATION ON UNAPPROVED USES FOR 
MARKETED DRUGS AND DEVICES
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


 21 USC 321; 21 USC 331; 21 USC 351; 21 USC 352; 21 USC 355; 21 USC 
360b; 21 USC 360c; 21 USC 360e; 21 USC 371; 21 USC 374; PL 105-115 sec. 
401


CFR Citation:


 21 CFR 99


Legal Deadline:


 Final, Statutory, November 21, 1998.


Abstract:


The final rule would establish the procedures and requirements for the 
dissemination of information on unapproved new uses of marketed drugs, 
biologics, and devices. The final rule would include requirements 
concerning submissions to the Food and Drug Administration, requests to 
extend the time period for completing studies needed to submit a 
supplemental application for a new use, applications for an exemption 
from the requirement to conduct studies, recordkeeping, and reporting. 
The final rule would also cover agency actions on such submissions, 
requests, and applications, as well as orders to cease or to terminate 
dissemination of information.


Statement of Need:


The final rule would implement section 401 of the Food and Drug 
Administration Modernization Act of 1997 (FDAMA) by describing the new/
unapproved use information that a manufacturer may disseminate to 
health care practitioners, pharmacy benefit managers, health insurance 
issuers, group health plans, and Federal and State agencies and setting 
forth the procedures that manufacturers must follow before 
disseminating information on the new use.
FDA has long recognized that in certain circumstances new/unapproved 
uses of approved products are appropriate, rational, and accepted 
medical practice. There are important unapproved uses of approved 
products. In the past, however, the concept of allowing manufacturers 
to disseminate unapproved use information raised concerns about 
diminishing a manufacturers' incentive to develop the safety and 
efficacy data about these uses that would lead to their approval. There 
were also concerns about the reliability and balance of such 
information. FDAMA and the proposed rule address these concerns by 
tying the dissemination of the unapproved use information to a 
commitment to do the research and submit a supplemental application on 
the new use and by limiting the information that can be disseminated to 
information that is both reliable and balanced. The statute and 
regulation set forth narrow exemptions to the requirement to submit a 
supplemental application.
The implementation of these regulations will ensure that the statutory 
provisions are properly implemented, that exemptions from the 
requirement to submit a supplemental application are granted only in 
appropriate circumstances, and that the agency can best respond to 
submissions regarding the dissemination of information on unapproved 
uses.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


Section 401 of FDAMA established a comprehensive scheme for the 
dissemination of information about unapproved uses to health care 
practitioners, pharmacy benefit managers, health insurance issuers, 
group health plans, and Federal and State agencies. Section 401 
directed FDA to issue regulations to implement the new scheme by 
November 21, 1998.


Alternatives:


The statute is prescriptive and does not allow for a substantially 
different regulatory approach than is being taken by FDA. It allows for 
discretion in some of the details regarding procedural requirements for 
submissions relating to the new use information and it allows FDA to 
define the limited exemptions to the requirement for submission of a 
supplemental application. FDA believes that the procedural requirements 
included in the proposed regulation are consistent with the statutory 
scheme

[[Page 61253]]

and that the proposed exemption criteria reflect Congressional intent 
to make such exemptions rare.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The benefits of the final rule will derive from the public health gains 
associated with the earlier dissemination of objective, balanced, 
accurate information about important new uses of approved products. In 
addition, the final rule may actually stimulate new studies or the 
collection of evidence about these new uses.
The costs of the final rule are modest. Firms typically conduct 
clinical studies in support of supplemental applications for new uses 
only where the firm believes that the added revenues associated with 
the new use would exceed the cost of the supporting studies. Because 
this rule will accelerate the receipt of these revenues, it is possible 
that some new use supplemental applications that would not have been 
economically justified in the absence of this rule will now be 
submitted. FDA cannot estimate the number or cost of the additional 
clinical studies that would accompany these applications, but 
emphasizes that they would be undertaken voluntarily by the affected 
firms in the expectation that they would raise company profitability.


Risks:


The risk from the final rule is that, despite the protections set forth 
in the statute and regulation, health care practitioners will not 
receive reliable information about these unapproved uses and patients 
will accordingly, not receive the appropriate treatments. There is also 
a risk that, despite the requirement that the dissemination be tied to 
the commitment to complete the studies needed for submission of a 
supplemental application, the studies will not be completed and it will 
never be known if these unapproved uses really work. In recognition of 
these lingering concerns, Congress included a sunset of the provision 
and a requirement for a study of the effect of this new scheme to 
determine if it should be extended beyond the sunset date. The study 
will look at issues relating to the effectiveness of the provision in 
providing useful scientific information to health care practitioners, 
the quality of the information being disseminated, and the impact of 
the new scheme on research in the area of new uses.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            63 FR 31143                                    06/08/98
NPRM Comment Period End                                        07/23/98
Final Action                                                   11/00/98
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Margaret Dotzel
Senior Policy Advisor
Department of Health and Human Services
Food and Drug Administration
Office of Policy (HF-13)
5600 Fishers Lane, Room 14-72
Rockville, MD 20857
Phone: 301 827-5321
Fax: 301 443-5169
RIN: 0910-AB23
_______________________________________________________________________
HHS--Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

29. MEDICARE PROGRAM; PROSPECTIVE PAYMENT SYSTEM FOR HOSPITAL 
OUTPATIENT (HCFA-1005-P)
Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Unfunded Mandates:


This action may affect the private sector under PL 104-4.


Legal Authority:


 PL 105-33, sec 4521; PL 105-33, sec 4522; PL 105-33, sec 4523; PL 99-
509, sec 9343(c)


CFR Citation:


 42 CFR 409.10; 42 CFR 410.2; 42 CFR 410.27; 42 CFR 410.28; 42 CFR 
410.30; 42 CFR 411.15; 42 CFR 412.50; 42 CFR 413.118; 42 CFR 413.122; 
42 CFR 413.124; 42 CFR 413.130; 42 CFR 413; 42 CFR 489.20; 42 CFR 
1003.101 to 102; 42 CFR 1003.105


Legal Deadline:


 Final, Statutory, November 1, 1998.


Abstract:


The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA) (Public Law 105-33), enacted on 
August 5, 1997, provides for implementation of a Prospective Payment 
System (PPS) for hospital outpatient services (and for part B services 
furnished to inpatients who have no Part A coverage) furnished on or 
after January 1, 1999. This system will also apply to partial 
hospitalization services furnished by community mental health centers. 
The BBA also requires a new method for calculating beneficiary 
copayments for the hospital outpatient services included under the PPS. 
The PPS will consist of about 340 groups of services, called 
``Ambulatory Payment Classifications'' or APCs, that are related 
clinically and in terms of their resource use. We will assign a group 
weight to each group, based on the median cost (operating and capital) 
of the services included in the group. We will convert the weights for 
each group to payment rates using a national conversion factor, taking 
into account group weights and the projected volume of services for 
each group. In addition, this proposed rule would establish in 
regulations the requirements for designating certain entities as 
provider based or as a department of a hospital.


Statement of Need:


The law was later amended to limit payment to the lesser of a hospital 
reasonable costs or to its customary charges. In 1983, section 601 of 
the Social Security Amendments of 1983 (Public Law 98-21) completely 
revised the cost based payment system for most hospital inpatient 
services by enacting section 1886(d) of the Social Security Act (the 
Act). This section provided for a PPS for acute inpatient hospital 
stays, effective with hospital cost reporting periods beginning on or 
after October 1, 1983.
Although payment for most inpatient services became subject to PPS, 
hospital outpatient services continue to be paid based on hospital-
specific costs which provided little incentive for hospital efficiency 
for outpatient services. At the same time, advances in medical 
technology and changes in practice patterns were bringing about a shift 
in the site of medical care from the inpatient to the outpatient 
setting. During the 1980's, the Congress took steps to control the 
escalating costs of providing outpatient care. The Congress amended the 
statute to implement across-the-board reductions of 5.8 percent and 10 
percent to the amounts otherwise payable for hospital operating costs 
and capital costs, respectively, and legislated a number of

[[Page 61254]]

different payment methods for specific types of hospital outpatient 
services. These methods included fee schedules for clinical diagnostic 
laboratory tests, orthotics, prosthetics, and durable medical equipment 
(DME); composite rate payment for dialysis for persons with end-stage 
renal disease; and payments based on blends of hospital costs in the 
rates paid in other ambulatory settings, such as separately certified 
ambulatory surgical centers (ASCs) or physician offices for certain 
surgery, radiology, and other diagnostic procedures. Nevertheless, 
Medicare payment for services performed in the hospital outpatient 
setting remains largely cost-based.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


In section 9343 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986 (OBRA 
1986) (Public Law 99-509) and in section 4151(b)(2) of the Omnibus 
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-508), the Congress 
required the Secretary to develop a proposal to replace the current 
hospital outpatient payment system with a PPS and to submit a report to 
Congress on the system. In section 9343 of OBRA 1986, the Congress 
paved the way for development of a PPS by requiring hospitals to report 
claims for services under the HCFA Common Procedure Coding System 
(HCPCS), and by extending the prohibition against unbundling of 
hospital services under section 1862(a)(14) of the Social Security Act 
(the Act) to include outpatient services as well as inpatient services. 
HCPCS coding enabled us to determined what specific procedures and 
services were being billed, while the extension of the prohibition 
against unbundling ensured that all non-practitioner services provided 
to hospital outpatient would be billed only by the hospital not by an 
outside supplier, and therefore, would be reported on hospital bills 
and captured in the hospital outpatient data used in developing an 
outpatient PPS.
The Secretary submitted a Report to Congress on March 17, 1995. The 
report summarized the research HCFA conducted in searching for a way to 
classify outpatient services for purposes of developing an outpatient 
PPS. The report cited Ambulatory Patient Groups (APGs), developed by 
3M-Health Information Systems under a cooperative grant with HCFA, as 
the most promising classification system for grouping outpatient 
services and recommended that the APG-like groups be used in designing 
a hospital outpatient PPS.
The report also presented a number of options that could be used, once 
the PPS was in place, for addressing the issue of rapidly growing 
beneficiary copayment. As a separate issue we recommended that the 
Congress amend the provisions of the law pertaining to the blended 
payment methods for ASC surgery, radiology, and other diagnostic 
services to correct an anomaly that resulted in a less than full 
recognition of the amount paid by the beneficiary in calculating 
program payment (referred to as the formula-driven overpayment).
The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA) (Public Law 105- 33), enacted on 
August 5, 1997, contains a number of provisions that affect Medicare 
payment for hospital outpatient services. The purpose of this proposed 
rule is to implement sections 4521, 4522, and 4523 of the BBA. Section 
4521 of the BBA eliminates the formula-driven overpayment, effective 
for services furnished on or after October 1, 1997. Section 4522 
extends the current cost reduction of 5.8% and 10% (applicable to 
hospital outpatient operating cost and hospital capital costs, 
respectively) through December 31, 1999. Section 4523 provides for 
implementation of a PPS for hospital outpatient services (and for part 
B services furnished to inpatients who have no part A coverage) 
furnished on or after January 1, 1999. This system will also apply to 
partial hospitalization services furnished by community mental health 
centers. Section 4523 also requires a new method for calculating 
beneficiary copayments for the hospital outpatient services included 
under the PPS.
This proposed rule would also implement section 9343(c) of the Omnibus 
Reconciliation Act of 1986, which prohibits Medicare payment for non-
physician services furnished to a hospital outpatient by a provider or 
supplier other than a hospital, unless the services are furnished under 
an arrangement with a hospital. This section also authorizes HHS's 
Office of Inspector General to impose a civil money penalty against any 
individual or entity who knowingly or willfully presents a bill for 
non-physician or other bundled services not provided directly or under 
such an arrangement.
The Secretary has the authority under the BBA to determine which 
services are included (with the exception of ambulance services and 
physical, occupational, and speech therapies, for which fee schedules 
are being separately created). We will continue to pay for laboratory 
services and for orthotics and prosthetics on their perspective fee 
schedules, and for chronic dialysis using the composite rate. The 10 
cancer centers exempt from inpatient PPS will not come under this 
system until the year 2000.


Alternatives:


If this final rule were not published, we would not implement the 
Balanced Budget Act of 1997 provision mandating a prospective payment 
system for hospital outpatient services. In addition, there would be no 
relief for beneficiaries from the large coinsurance burdens that they 
have been bearing for outpatient services.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The primary benefit of this rule is the elimination of a cost based 
system, which provides little incentive for hospital efficiency for 
outpatient services. In addition, the regulation will provide 
considerable relief overtime to beneficiaries from high coinsurance 
payments under the current system. Finally, the proposed rules 
governing provider based status will alleviate an important area of 
program abuse.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            63 FR 47551                                    09/08/98
NPRM Comment Period End                                        11/09/98
Final Action                                                   12/00/98
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Janet Wellham
Center for Health Plans and Providers
Department of Health and Human Services
Health Care Financing Administration
7500 Security Blvd
Baltimore, MD 21244
Phone: 410 786-4510
RIN: 0938-AI56

[[Page 61255]]

_______________________________________________________________________
HHS--HCFA
30. MEDICAID MANAGED CARE; REGULATORY PROGRAM TO IMPLEMENT CERTAIN 
MEDICAID PROVISIONS OF THE BALANCED BUDGET ACT OF 1997 (HCFA-2001-P)
Priority:


Other Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


 PL 105-33, sec 4701(a); 42 USC 1396w


CFR Citation:


 42 CFR 438


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This notice of proposed rulemaking establishes rules for Medicaid 
managed care programs which involve quality of care and services under 
Medicaid managed care programs. It implements certain provisions in 
sections 4701 through 4710 of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA) 
(Pub. L. 105-33).


Statement of Need:


The BBA significantly modifies Medicaid managed care programs by 
providing a new state plan amendment vehicle for States to furnish 
managed health care to beneficiaries, enhanced enrollee protections; 
and an emphasis on the quality of health care delivered to Medicaid 
enrollees.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


Section 1903(m) of the Social Security Act and implementing regulations 
at 42 CFR part 434 contain a number of requirements related to Medicaid 
managed care contracts. Among other things, the requirements relate to 
contract provisions involving enrollment and disenrollment in a 
Medicaid managed care organization (MCO), marketing, choice of health 
professionals within an MCO, quality assurance systems, grievance 
procedures, and plan solvency. Statutory amendments made by sections 
4701 through 4710 of the BBA modify those requirements.
To control cost while enhancing quality of care, States are 
increasingly delivering services to their Medicaid populations through 
Medicaid managed care organizations (MCOs) and other managed care 
arrangements. These arrangements vary according to the 
comprehensiveness of the services they provide and the degree to which 
they accept risk. Fully capitated plans contract on a risk basis to 
provide beneficiaries with a comprehensive set of covered services in 
return for a monthly capitation payment. In general, partially 
capitated plans provide a less than comprehensive set of services on a 
risk basis; services not included in the contract are reimbursed on a 
fee-for-service basis. In addition, some States implement a primary 
care case management (PCCM) system in which a Medicaid beneficiary 
selects or is assigned to a single primary care provider that provides 
or arranges for all covered services and is reimbursed on a fee-for-
service basis. Under each of these managed care arrangements, 
beneficiaries have a regular source of coordinated care and States have 
predictable, controlled spending per beneficiary.
The BBA creates a new section of the Social Security Act relating to 
managed care arrangements. The new section 1932 establishes increased 
enrollee protections, quality assessment and performance improvement 
strategies for States, and enrollee rights and responsibilities.


Alternatives:


If this rule is not published, we would not implement many of the 
provisions in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 related to Medicaid 
managed care.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Estimates of the economic impact (if any) that will stem from these 
rules have not yet been completed.


Risks:


This rule will potentially improve the quality of health care provided 
to Medicaid managed care enrollees and provide States with new tools to 
become more effective purchasers of health care services. Failure to 
publish this rule would jeopardize broad-based improvement in the 
quality of care our beneficiaries receive and would deprive States of 
many tools that would improve their managed care programs.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            63 FR 52021                                    09/29/98
NPRM Comment Period End                                        11/30/98
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


State, Federal


Agency Contact:
Bruce Johnson
Center for Medicaid and State Operations
Department of Health and Human Services
Health Care Financing Administration
7500 Security Blvd
Baltimore, MD 21244
Phone: 410 786-6015
RIN: 0938-AI70
_______________________________________________________________________
HHS--HCFA
31.  EXPANDED COVERAGE FOR DIABETES OUTPATIENT SELF-MANAGEMENT 
TRAINING SERVICES HCFA-3002-P
Priority:


Economically Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Legal Authority:


 42 USC 1302; 42 USC 1395hh; 42 USC 1395x


CFR Citation:


 42 CFR 410; 42 CFR 414; 42 CFR 476


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rule would provide for uniform coverage of Diabetes outpatient 
self-management training services. These services include educational 
and training services furnished to a beneficiary with diabetes by an 
entity approved to furnish the services. The physician or qualified 
nonphysician practitioner treating the beneficiary's diabetes would 
certify that these services are needed as part of a comprehensive plan 
of care. This rule proposes the quality standards that an entity would 
be required to meet in order to participate in furnishing diabetes 
outpatient self-management training services. It sets forth proposed 
payment amounts that have been established in consultation with 
appropriate diabetes organizations. It would implement section 4105 of 
the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA).


Statement of Need:


Section 4105 of the BBA provided for coverage of diabetes self-
management training to include services provided in non-hospital-based-
programs. This proposed rule would expand Medicare coverage for 
diabetes outpatient self-management training; define who may

[[Page 61256]]

be a certified provider of services that may provide diabetes 
outpatient management training services; explain that the physician 
managing the patient's diabetes must certify that the services are 
needed under a comprehensive plan of care; and sets standards for 
certified providers that have been established in consultation with 
appropriate diabetes organizations.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


Section 4105(a) of the BBA provides coverage for diabetes outpatient 
self-management training. Under this coverage training would include 
educational and training services furnished in an outpatient setting 
(according to frequency standards established by the Secretary) to a 
beneficiary with diabetes by a ``certified provider'' that meets 
certain quality standards.


Alternatives:


Coverage is provided for in section 4105(a) of the BBA, therefore, no 
alternatives to issuing this regulation exist.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Projected Budget Impact of New Benefit ($ in millions): FY 1998 -- $60 
FY 1999 -- $560 FY 2000 -- $230 FY 2001 -- $80 FY 2002 -- $80 An 
estimate of benefits has not been established.


Risks:


If the diabetes self-management training is not implemented, our 
diabetic beneficiaries will not receive information for improving their 
long term health that would result from this rule.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           11/00/98
NPRM Comment Period End                                        02/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Organizations


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Agency Contact:
Betty S. Burrier
Office of Standards & Quality
Department of Health and Human Services
Health Care Financing Administration
7500 Security Blvd
Baltimore, MD
Phone: 410 786-4649
RIN: 0938-AI96
_______________________________________________________________________
HHS--HCFA

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

32. MEDICARE PROGRAM; REVISIONS TO PAYMENT POLICIES UNDER THE PHYSICIAN 
FEE SCHEDULE FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1999 (HCFA-1006-FC) (HCFA-1006-P)
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


 42 USC 1395w(4); PL 105-33, sec 4505; PL 105-33, sec 4507; PL 105-33, 
sec 4511; PL 105-33, sec 4512; PL 105-33, sec 4541; PL 105-33, sec 4556


CFR Citation:


 42 CFR 410; 42 CFR 414


Legal Deadline:


 NPRM, Statutory, January 1, 1999.


Abstract:


This final rule will update physician payments by Medicare as required 
by section 1848 of the Social Security Act. It includes a provision to 
change the method of determining practice expense relative value units 
from the current charge-based system to a resource based system. In 
addition, new procedure codes for 1999 have been added. It also will 
include several policy changes involving medical direction of 
anesthesia services, and separate payment for abnormal papanicolaou 
smears. A provision to make some minor rebasing and revisions to the 
Medicare Economic Index is also included. Several changes are being 
made to clarify some provisions of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 
(BBA).


Statement of Need:


As pertinent to this regulation, the BBA requires implementation of 
resource-based practice expense relative value units on January 1, 
1999. In addition, the BBA provided for the payment of drugs and 
biologicals on a new payment basis, implemented private contracting 
with Medicare beneficiaries, and provided for a new payment system for 
outpatient rehabilitation services. The BBA expanded the Medicare scope 
of practice for nurse practitioners and physician assistants.
Furthermore, since we established the physician fee schedule on January 
1, 1992, our experience indicates that some of our part B payment 
policies need to be reconsidered. This final rule is intended to 
correct some of these payment policies. Also, we are rebasing and 
revising the Medicare Economic Index, which is used in formulas to 
update payments for physicians services and other part B services. In 
addition, we are finalizing the 1998 interim work RVUs and are issuing 
interim work RVUs for new and revised codes for 1999.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


Since January 1, 1992, Medicare has paid for physician services under 
section 1848 of the Social Security Act (the Act), ``Payment for 
Physician Services.'' This section contains three major elements: (1) A 
fee schedule for the payment of physician services; (2) a sustainable 
growth rate system for the rate of increase in Medicare expenditures 
for physician services; and (3) limits on the amounts that 
nonparticipating physicians can charge beneficiaries. The Act requires 
that payment under the fee schedule be based on national uniform RVUs 
based on the resources used in furnishing a service. Section 1848(c) of 
the Act requires that national RVUs be established for physician work, 
practice expense, and malpractice expense. Section 1848(c)(2)(ii)(II) 
of the Act provides that adjustments in RVUs because of charges 
resulting from a review of those RVUs may not cause total physician fee 
schedule payments to differ by more than $20 million from what they 
would have been had the adjustments not been made. If this tolerance is 
exceeded, we must make adjustments to the conversion factors (CFs) to 
preserve budget neutrality.


Alternatives:


If this final rule is not published, we would not implement the BBA 
provisions related to physician services, physician assistants, nurse 
practitioners, payment for drugs and biologicals, and payment for 
outpatient rehabilitation services. In addition, known payment problems 
would not be resolved for the 1999 physician fee schedule and for other 
payment

[[Page 61257]]

policies that need to be further clarified.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The practice expense provision is, by statute, budget neutral. The 
statute requires that revisions to payment policies not cause total 
annual physician fee schedule payments to differ by more than $20 
million from what they would have been had the revisions not been made. 
If this threshold is exceeded, we would make adjustments to the 
conversion factor to preserve budget neutrality.


Risks:


We expect a reaction to the practice expense proposal since there is a 
reallocation of relative value units for practice expenses between 
physician specialties and between codes. We expect that some physicians 
will argue that the relative value units are too low for them to 
provide the service. Also, we expect comments about the fundamental 
methodology used to calculate the practice expense relative values.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            63 FR 30818                                    06/05/98
NPRM Comment Period End                                        09/03/98
Final Action                                                   12/00/98
Final Action Effective                                         01/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Stanley Weintraub
Center for Health Plans and Providers
Department of Health and Human Services
Health Care Financing Administration
7500 Security Blvd
Baltimore, MD 21244
Phone: 410 786-4498
RIN: 0938-AI52
_______________________________________________________________________
HHS--HCFA
33.  HOME HEALTH PROSPECTIVE PAYMENT SYSTEM (HCFA-1102-FC)
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


 PL 105-33, sec 4603


CFR Citation:


 42 CFR ch IV


Legal Deadline:


 NPRM, Statutory, October 1, 1999.


Abstract:


This interim final rule will establish requirements for the new 
prospective payment system (PPS) for home health agencies as governed 
by section 4603 of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA) (Pub. L. 105-
33).


Statement of Need:


The BBA significantly changed the way we pay for Medicare home health 
services. It requires the establishment of a facility-specific PPS and 
provide for interim steps until the PPS is established. Under the 
interim system HHAs will receive payment under the interim payment 
system in accordance with section 4602 of the Balanced Budget Act of 
1997. The interim payment system establishes two sets of cost limits 
for home health agencies. The long-standing home health per visit cost 
limits are reduced from 112 percent of the mean labor-related and non-
labor per visit costs for freestanding agencies to 105 in percent the 
median. In addition, home health agency costs will be subject to an 
aggregate per-beneficiary cost limitation. For those providers with a 
cost report ending in Federal fiscal year 1994, the per-beneficiary 
cost limitation is based on a blend of costs (75 percent on 98 percent 
of the agency-specific costs and 25 percent on 98 percent of the 
standardized regional average of the costs for the agency's census 
region). For new providers and those providers without a 12-month cost 
reporting period ending in fiscal year 1994, the per-beneficiary 
limitation will be the national median of the per beneficiary limits 
for HHAs. Under the interim system, HHAs will be paid the lesser of 1) 
actual costs; 2) the per visit limits; 3) the per-beneficiary limits. 
The result of the interim system will be to create a strong incentive 
for HHAs to reduce utilization to at least 1994 levels to fall within 
the aggregate cost limit. Effective 10/1/97, the interim payment system 
will exist until prospective payment for home health agencies is 
implemented.
Section 4603 of the BBA establishes section 1895 of the Social Security 
Act, which specifies the authority for the development of a prospective 
payment system for home health services effective 10/1/99 which will 
ultimately be based on units of payment, most likely episodes of care. 
In developing the PPS, the Secretary will consider: an appropriate unit 
of service, the number of visits provided within the unit, and their 
cost. Payment for a unit of home health service will be modified by a 
case mix adjustor, set by the Secretary, to explain a significant 
amount of the variation in the cost of different units of service. The 
HHA would have the potential of profit or loss on each individual 
patient. Over many patients, the HHA would presumably make or lose 
money based on its ability to provide needed care effectively and 
efficiently.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


Section 1861(v)(1)(A) of the Social Security Act requires the limits 
that comprise the interim system. Under this authority, HCFA has 
maintained limitations on home health agency per-visit costs since 
1975. Additional statutory provisions specifically governing 
limitations applicable to home health agencies are contained at section 
1861(v)(1)(L) of the Social Security Act. These limits will be replaced 
by the establishment of a prospective payment system as defined in 
section 4603 of the BBA that requires the Secretary to establish and 
implement the interim payment system of payment limitations prior to 
establishment and implementation of the prospective payment system.


Alternatives:


Section 4603 of the BBA specifies the authority for the development of 
a prospective payment system for home health services effective 10/1/
99. However, there is contingency language for the home health 
prospective payment system provided in BBA. If the Secretary for any 
reason does not establish and implement the prospective payment system 
for home health services, the Secretary shall provide for a reduction 
by 15% the cost limits and per-beneficiary limits, as those limits 
would otherwise be in effect on September 30, 1999.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The Congress anticipates that the implementation of a PPS for home 
health services will achieve the combined benefits of establishing a 
system which will enable HCFA to find the provision of medically 
necessary HHA care to beneficiaries consistent with the HHA's own case 
mix and will also prevent the development of further

[[Page 61258]]

unsustainable growth in HHA costs. The combined effects of the 
``interim'' and final systems are required to achieve this result.


Risks:


The statutory contingency for reducing cost caps under the interim 
system by 15% if the PPS is not implemented timely is not the preferred 
method for achieving the desired savings because the interim system 
does not adjust fully for case mix, as the PPS is required to do. 
Therefore, the longer the delay in implementation of the PPS, the 
greater the potential disparity between the case mix of an individual 
HHa and its payments.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Interim Final Rule                                             09/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Organizations


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Bob Wardwell
Center for Health Plans and Providers
Department of Health and Human Services
Health Care Financing Administration
7500 Security Blvd
Baltimore, MD 21244
Phone: 410 786-3254
RIN: 0938-AJ24
_______________________________________________________________________
HHS--Administration for Children and Families (ACF)

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

34. TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR NEEDY FAMILIES (TANF)
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


 42 USC 601; 42 USC 601 note; 42 USC 603 to 604; 42 USC 606 to 611; 42 
USC 613; 42 USC 617; 42 USC 619; 42 USC 862a; 42 USC 1302; 42 USC 1308


CFR Citation:


 45 CFR 260 to 265 (new)


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This regulation governs key provisions of the new welfare block grant 
program enacted in August 1996 as part of the Personal Responsibility 
and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA). This new 
program, called the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families -- or TANF 
-- program, replaced the national welfare program known as Aid to 
Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and the related programs known 
as the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training Program (JOBS) and 
the Emergency Assistance (EA) program. The regulation addresses the 
five-year time limit, work, accountability, and data collection and 
reporting provisions of the new TANF program.


Statement of Need:


This regulation is necessary to provide States with a basic set of 
rules which will assist them in implementing the TANF program.


Alternatives:


There are no viable alternatives.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


This regulation reflects the intent of PRWORA to achieve a balance 
between granting States the flexibility they need to develop and 
operate effective and responsive programs, and ensuring that the 
objectives of the programs are met. The financial impacts of these 
rules should be minimal because of the fix level of funding provided 
through the block grant. A State's Federal grant could be affected by 
the penalty decisions made under the law in these rules, and State 
expenditures on needy families could be affected by the rules on 
caseload reduction. Otherwise, the regulation should not affect the 
overall level of expenditures. However, it could have minor impacts on 
the nature and distribution of such expenditures. The impacts of these 
rules on needy individuals and families will depend on the choices the 
State makes in implementing the new law.


Risks:


None.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            62 FR 62124                                    11/20/97
NPRM Comment Period End                                        02/18/98
Final Action                                                   12/00/98
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


State, Tribal, Federal


Additional Information:


This action includes information previously reported under RIN 0970-
AB64 and RIN 0970-AB76. The CFR citation for the NPRM was 45 CFR 270 to 
275.


Agency Contact:
Mack Storrs
Director
Division of Self-Sufficiency Programs
Department of Health and Human Services
Administration for Children and Families
Office of Family Assistance
370 L'Enfant Promenade SW.
Washington, DC 20447
Phone: 202 401-9289
Fax: 202 205-5887
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0970-AB77
BILLING CODE 4150-04-F

[[Page 61259]]

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD)
Statement of Regulatory Priorities
Linkage to the HUD 2020 Management Reform Plan
The regulatory plan of the Department of Housing and Urban Development 
for fiscal year 1999 continues to reflect the revitalized mission that 
Secretary Andrew Cuomo established for HUD upon assuming the leadership 
of HUD and further reflects the fundamental redesign of HUD under the 
HUD 2020 Management Reform Plan. On June 26, 1997, Secretary Cuomo 
released his plan for significant management reforms at HUD--the ``HUD 
2020 Management Reform Plan.'' The HUD 2020 Management Reform Plan is 
directed to (1) empowering people and communities to improve themselves 
and (2) restoring HUD's reputation and credibility by improving the 
efficiency and effectiveness of the Department's programs, operations, 
and delivery of services.
To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of HUD's programs, 
operations, and delivery of services, the HUD 2020 Management Reform 
Plan calls for the restructuring of HUD's internal operations to 
reallocate resources and consolidate major functions. The HUD 2020 
Management Reform Plan also calls for the resources to be allocated in 
a way that is designed to align HUD's resources with its long-term 
mission of empowering people and communities to improve themselves and 
succeed in today's world. Consolidation of functions is designed to 
avoid duplication of effort, achieve consistency and uniformity in the 
performance of those functions, and ensure fairness.
In fiscal year 1998, HUD began implementing the management reforms 
called for by the HUD 2020 Management Reform Plan. These reforms 
include the establishment of several centers at which key functions and 
operations have been consolidated and are now being carried out. Since 
issuance of the HUD 2020 Management Reform Plan, HUD has moved from 
discussion of the reforms to on-the-ground operations. The following 
describes some of the new HUD centers.
The Real Estate Assessment Center is charged with responsibility for 
assessing and scoring the condition of properties in which HUD has an 
interest and the performance of entities that manage and own those 
properties. The Enforcement Center assumes responsibility for the 
majority of HUD's existing enforcement operations. The Enforcement 
Center is the central departmental focus for taking aggressive action 
against HUD's troubled housing and public housing portfolios. The 
Troubled Agency Recovery Center will assist public housing agencies 
designated as troubled to reach improved performance through 
development and implementation of sustainable solutions. The Section 8 
Financial Management Center provides a unified center for Section 8 
payments processing. HUD also has established a new Office of 
Procurement and Contracts which will perform all operational 
contracting activities except simplified acquisitions and contract 
ordering. The consolidation of all operational activity within a single 
office, which reports directly to the Chief Procurement Officer will 
assure the Department's procurement reform initiatives and policies are 
implemented in a consistent manner. These are some of the key 
management reform changes that have already been instituted under the 
HUD 2020 Management Reform Plan.
Consolidation of functions and the resulting consistency and uniformity 
that is brought about through the consolidation not only make these 
functions easier for HUD employees to perform but make the HUD programs 
simpler, more comprehensible, and more fair for HUD's program 
participants. Several regulations issued by HUD in fiscal year 1998 
reflect how consolidation of functions has achieved a key objective of 
HUD 2020 Management Reform and that is to strive to treat program 
participants fairly, on the basis of uniform standards, not on the 
basis of which HUD program office administers the program. Examples of 
such regulations are as follows:
Public Housing Assessment System. In FY 1998, HUD issued regulations to 
establish a revised performance evaluation system for public housing 
that expanded and improved on the previous assessment system--the 
Public Housing Management Assessment Program (PHMAP). The new system--
the Public Housing Assessment System (PHAS) provides for the evaluation 
of the performance of public housing agencies (PHAs) in four critical 
areas: (1) The physical condition of the public housing; (2) the 
financial stability of the PHA; (3) the management capabilities of the 
PHA; and (4) the resident satisfaction with PHA services. This new 
system answers criticisms of the former PHMAP by placing greater 
emphasis on the physical condition of properties, objective evidence 
and third-party verification, basic real estate functions, and input 
from those served directly by the system (the ``customers''). This new 
assessment system for public housing should increase the confidence of 
everyone involved--HUD, PHAs, residents, the Congress, the public--that 
it accurately determines whether PHAs are doing an acceptable or 
outstanding job and are providing decent, safe, and sanitary housing to 
their residents. This is critical because the consequences of that 
determination are significant--less scrutiny and additional flexibility 
for PHAs to be determined performing well and intensive technical 
assistance and short term deadlines to show improvement for those PHAs 
determined to be troubled. The new system should better indicate to 
everyone the degree of success of the public housing program under 
current levels.
Uniform Physical Condition Standards for Certain HUD Housing. This rule 
establishes for housing assisted under certain HUD programs uniform 
physical condition standards. These standards are intended to ensure 
that such housing is decent, safe, sanitary, and in good repair. HUD's 
Section 8 housing, public housing, HUD-insured multifamily housing, and 
other HUD assisted housing must currently meet certain standards and 
must undergo an annual physical inspection to determine that the 
housing qualifies as decent, safe, sanitary, and in good repair. Before 
issuance of this rule, the description or components of what 
constitutes acceptable physical housing quality varied from HUD program 
to HUD program. To the extent possible, HUD's position is that housing 
assisted under its programs should be subject to uniform physical 
standards regardless of the source of the subsidy or assistance. 
Additionally, to the extent feasible, HUD believes that the physical 
inspection procedures by which the standards will be assessed should be 
uniform in the covered programs. This rule provides for certain HUD 
housing to meet uniform physical condition standards to ensure that the 
housing is decent, safe, sanitary, and in good repair.
Uniform Financial Reporting Requirements. This rule establishes for 
HUD's public housing, Section 8 housing, and multifamily insured 
housing programs uniform annual financial reporting standards. The rule 
requires public housing agencies and project owners of HUD-assisted 
housing

[[Page 61260]]

to submit electronically to HUD, on an annual basis, certain financial 
information in a standardized format. Electronic submission was 
determined necessary because the manual submission of annual financial 
information to HUD has become a significant administrative burden to 
housing authorities, project owners, and mortgagees, as well as to HUD. 
This rule also provides that the annual financial information to be 
submitted to HUD must be prepared in accordance with generally accepted 
accounting principles.
Section 8 Certificate and Voucher Conforming Rule. This final rule 
completed the process of combining and conforming the regulations for 
tenant-based rental assistance under the Section 8 Certificate and 
Voucher programs. The merger of the Section 8 Certificate and Voucher 
programs and implementation of steamlining measures will make tenant-
based assistance easier for HUD, housing authorities, and private 
landlords to administer.
These are some of the rules issued in fiscal year 1998 that reflect the 
HUD 2020 management reforms already instituted and underway at HUD.
Implementation of the HUD 2020 Management Reform Plan ensures HUD's 
relevance and effectiveness for the 21st century and focuses HUD 
resources and energy on two distinct yet interrelated missions:
The Departmental Mission: Empower communities and their residents, 
particularly the poor and disadvantaged, so that, together with HUD, 
they can develop viable urban communities, provide decent housing and 
suitable living environment for all citizens, without discrimination, 
in order to improve themselves, both as individuals and as a community, 
to succeed in today's time of transition.
The Secretary's Personal Mission: Restore the public trust by achieving 
and demonstrating competence.
Under the empowerment mission, HUD focuses on shifting: (1) From top-
down programs with flexible mandates to bottom-up, community-driven 
partnerships that demonstrate a comprehensive community development 
strategy, (2) from long-term dependence programs to those that nurture 
self-sufficiency and self-reliance, (3) from working in isolation to 
collaboration with other Federal agencies to provide vital community 
resources, (4) from working against the free market to harnessing 
market forces wherever possible to use these forces to help people 
become self-sufficient.
Under the public trust mission, HUD focuses on moving from process and 
perpetuation to performance and product. HUD will continue to 
consolidate programs and reorganize and retrain staff to align the 
agency's resources; develop and implement stringent internal controls; 
and increase program monitoring and measurement to ensure higher 
performance.
To continue efforts directed at accomplishing these two revitalizing 
missions, the Secretary has directed HUD to focus on the following 
strategic objectives that are designed to reflect the core business of 
HUD:
1. Fight for fair housing.
2. Increase affordable housing and homeownership.
3. Reduce homelessness.
4. Promote jobs and economic opportunity.
5. Empower people and communities.
6. Restore public trust.
The regulatory priorities in HUD's regulatory plan for fiscal year 1999 
and the regulations in HUD's semiannual regulatory agenda are designed 
to implement HUD's mission and address the core business of HUD. HUD's 
regulatory priorities for fiscal year 1999 may change if new 
legislation affecting HUD programs is enacted.
Regulatory Action: CDBG National Objective to Eliminate Slums or 
Blighting Conditions
This rule is designed to facilitate the redevelopment of underutilized 
property for housing or economic development purposes. The rule will 
increase CDBG recipients' flexibility to undertake activities which 
meet the national objective of preventing or eliminating slums or 
blighting conditions. The criteria for meeting the slum/blight national 
objective will be revised to specifically recognize economic 
obsolescence of buildings and the presence of environmental 
contaminants as blighting influences on an area or property.
(Furthers Strategic Objectives 2 and 4)
Regulatory Action: Clarification of the Nature of Required CDBG 
Expenditure Documentation
The rule will clarify the level of expenditure documentation that is 
needed to meet the financial management requirement that grantees and 
subrecipients maintain adequate records to identify the use of funds 
provided for assisted activities. This rule ensures better grantee and 
subrecipient accounting for all CDBG expenditures, as well as 
applicable credits to those expenditures.
(Furthers Strategic Objective 5)
Regulatory Action: Sanctions for Underreporting of Income in the 
Assisted Housing Programs
This rule is designed to promote program integrity and encourage 
housing assistance recipients to accurately report their income by 
imposing sanctions on them when they underreport their income. The 
entities that administer the low rent public housing program, the 
Section 8 housing assistance payments programs, and other HUD-
subsidized housing programs will be required to take action against 
program participants when there is a discrepancy between the amount of 
income reported by the participant and by another source that exceeds a 
threshold amount. The actions to be taken will range from reporting the 
deficiency in rental payment based on the underreported income to a 
credit bureau to garnishment of wages of the amount owed. Action will 
be taken only after the program participant has been given an 
opportunity to contest the existence and amount of a reported 
discrepancy in income, as well as being given the opportunity to 
execute a repayment agreement. The purpose of this rule is to prevent 
potential losses to HUD and taxpayers from substantial underreported 
income and to assure that worthy participants benefit from HUD housing 
programs.
(Furthers Strategic Objective 6)
Regulatory Action: Assessment of the Reasonable Revitalization of 
Certain Public Housing
On September 26, 1996, the Department published at 61 FR 50632 a notice 
to implement section 202 of the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and 
Appropriations Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-134, approved April 26, 1996) 
(OCRA). Section 202 requires PHAs to identify certain distressed public 
housing developments that cost more than Section 8 rental assistance 
and cannot be reasonably revitalized. Households in occupancy that will 
be affected by the activities will be offered tenant-based or project-
based assistance (that can include other public housing units) and will 
be relocated to other decent, safe, sanitary, and affordable housing 
which is, to the maximum extent practicable, housing of their

[[Page 61261]]

choice. After residents are relocated, the distressed developments (or 
affected buildings) for which no reasonable means of revitalization 
exists will be removed from the public housing inventory. The September 
26, 1996, notice invited public comments, which were taken into 
consideration in the interim rule published on September 22, 1997. The 
interim rule also invited public comments. The final rule to be issued 
in fiscal year 1999 will take into consideration the public comments 
received on the September 22, 1997, interim rule.
(Furthers Strategic Objectives 2 and 5)
Regulatory Action: Multifamily Housing Restructuring Program (Mark-to-
Market)--Preserving Low-Income Rental Housing While Reducing Long-Term 
Costs of Project-Based Rental Assistance
This rule implements the FHA-Insured Multifamily Housing Mortgage and 
Housing Assistance Restructuring Program. This program was enacted in 
the Department's FY 1998 Appropriations Act. The legislation gives HUD 
permanent authority to address the problem of expiring project based 
Section 8 assistance contracts. The program, which provides for 
mortgage restructuring plans, is intended to reduce long-term costs 
while maintaining the units as affordable housing.
(Furthers Strategic Objectives 2 and 6)
Regulatory Action: Public Housing Admission and Occupancy Reforms and 
Streamlining
This rule includes provisions that help make public housing a more 
desirable place to live. It provides Public Housing Agencies (PHAs) the 
authority to screen out applicants and to terminate tenancies of 
tenants who are engaged in criminal and antisocial behavior. 
Specifically, PHAs will take action against those involved in drug or 
alcohol abuse that ``may interfere with the health, safety, or right to 
peaceful enjoyment of the premises by other residents of the project'' 
or who have been evicted previously for drug-related criminal activity. 
The screening process is to include appropriate criminal background 
checks. These changes implement the Housing Opportunity Program 
Extension Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-120, 110 Stat. 834). Additional 
changes are being made to streamline the rule and to respond to 
relevant recommendations contained in the report issued by the 
statutorily created Public and Assisted Housing Occupancy Task Force.
(Furthers Strategic Objectives 2, 5, and 6)
Regulatory Action: Strengthening the Title I Property Improvement Loan 
Insurance Program
This rule would amend the Department's title I regulations to require 
that a certain amount of the proceeds of property improvement loans 
must be used for correcting code violations, health and safety defects, 
accessibility improvements, or energy improvements. This rule would 
establish time limits for completing improvements.
(Furthers Strategic Objectives 2 and 6)
Regulatory Action: Disclosure of Fees Paid to Mortgage Brokers
This rule would provide consumers with increased disclosure concerning 
the mortgage broker's function and fees and would provide mortgage 
brokers with greater clarity regarding application of the Real Estate 
Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) to mortgage broker fees. The mortgage 
brokers would be encouraged to enter into a contract with the consumer 
early in a mortgage financing transaction in order to provide the 
consumer with information about the mortgage broker's duties and 
compensation.
(Furthers Strategic Objectives 2 and 6)
Regulatory Action: Fair Housing Planning Performance Standard
This rule will assist communities in complying with the legal 
requirement to certify that they are affirmatively furthering fair 
housing. It will provide a standard by which the Department will assess 
grantees' performance in affirmatively furthering fair housing. Thus, 
communities will have a clear idea of what is expected of them and the 
standards HUD will use in reviewing their certifications.
(Furthers Strategic Objectives 1 and 5)
Regulatory Action: Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention in Certain 
Residential Structures
This rule will implement sections 1012 and 1013 of the Residential 
Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992, which establishes 
significant new requirements concerning lead-based paint hazard 
notification, evaluation, and reduction for federally owned residential 
property and housing receiving Federal assistance.
(Furthers Strategic Objective 2)
_______________________________________________________________________
HUD--Office of the Secretary (HUDSEC)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

35. SANCTIONS FOR UNDERREPORTING OF INCOME IN THE ASSISTED HOUSING 
PROGRAMS (FR-4334)
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


 42 USC 3543; 42 USC 3544; 42 USC 11901 et seq; 42 USC 3535(d)


CFR Citation:


 24 CFR 5


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rule proposes to amend HUD's regulations for disclosure and 
verification of income information submitted by participants in its 
assisted housing programs to include sanctions for inaccurate 
reporting. The amount participants pay for their housing is dependent 
on their income, and any underpayment of rent by them generally results 
in overpayment of housing assistance by HUD. This rule is being 
undertaken to assure that there are adequate measures in place to 
assure that participants in these programs will fully report their 
income and to reduce overpayments by HUD from scarce taxpayer dollars. 
It would require housing agencies or owners to take action against 
program participants when they find a discrepancy between the amount of 
annual income reported by the participant and by another reliable 
source, if the discrepancy exceeds a threshold amount.


Statement of Need:


HUD's Inspector General and the General Accounting Office (GAO) have 
indicated that HUD has not taken enough measures to assure accurate 
income reporting and housing assistance payments in its public housing 
and section 8 rental assistance programs. This finding has contributed 
to GAO's classification of HUD as a ``high risk'' agency with respect 
to financial management. This rulemaking is part of a coordinated 
effort by HUD to reduce the incidence of fraud, waste, and abuse in its 
assisted housing programs and to restore public trust in the 
Department.

[[Page 61262]]

Summary of the Legal Basis:


The statutory provision entitled, ``Preventing fraud and abuse in 
housing and urban development programs'', 42 U.S.C. 3544, requires 
periodic review of a participant's income to assure that the level of 
benefits provided under the program is correct. It authorizes use of a 
consent form to request various kind of information pertinent to the 
participant's eligibility or level of benefits, including information 
from State agencies with wage data and from the Social Security 
Administration and Internal Revenue Service.


Alternatives:


A number of initiatives were considered to reduce the incidence of 
fraud, waste, and abuse in the housing assistance programs of HUD. A 
number of them are being pursued as separate initiatives. The scope of 
this rule is to require the entities that administer HUD's assisted 
housing programs--including Federal Housing Administration insured, 
subsidized projects as well as public housing and section 8 assisted 
housing--to impose sanctions on participants found to have 
underreported their annual income by more than $3,000. The sanctions to 
be imposed are reporting of the resulting deficiency in rental payment 
to a credit bureau, charging interest and/or penalty on the amount 
owed, and--to the extent such actions are cost effective and consistent 
with State law--seeking an offset against any State income tax refund 
or garnishment of wages.
Other alternatives considered were to revise HUD regulations to 
require: (1) tenants to sign a consent from permitting the IRS to 
disclose tax data to administrators of HUD-assisted housing; (2) 
administrators to garnish the wages of Federal employees participating 
in these programs who have underreported income.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The first two actions included in the rule, credit bureau reporting and 
charging interest and penalties, are expected to involve minimal cost 
to program administrators. Reporting on debts owed to a credit bureau 
is expected to be very beneficial as an incentive to report income 
accurately, since use of credit is so pervasive in our society and 
affects even the participant's future attempts to rent a housing unit. 
The assessment of interest and/or penalties also will involve minimal 
cost to the program administrators. Its primary benefit is in 
encouraging a participant who has a rental deficiency attributable to 
underreporting of income to agree to repay the amounts owed before the 
enforcement activity reaches this stage.
The second two actions, State refund offsets and garnishment, are 
likely to involve more cost to the program administrators; hence, the 
rule permits them to be undertaken only where they are cost-effective 
for the administrator. Of the two alternatives that were considered but 
not included in the rule, the second one--limiting the garnishment 
action to Federal employees--was rejected as being unnecessarily 
limited. Instead, the garnishment option was expanded to include not 
only Federal employees but any employed person who owes a rental 
deficiency based on underreported income. The other alternative that 
was not included in the rule -- broadening the scope of entities to 
which income verification data would be revealed -- was subject to some 
policy concerns, so the rule was limited to the four initiatives.


Risks:


The rule poses no threat to public safety, health or the environment.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           11/00/98
NPRM Comment Period End                                        01/00/99
Final Action                                                   04/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local


Agency Contact:
Patricia Arnaudo
Acting Director, Occupancy Division
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Office of Public and Indian Housing
Phone: 202 619-8201
RIN: 2501-AC55
_______________________________________________________________________
HUD--HUDSEC

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

36. LEAD-BASED PAINT POISONING PREVENTION IN CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL 
STRUCTURES (FR-3482)
Priority:


Economically Significant


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Reinventing Government:


This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will 
revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline 
requirements.


Legal Authority:


 42 USC 4822; 42 USC 3535(d)


CFR Citation:


 24 CFR 35


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, January 1, 1995.


Abstract:


The Office of Lead Hazard Control was established by Congress within 
the Office of the Secretary of HUD. The Office provides overall 
direction to HUD's lead-based paint activities.
Currently, 24 CFR part 35 addresses the Department's requirements on 
lead hazards in housing. Additional requirements are specified for each 
housing program in the CFR part pertaining to each program. 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 (title X) require substantial revisions to HUD's current 
regulations for the evaluation and control of lead-based paint hazards 
in federally assisted and federally owned housing. The legislation 
evidences a concern with developing a national strategy to build the 
infrastructure necessary to eliminate lead-based paint hazards in all 
pre-1978 housing that may be occupied by young children. Because of the 
scope of the problem, the strategy will be implemented on a priority 
basis and, in part, is to be based on guidelines issued by the 
Department on August 25, 1995, on the conduct of federally supported 
work involving risk assessments inspections, interim controls and 
abatement of lead-

[[Page 61263]]

based paint hazards (``Guidelines for the Evaluation and Control of 
Lead-Based Paint Hazards in Housing''). The revisions required by title 
X will affect HUD's housing programs and the housing programs of other 
Federal agencies.
HUD is consolidating in a revised part 35 of title 24 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations the multitude of lead-based paint regulations found 
throughout HUD programs and will make them consistent, creating a 
single point of reference for the Department's lead-based paint 
requirements. Proposed regulations were published for public comment on 
June 7, 1996.


Statement of Need:


The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the American 
Academy of Pediatrics, and the National Academy of Sciences have 
labeled lead poisoning as the leading environmental health hazard 
facing America's children. Childhood lead exposure has been shown to 
cause damage to the brain and nervous system which causes behavior and 
learning problems; reduced IQ; slowed growth; hearing problems; 
hypertension and heart disease; reproductive problems for both men and 
women; kidney damage; and many other adverse health effects, in some 
cases even seizures coma, and death. These effects result in increased 
medical care costs, increased special education costs, and decreased 
lifetime earnings. The reductions in IQ appear to be irreversible, and 
because lead is stored primarily in bone, internal exposures can occur 
for decades, even if environmental exposures are controlled.
The results of CDC's third National Health and Nutrition Examination 
Survey indicate that population blood lead levels have continued to 
decrease dramatically as a result of the de-leading of gasoline and the 
elimination of lead in solder in food canning, as well as the ban on 
lead in household paint (which was effective in 1978). Nevertheless, 
CDC found that during the period 1991-1994, 4.4 percent of all American 
children aged 1-5, or 930,000 children, had blood lead levels greater 
than the CDC level of concern (10 ug/dl). CDC has concluded that the 
most serious remaining sources of lead exposure are lead in 
deteriorated paint in older housing and dust and soil contaminated by 
paint and residues from past emissions of leaded gasoline. These 
sources must be controlled to assure continued declines in childhood 
lead poisoning.
The prevalence of elevated blood lead levels is statistically 
associated with low family income, older housing, and African-American 
or Mexican-American race/ethnicity. For instance, approximately 8.6 
percent of children aged 1-5 living in housing built before 1946 had 
elevated blood lead levels during the 1991-1994 period, compared to 4.4 
percent for all children of that age. For children in low income 
families living in pre-1946 housing, the percentage was 16.4; and among 
non-Hispanic black children living in pre-1946 housing, the percentage 
was 21.9.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


Title X amends the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act (42 USC 
4822) to focus attention and resources on identifying and controlling 
lead-based paint hazards in federally assisted and federally owned 
housing before children are poisoned.


Alternatives:


The statute is generally prescriptive in requiring regulatory action to 
be taken by HUD. For certain HUD programs the Department has some 
discretion in the level of hazard evaluation and control measures to be 
undertaken. Alternatives being considered are related primarily to: (1) 
the amount of on-site work that is required for hazard evaluation and 
control; (2) targeting by year of construction; and (3) likelihood of 
occupancy by families with children.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The Department has estimated the present value of some of the major 
benefits of protecting children from lead exposure that would flow from 
first-year activities required under the regulations proposed on June 
7, 1996. These quantified benefits included increased lifetime earnings 
associated with higher IQs for children with lower blood lead levels, 
and avoided costs of special education and medical treatment. Estimated 
benefits also included market-value increases resulting from housing 
renovation associated with lead-based paint hazard controls. Using a 
three percent discount rate for lifetime earnings, total estimated 
benefits were approximately $1.5 billion; using a seven percent rate, 
the estimate was approximately $500 million. Costs of activities that 
would be newly required in the first year of the proposed regulations 
were estimated at approximately $460 million, for a net benefit of over 
$1 billion using a three percent discount rate and $40 million using 
seven percent.
Additional possible benefits not included in these estimates are: 
reduced infant mortality; reduced hypertension; improvements to 
children's stature, hearing and vitamin D metabolism; reductions in 
juvenile delinquency and the burden on the educational system; 
avoidance of the parental and family time expense and emotional costs 
of caring for poisoned children; and reductions in personal injury 
claims and court cases.
This analysis may be modified for the final rule.


Risks:


Without the regulatory changes required by title X, childhood lead 
exposures will continue at or near current levels.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            61 FR 29170                                    06/07/96
NPRM Comment Period End                                        09/05/96
Final Action                                                   01/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local, Federal


Agency Contact:
David E. Jacobs
Director, Office of Lead Hazard Control
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Office of the Secretary
Phone: 202 755-1785
RIN: 2501-AB57
_______________________________________________________________________
HUD--HUDSEC
37. MULTIFAMILY HOUSING MORTGAGE AND HOUSING ASSISTANCE RESTRUCTURING 
PROGRAM (MARK TO MARKET) AND RENEWAL OF EXPIRING SECTION 8 PROJECT-
BASED ASSISTANCE (FR-4298)
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


 12 USC 1715z-1; 42 USC 1436f note.


CFR Citation:


 24 CFR 401; 24 CFR 402

[[Page 61264]]

Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, Final rule issued by the later of 10/27/98 or 3 
months following the appointment of a Director of OMHAR.


Abstract:


This rule will implement recently enacted legislation that created a 
Mark-to-Market Program through which section 8 rents for multifamily 
projects with HUD-insured or HUD-held mortgages will be reduced in 
order to preserve low-income rental housing affordability while 
reducing the long-term costs of project-based rental assistance and 
minimizing the adverse effect on the FHA insurance funds. The rule also 
implements legislation for renewal of section 8 project-based 
assistance contracts for projects outside of the Mark-to-Market 
Program.


Statement of Need:


Regulations are necessary to implement the new authority and the 
statute requires the issuance of regulations.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


The Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 1997 
(title V of Pub.L. 105-65, approved October 27, 1997).


Alternatives:


There is no alternative. The program, created by statute, is designed 
to address the problem of expiring section 8 contracts, while 
preserving affordable housing. The statute requires the issuance of 
regulations.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The anticipated benefits are section 8 discretionary outlays are 
reduced, losses to the FHA insurance fund are reduced and affordable 
housing is preserved.


Risks:


The rule poses no threat to public safety, health, or the environment.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Final Action                                                   01/00/99
Final Action Effective                                         02/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local


Agency Contact:
Dan Sullivan
Housing Project Manager
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Office of Housing
Phone: 202 708-2121
RIN: 2501-AC57
_______________________________________________________________________
HUD--Office of Housing (OH)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

38. STRENGTHENING THE TITLE I PROPERTY IMPROVEMENT LOAN INSURANCE 
PROGRAM (FR-4246)
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


 12 USC 1703; 42 USC 1436a; 42 USC 3535(d)


CFR Citation:


 24 CFR 201


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rule proposes to amend HUD's regulations for the title I Property 
Improvement Loan Insurance Program. This rule would require that at 
least some of the loan proceeds must be used for correcting code 
violations, health and safety defects accessibility improvements, or 
energy improvements. This rule would also require the lender to certify 
that no party that is debarred or subject to a limited denial of 
participation will be involved in connection with the loan; that the 
property has been inspected and the proposed work meets the eligibility 
requirements; and that a post-completion inspection and verification of 
completion of the work has occurred. This rule would also establish 
time limits for completing improvements and streamline requirements, 
where appropriate. HUD anticipates that this rule will be finalized in 
conjunction with FR-3718.


Statement of Need:


This rule will propose changes to the title I Property Improvement Loan 
Program necessary to reflect the market and economic changes in home 
improvement lending in this country. With regard to the market, many 
new conventional no-equity or low-equity loan products have been 
introduced in the last few years. Economically, the Department wants to 
reduce fraud and abuse in the program to mitigate the financial impact 
on the FHA Insurance Fund. In addition, changes are needed to ensure 
that use of the program complies with the Congressional intent of the 
program.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


Title I of the National Housing Act, as amended.


Alternatives:


There has been too much abuse and fraud in the existing program to 
leave the current rules unchanged. Insufficient information is 
available to judge the merits and disadvantages of terminating the 
whole program.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Lenders will incur some minor additional costs for additional 
documentation and review of borrower and contractor performance. 
However, the benefits of the reduced defaults that are projected should 
offset these additional costs. A program with less fraud and abuse 
should attract additional lenders to the program making the program 
more readily available to borrowers.


Risks:


Some existing lenders have already decided to reduce their 
participation in the current program by focusing on alternative loan 
products. These changes could accelerate this situation and reduce the 
availability of title I loans in some markets.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           12/00/98
NPRM Comment Period End                                        02/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Vance Morris
Director, Home Mortgage Insurance Division
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Office of Housing
Phone: 202 708-2121
RIN: 2502-AG95

[[Page 61265]]

_______________________________________________________________________
HUD--OH

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

39. RESPA: DISCLOSURE OF FEES PAID TO RETAIL LENDERS (BROKERS) (FR-
3780)
Priority:


Economically Significant


Legal Authority:


 12 USC 2601; 42 USC 3535(d)


CFR Citation:


 24 CFR 3500


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


A final rule will provide consumers with increased disclosure 
concerning the mortgage broker's function and fees and would provide 
mortgage brokers with greater clarity regarding application of the Real 
Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) to mortgage broker fees.


Statement of Need:


Confusion about how RESPA applies to mortgage broker fees has led to 
litigation and numerous requests for clarification. The proposed rule 
was developed after receiving comments on a prior proposed rule and 
after parties to a negotiated rulemaking process, including consumer 
and industry groups, could not reach a consensus.
In order to benefit from greater clarity about permissibility of fees, 
mortgage brokers would be encouraged to provide information to the 
consumer early in a mortgage financing transaction. The information 
would include a statement regarding information about the mortgage 
broker's duties and compensation.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


The Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. 2601 et seq., 
prohibits the payment of certain fees which are unearned or for the 
referral of business. Under this rule, HUD will clarify the 
circumstances when certain fees to mortgage brokers are permissible and 
when they are prohibited under RESPA.


Alternatives:


The Department attempted to reach consensus through the negotiated 
rulemaking process, however, a consensus was not achieved.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


There are some costs for mortgage brokers associated with the 
additional disclosure. However, these may be offset by the benefits of 
greater certainty about which fees are permitted and which are 
prohibited. Consumers will benefit because increased clarity about the 
mortgage broker's rule and fees associated with the transaction will 
allow them to more effectively shop for a competitive loan.


Risks:


This rule poses no threat to public safety, health, or the environment.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            60 FR 47650                                    09/13/95
Notice          60 FR 54794                                    10/25/95
NPRM Comment Period End                                        11/13/95
Notice Comment Period End                                      11/24/95
NPRM            62 FR 53912                                    10/16/97
NPRM Comment Period End                                        12/15/97
Final Action                                                   10/00/98
Final Action Effective                                         11/00/98
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


State, Federal


Agency Contact:
David R. Williamson
Director, Office of Consumer & Regulatory Affairs
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Office of Housing
Phone: 202 708-6401
RIN: 2502-AG40
_______________________________________________________________________
HUD--Office of Community Planning and Development (CPD)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

40. CDBG SLUM/BLIGHT NATIONAL OBJECTIVE RULE (FR-4260)
Priority:


Other Significant


Reinventing Government:


This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will 
revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline 
requirements.


Legal Authority:


 42 USC 3535; 42 USC 5300 to 5320


CFR Citation:


 24 CFR 570.208; 24 CFR 570.483


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rule will be a key step in the implementation of the Department's 
Brownfields Initiative. (The Brownfields Initiative will stimulate 
economic development through the redevelopment of contaminated 
industrial properties.) It will increase Community Development Block 
Grant (CDBG) recipients' flexibility to undertake activities which meet 
the national objective of preventing or eliminating slums or blighting 
conditions. The criteria for meeting the slum/blight national objective 
will be revised to specifically recognize economic obsolescence of 
buildings and the presence of environmental contaminants as blighting 
influences on an area or property. This rule also will propose 
clarifications of the standards for meeting the slum/blight national 
objective criteria on a spot basis.


Statement of Need:


Current CDBG regulations concerning the slum/blight national objective 
only recognize the presence of physically deteriorated buildings or 
public improvements as blighting influences on an area or property. 
Professional practice and thinking in the community development field 
is evolving toward a more encompassing view of the factors which 
influence urban decay. Failure to update and streamline CDBG program 
rules would hinder grantees' efforts to redevelop underutilized 
properties and improve physical conditions in neighborhoods. At the 
same time, an audit report by the Office of the Inspector General has 
recommended that HUD consider revising its definition of what 
constitutes spot blight to resolve possible ambiguities.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


Section 104 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 
establishes certain national objectives for CDBG assisted activities. 
Among other goals, section 104 makes the prevention or elimination of 
slums or blight a national objective for the CDBG program.

[[Page 61266]]

Alternatives:


Regulations are needed to provide clear and uniform criteria for 
meeting the national objective to address the slum/blight issue.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Costs: None. Benefits: Grantees will gain the flexibility to use CDBG 
funds to assist in redeveloping a larger universe of properties whose 
conditions negatively influence the condition of the surrounding area.


Risks:


This rule poses no threat to public safety, health or the environment. 
Any cleanup of contaminated sites will be governed by existing Federal 
and State standards for environmental remediation.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           12/00/98
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local


Agency Contact:
Steve Johnson
Director, State and Small Cities Division
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Office of Community Planning and Development
Phone: 202 708-1322
RIN: 2506-AB94
_______________________________________________________________________
HUD--CPD
41. CLARIFICATION OF THE NATURE OF REQUIRED CDBG EXPENDITURE 
DOCUMENTATION (FR-4261)
Priority:


Other Significant


Reinventing Government:


This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will 
revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline 
requirements.


Legal Authority:


 42 USC 3535 (d); 42 USC 5300 to 5320


CFR Citation:


 24 CFR 570.200; 24 CFR 570.502; 24 CFR 570.506


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rule will clarify the level of expenditure documentation that is 
needed to meet the financial management requirement that grantees and 
subrecipients maintain adequate records to identify the use of funds 
provided for assisted activities.


Statement of Need:


Office of Inspector General (OIG) audits have found various cases in 
which grantees and subrecipients were not maintaining sufficient 
documentation to clearly identify the actual use of CDBG funds provided 
to assisted projects. This issue has particularly arisen in regard to 
special economic development projects where the funds are ultimately 
expended by for-profit businesses. Such findings increase the potential 
for misuse of CDBG funds.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


Section 104 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 
provides the statutory authority for this rule.


Alternatives:


None considered.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Costs: None. Benefits: The public will be more assured that CDBG funds 
are used only for allowable purposes.


Risks:


This rule poses no threat to public safety, health or the environment.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           12/00/98
Comment Period End                                             02/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Local


Agency Contact:
Deirdre Maguire-Zinni
Director, Entitlement Communities Division
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Office of Community Planning and Development
Phone: 202 708-1577
RIN: 2506-AB95
_______________________________________________________________________
HUD--Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

42. FAIR HOUSING PLANNING PERFORMANCE STANDARD (FR-4133)
Priority:


Other Significant


Reinventing Government:


This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will 
revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline 
requirements.


Legal Authority:


 42 USC 3535(d); 42 USC 3600 to 3620


CFR Citation:


 24 CFR 91; 24 CFR 570


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rule will assist communities in complying with the legal 
requirement to certify that they are affirmatively furthering fair 
housing. It will provide a standard for determining the accuracy of the 
certification so that communities will have a clear idea of what is 
expected of them and how HUD will review their certifications as well 
as measure performance for determining compliance with fair housing 
requirements.


Statement of Need:


Currently, the CDBG regulation provides for HUD review and oversight. 
However, the regulation does not contain a performance standard for 
grantee actions to affirmatively further fair housing. Without such a 
performance standard, HUD cannot adequately assess compliance with fair 
housing requirements. This revision to the existing CDBG regulation 
would provide a clearer standard for assessing performance of grantee 
actions to affirmatively further fair housing.
Furthermore, the Consolidated Plan regulations at 24 CFR part 91 
require grantees to certify that they are affirmatively furthering fair 
housing. This will provide a standard for determining the accuracy of 
the certification.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


Section 104 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974,

[[Page 61267]]

HUD's regulations at 24 CFR part 570, subpart O, section 105 of the 
Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act and HUD's regulations 
at 24 CFR part 91 establish the legal basis for this rule.


Alternatives:


None considered.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Costs: None.
Benefit: The benefit is that there will be more certainty for grantees 
about the standards that HUD will use to review their certifications 
and assess performance.


Risks:


This rule poses no threat to public safety, health, or the environment.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           11/00/98
NPRM Comment Period End                                        01/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local


Agency Contact:
Deirdre Maguire-Zinni
Director, Entitlement Communities Division
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Office of Community Planning and Development
Phone: 202 708-1577
RIN: 2529-AA81
_______________________________________________________________________
HUD--Office of Public and Indian Housing (PIH)

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

43. PUBLIC HOUSING ADMISSION AND OCCUPANCY REFORMS AND STREAMLINING 
(FR-4084)
Priority:


Other Significant


Reinventing Government:


This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will 
revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline 
requirements.


Legal Authority:


 42 USC 1437a; 42 USC 1437c; 42 USC 1437d; 42 USC 1437n; 42 USC 3535(d)


CFR Citation:


 24 CFR 960; 24 CFR 966


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rule streamlines admission and occupancy regulations, and 
implements relevant parts of the Housing Opportunity Program Extension 
Act of 1996.
Additional administrative flexibility is provided to housing 
authorities through this rule: HAs can verify information about an 
applicant's disability to determine appropriate accommodations, to 
verify information relative to qualification for a preference, and to 
determine deductions for calculating adjusted income. It clarifies that 
the HA makes the final determination of whether an applicant's failure 
to meet the HA's tenant selection criteria is outweighed with respect 
to these issues. The rule also provides explicit authorization for HAs 
to adopt income limits for continued occupancy and removes language 
that required a tenant's approval for direct payment of a utility 
reimbursement to a utility provider.
The Housing Opportunity Program Extension Act of 1996 amended the U.S. 
Housing Act of 1937 to make drug-related criminal activity a criterion 
for denial of admission to housing assisted under the 1937 Act and make 
drug use and/or alcohol abuse a criterion for eviction from housing 
assisted under the 1937 Act.


Statement of Need:


On March 4, 1995, President Clinton issued a memorandum to all Federal 
departments and agencies regarding regulatory reinvention. In response 
to this memorandum, HUD determined that the regulations under 24 CFR 
parts 960 and 966 could be improved and streamlined by eliminating 
unnecessary language and by simplifying remaining requirements. On 
March 28, 1996, the Housing Opportunity Program Extension Act of 1996 
was passed.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


The Housing Opportunity Program Extension Act of 1996 and the U.S. 
Housing Act of 1937, as amended.


Alternatives:


None considered.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


This rule will have the benefit of increasing administrative 
flexibility for housing authorities. Additional costs will be 
negligible.


Risks:


This rule does not pose a risk to public health, safety, or the 
environment.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            62 FR 25728                                    05/09/97
NPRM Comment Period End                                        07/08/97
Final Action                                                   12/00/98
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local


Agency Contact:
Patricia Arnaudo
Acting Director, Occupancy Division
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Office of Public and Indian Housing
Phone: 202 619-8201
RIN: 2577-AB67
_______________________________________________________________________
HUD--PIH
44. ASSESSMENT OF THE REASONABLE REVITALIZATION POTENTIAL OF CERTAIN 
PUBLIC HOUSING REQUIRED BY LAW (FR-4120)
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


 PL 104-134 Sec. 202 of the OCRA of 1996


CFR Citation:


 24 CFR 971


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


Section 202 of the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions Act (OCRA) of 1996 
requires PHAs to identify certain distressed public housing 
developments which may be required to be converted to section 8 
vouchers or certificates. The requirement covers developments that are 
on the same or contiguous sites, are more expensive

[[Page 61268]]

than tenant-based assistance, and cannot be revitalized through 
reasonable programs. To be subject to these requirements, the 
developments must have more than 300 dwelling units and have a vacancy 
rate of at least ten percent for dwelling units not in funded on-
schedule modernization programs.


Statement of Need:


Based on public comments received, the rule provides further 
information on statutory provisions that are already in effect through 
a notice published on September 26, 1996, and an interim rule published 
on September 22, 1997.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


Section 202 of the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions Act of 1996 
requires PHAs to identify certain distressed public housing 
developments that will be required to be replaced with tenant-based 
assistance if they cannot be revitalized by any reasonable means.


Alternatives:


None considered.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The rule will have the benefit of speeding and making more rational the 
reduction and restructuring of the public housing inventory. Additional 
costs to the PHA or to HUD would be negligible.


Risks:


The rule poses no risk to public health, safety, or to the environment. 
A Finding of No Significant Impact with respect to the environment has 
been made in accordance with HUD regulations at 24 CFR part 50 that 
implement section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 
1969, 42 U.S.C. 4332. To the extent the new rule hastened the reduction 
of non-viable units it would improve public health and safety.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Interim Final Ru62 FR 49572                                    09/22/97
Interim Final Rule Effective                                   10/22/97
Interim Final Rule Comment Period End                          11/21/97
Final Action                                                   02/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local


Agency Contact:
Rod J. Solomon, Senior Director
Office of Policy, Program and Legislative Initiatives
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Office of Public and Indian Housing
Phone: 202 708-0713
RIN: 2577-AB79
BILLING CODE 4210-01-F

[[Page 61269]]

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR (DOI)
Statement of Regulatory Priorities
The Department of the Interior (DOI) is the principal steward of 
natural resources for the American public and serves as trustee to 
Native Americans and Alaska Natives. In total the Department manages 
more than 450 million acres of Federal lands, approximately 3 billion 
acres of the Outer Continental Shelf, and more than 57,000 buildings. 
Also, DOI has a directorate responsible for activities concerning 
island territories under the jurisdiction of the United States. In 
carrying out its many responsiblities in conservation, land management, 
natural resource protection, and as trustee, the Department has 
increasingly embraced creative options to ensure the long-term 
viability of our resources and the environment in which they are found. 
The Department has used the same creative approach to maximize benefits 
to society and minimize negative effects.
DOI is also the steward of many of our Nation's cultural resources and 
serves as trustee to Native Americans and Alaska Natives.
Interior's bureaus and offices seek to ease the burdens imposed by 
regulations while increasing the protection of resources under their 
jurisdiction. Examples of this include:
 Establishing a community approach to maintaining the 
            environmental systems which support native species. The 
            expected result is a reduction in the rate by which 
            individual species become threatened and endangered. This 
            approach enlists the voluntary support of land owners to 
            achieve environmental goals while potentially reducing the 
            regulatory cost.
 Using performance-based regulations rather than process-based 
            regulations. This gives local entities the option of using 
            the most cost effective method to meet the spirit and 
            letter of the law while providing the best result tailored 
            to the specific instance and location.
 Incorporating scientific standards, where applicable into 
            regulations.
 Continuing to reduce the number of regulations and converting 
            those that remain to plain language. This will improve the 
            public's ability to understand regulatory requirements and 
            will result in improved compliance.
The Department's overall goal is to maintain or improve the quality of 
the environment while:
 Reducing the financial burden on the general public;
 Increasing the flexibility of the public to use the best means 
            available to ensure that the laws are met; and
 Making regulations easy to understand and administer.
This approach to improving regulations will help DOI better execute its 
mission and meet the requirements of the eight bureaus and the 
following objectives:
 Conserve, protect, and enhance the Nation's national parks, 
            wilderness, and fish and wildlife resources;
 Manage, develop, and protect the quality of water resources;
 Promote economic opportunity and improve the trust assets of 
            Native Americans, Native American tribes, Alaska Natives, 
            and people of the U.S. territorial governments; and
 Enhance America's ability to meet its needs for domestic 
            energy and mineral resources.
Major Regulatory Areas
Among the Department's bureaus and offices, the Office of Surface 
Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) has the highest concentration 
of regulatory responsibilities. OSM, in partnership with the States and 
Indian tribes, has the responsibility for setting and enforcing 
environmental standards during coal mining and reclamation operations. 
OSM is considering an innovative approach to facilitate the reclamation 
of abandoned mine lands by allowing the party conducting the 
reclamation to offset the cost of reclamation through the sale of coal 
extracted as an incidental part of the reclamation project.
Other DOI bureaus rely on regulations to implement legislatively 
mandated programs by focusing on the management of natural resources 
and public or trust lands. Some of these regulatory activities include:
 Management of migratory birds and preservation of certain 
            marine mammals and endangered species;
 Management of dedicated lands, such as national parks, 
            wildlife refuges, and American Indian trust lands;
 Management of public lands open to multiple use;
 Leasing and oversight of development of Federal energy, 
            minerals, and renewable resources;
 Management of revenues from American Indian and Federal 
            minerals;
 Fulfillment of trust and other responsibilities pertaining to 
            American Indian tribes;
 Natural resource damage assessments; and
 Management of financial and nonfinancial assistance programs.
Regulatory Policy
How DOI Regulatory Procedures Relate to the Administration's Regulatory 
Policies
Within the general requirements and guidance in Executive Orders 12866, 
12612, and 12630, DOI's regulatory program seeks to:
 Fulfill all legal requirements as specified by statutes or 
            court orders;
 Perform essential functions that cannot be handled by non-
            Federal entities;
 Minimize regulatory costs to society while maximizing societal 
            benefits; and
 Operate programs openly, efficiently, and in cooperation with 
            Federal and non-Federal entities.
DOI bureaus have taken the initiative in working with other Federal 
agencies, non-Federal government agencies, and public entities to make 
DOI regulations easier to comply with and understand. Because 
regulatory reform is a continuing process that requires the 
participation of all affected parties, DOI is continually enhancing its 
efforts to include affected entities in the decisionmaking process and 
to better coordinate the rulemaking process.
In order to facilitate better overall management and review of the 
regulatory process, DOI revised Part 318 of the Departmental Manual 
(318 DM), the Department's comprehensive and definitive guidance on 
promulgating regulations. Results have included:
 Increased awareness by the bureaus of responsibilities under 
            the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
            (SBREFA) and the incorporation of the requirements of 
            SBREFA into new and updated rules and regulations;
 A Departmentwide effort to evaluate the economic impacts of 
            rules and regulations that are planned; and
 Issuance of new guidance in the Departmental Manual to ensure 
            the use of plain language in Government writing.
DOI is committed to improving the regulatory process through the use of 
plain English, and simplifying regulations has resulted in a major 
rewrite of the regulations for onshore oil and gas leasing and 
operations in an easily understandable form that: a) Puts previously 
published rules into one location in a logical sequence; b) eliminates 
duplication by consolidating existing regulations and onshore orders 
and national notices to lessees; c)

[[Page 61270]]

incorporates industry standards by reference; and d) implements 
performance standards in some of the operating regulations.
DOI's regulatory process ensures that bureaus responsible for 
regulations share ideas on how to reduce regulatory burden while 
meeting the requirements of the laws they enforce and improving their 
stewardship of the environment and resources under their purview.
Encouraging Responsible Management of the Nation's Resources
The Department's mission is to protect and provide access to our 
Nation's natural and cultural heritage and to honor our trust 
responsibilities to tribes. DOI is committed to this mission and to 
applying laws and regulations fairly and effectively. The Department's 
priorities are compliance, enforcement, prevention, solving problems, 
and protecting public health and safety. To this end, DOI bureaus 
encourage users of public resources to adopt long-term strategies 
designed to meet current needs while preserving resources for future 
generations.
An example of this is the ``no suprises'' policy of the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service (FWS). This policy gives property owners an incentive 
to implement voluntary conservation measures for a proposed or 
candidate species, or a species likely to become a candidate or 
proposed in the near future. These property owners will receive 
assurances from FWS that additional conservation measures will not be 
required and additional land, water, or resource use restrictions will 
not be imposed should the species become listed in the future. This 
policy results in fewer fines, no ``suprises'' (in the form of 
unexpected fines) for conforming landowners, and better overall 
compliance with the Endangered Species Act.
Minimizing Regulatory Burdens
DOI is using the regulatory process to ease the burdens on various 
entities throughout the country. For instance, the Endangered Species 
Act (ESA) allows for the delisting of threatened and endangered species 
if they no longer need the protection of the ESA. DOI has identified 
approximately 40 species for which delisting or downlisting 
(reclassification from endangered to threatened) may be appropriate. In 
FY 99, DOI intends to delist the American peregrine falcon (due to 
species recovery) and the Dismal Swamp southeastern shrew (due to new 
information regarding the taxonomy and abundance of the species).
Experience has shown us that changing the planning process for land use 
and water development can reduce unnecessary delays and paperwork 
associated with agency decisionmaking. For some projects, an improved 
planning process has dramatically reduced the time required for 
paperwork.
We have attempted to use performance standards in a variety of 
regulations. These allow the affected entity to choose the most 
economical method to accomplish a goal provided it meets the 
requirements of the regulations. An example of this is Minerals 
Management Service's (MMS) proposed training rule, which will allow 
companies with operations in the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) to 
select their own training courses or programs for employees. Currently 
MMS has a prescriptive program where employees working on the OCS must 
attend an MMS-certified school. This rule will put the responsibility 
on lessees and contractors to properly train the employees by any 
method they choose as long as the employees are competent. We 
anticipate that this will result in new and innovative training 
techniques and allow companies added flexibility in tailoring their 
training to employees' specific duties.
Encouraging Public Participation and Involvement in the Regulatory 
Procedure Process
One of the goals of Executive Order 12866 is to ensure that the public 
has adequate opportunities to participate in developing new 
regulations. Under this Administration, encouraging increased public 
participation in the regulatory process to make regulatory policies 
more responsive to our customers' needs is a priority.
The Department is reaching out to communities to seek their input on a 
variety of regulatory issues. For example, every year the FWS 
establishes migratory bird hunting seasons in partnership with ``flyway 
councils,'' which are made up of State fish and wildlife agencies. As 
the process evolves each year, FWS holds a series of public meetings to 
give other interested parties, including hunters and other groups, 
adequate opportunity to participate in establishing the upcoming 
season's regulations.
Likewise, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) uses Resource Advisory 
Councils (RACs) made up of affected parties to help prepare the 
regulations promulgated under the Rangeland Reform Act.
We also encourage public consultation in the regulatory process. For 
example:
 OSM is continuing its outreach to interested groups to improve 
            the substance and quality of rules and, to the greatest 
            extent possible, achieve a consensus on regulatory issues;
 The National Park Service (NPS) used negotiated rulemaking to 
            amend its rules governing off-road vehicle use at Cape Cod 
            National Seashore; and
 The Bureau of Indian Affairs is developing its roads program 
            rule using the negotiated rulemaking process. Because of 
            the importance of the roads program to the individual 
            tribes and because of the varying needs of the tribal 
            governments, the negotiated rulemaking process will result 
            in a rule that better serves the diverse needs of the 
            Native American community.
The Future of DOI
In compliance with the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 
(GPRA), DOI has developed a comprehensive agencywide strategic plan to 
prepare DOI for the 21st century. The strategic plan covers the period 
from 1997 through 2002. It provides employees and managers with clear 
goals and strategies to help the Department meet its mission and 
fulfill its commitment to the Nation. The strategic plan includes a 
departmental overview, goals, and initiatives for the indivdual 
bureaus. We believe that this plan must evolve in response to the 
changing natural and human environments. For this reason, DOI bureaus 
have already begun their strategic plans to respond to those changes 
and to prepare for others that may take place in the future.
A copy of DOI's strategic plan (including updates that have been made 
during FY 1998) can be seen on our web site at this address:
http://www.doi.gov/master2.html
Bureaus and Offices Within DOI
The following are brief descriptions of the regulatory functions of 
DOI's major regulatory bureaus and offices.
Office of the Secretary, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance
The regulatory functions of the Office of Environmental Policy and 
Compliance (OEPC) stem from requirements under section 301(c) of the 
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability

[[Page 61271]]

Act of 1980, as amended (CERCLA). Section 301(c) requires the 
development of natural resource damage assessment rules and the 
biennial review and revision, as appropriate, of these rules. Rules 
have been promulgated for the optional use of natural resource trustees 
to assess compensation for damages to natural resources caused by 
hazardous substances. OEPC is overseeing the study and possible 
promulgation of additional rules pursuant to section 301(c)(2) and the 
review and possible revision of the existing rules in compliance with 
section 301(c)(3).
In undertaking DOI's responsibilities under section 301(c), OEPC is 
striving to meet three regulatory objectives: (a) That the minimum 
amount of regulation necessary be developed; (b) that the assessment 
process provide for tailoring to specific discharges or releases; and 
(c) that the process not be considered punitive, but rather a system to 
achieve fair and just compensation for injuries sustained.
Bureau of Indian Affairs
The philosophy of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) is to encourage 
the development and management of human and other resources among 
American Indians and Alaska Natives, to encourage tribal assumption of 
BIA programs, and to fulfill trust and other responsibilities of the 
U.S. Government. BIA regulatory actions serve to balance its dual role 
as: (a) Advocate in assisting tribes and encouraging their 
participation in BIA programs and (b) trustee protecting and/or 
enhancing American Indian trust resources.
Important BIA programs are promulgated through regulations, rather than 
informal guidelines, so that American Indians are aware of and have an 
opportunity to participate in the development of standards and 
procedures affecting them. BIA regulatory policies seek to accomplish 
the following: (a) Ensure consistent policies throughout American 
Indian country; (b) promote American Indian involvement in the 
operation, management, planning, and evaluation of BIA programs and 
services; (c) provide guidance to applicants for BIA services; and (d) 
govern the development of American Indian lands and provide for the 
protection of American Indian treaty and statutory rights.
BIA's regulatory program is designed (a) to promote American Indian 
self-determination, (b) to provide American Indians and Alaska Natives 
with high-quality education and tribal development opportunities, (c) 
to meet BIA's trust responsibilities, and (d) to meet the needs of 
tribes and their members.
Bureau of Land Management
The Bureau of Land Management manages about 268 million acres of land 
surface and about 570 million acres of mineral estate in the 17 
coterminous western States and Alaska and the 31 States east of or 
adjoining the Mississippi River. These lands consist of extensive 
grasslands, forests, mountains, arctic tundra, and deserts. Resources 
on the lands include energy and minerals, timber, forage, wild horse 
and burro populations, habitat for fish and wildlife, wilderness areas, 
and archeological and cultural sites. BLM manages these lands and 
resources for multiple use and the sustained yield of renewable 
resources. Primary statutes under which the Agency must operate 
include: The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976; the 
General Mining Law of 1872; the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as 
amended; the Recreation and Public Purposes Act; the Taylor Grazing 
Act; and the Wild, Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act.
The regulatory program mirrors statutory responsibilities and Agency 
objectives. Agency objectives include:
 Providing for a wide variety of public uses without 
            compromising the long-term health and diversity of the land 
            and without sacrificing significant natural, cultural, and 
            historical resource values;
 Understanding the arid, semi-arid, arctic, and other 
            ecosystems we manage and committing to using the best 
            scientific and technical information to make resource 
            management decisions;
 Understanding the needs of the public that use BLM-managed 
            lands and providing them with quality service;
 Committing to recovering a fair return for using publicly 
            owned resources and avoiding the creation of long-term 
            liabilities for American taxpayers; and
 Resolving problems and implementing decisions in cooperation 
            with other agencies, States, tribal governments, and the 
            public.
The regulatory program contains its own objectives. These include 
preparing regulations that:
 Are the product of coordination and consultation with all 
            affected members of the public;
 Are understandable to the general public, especially those to 
            whom they are directly applicable; and
 Are reviewed periodically to determine whether or not BLM 
            still needs them and whether or not they need to be updated 
            to reflect statutory and policy changes.
Minerals Management Service
The Minerals Management Service (MMS) has two major responsibilities: 
(1) Timely and accurate collecting, distributing, accounting for, and 
auditing of revenues owed by holders of Federal onshore, offshore, and 
tribal land mineral leases in a manner that meets or exceeds Federal 
financial integrity requirements and recipient expectations and (2) 
management of the resources of the Outer Continental Shelf in a manner 
that provides for safety, protection of the environment, and 
conservation of natural resources. These responsibilities are carried 
out under the provisions of the Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management 
Act, the Minerals Leasing Act, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, 
the Indian Mineral Leasing Act, and other related statutes.
The regulatory philosophy of MMS is to develop clear, enforceable rules 
that support the missions of each program. For the Offshore Program, 
MMS will issue final regulations implementing the Deep Water Royalty 
Relief Act. MMS will also publish a final rule to address financial 
responsibility under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. MMS will continue 
to review rules and issue amendments in response to new technology and 
new industry practices.
MMS also plans to continue its review of existing regulations and to 
issue rules to refine the royalty management regulations in chapter II 
of 30 CFR. Revisions to the royalty management regulations cover oil 
and gas valuation of Federal and Indian leases. The Federal Oil and Gas 
Royalty Simplification and Fairness Act of 1996 will require numerous 
additional changes to the royalty management regulations, including the 
delegation of royalty collection and related activities to States.
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) was 
created by the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 
(SMCRA) 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.''
The principal regulatory provisions contained in title V of SMCRA set 
minimum requirements for obtaining a

[[Page 61272]]

permit for surface coal mining operations, set standards for surface 
coal mining operations, require land reclamation once mining ends, and 
require rules and enforcement procedures to ensure that the standards 
are met. Under SMCRA, OSM serves as the primary enforcer of SMCRA until 
the States achieve ``primacy''; that is, until they demonstrate that 
their regulatory programs meet all the specifications in SMCRA and have 
regulations consistent with those issued by OSM.
A primacy State takes over the permitting, inspection, and enforcement 
activities of the Federal Government. OSM then changes its role from 
regulating mining activities directly to overseeing and evaluating 
State programs. Today, 24 of the 27 key coal-producing States have 
primacy. In return for assuming primacy, States are entitled to 
regulatory grants and to grants for reclaiming abandoned mine lands. In 
addition, under cooperative agreements, some primacy States have agreed 
to regulate mining on Federal lands within their borders. Thus, OSM 
regulates mining directly only in nonprimacy States, on Federal lands 
in States where no cooperative agreements are in effect, and on 
American Indian lands.
SMCRA charges OSM with the responsibility of publishing rules as 
necessary to carry out the purposes of the Act. The most fundamental 
mechanism for ensuring that the purposes of SMCRA are achieved is the 
basic policy and guidance established through OSM's permanent 
regulatory program and related rulemakings. Its regulatory framework is 
developed, reviewed, and applied according to policy directives and 
legal requirements.
Litigation by the coal industry and environmental groups is responsible 
for some of the rules now being considered by OSM. Others are the 
result of efforts by OSM to address areas of concern that have arisen 
during the course of implementing OSM's regulatory program, and one is 
the result of legislation.
OSM has sought to develop an economical, safe, and environmentally 
sound program for the surface mining of coal by providing a stable and 
consistent regulatory framework.
At the same time, however, OSM has recognized the need (a) to respond 
to local conditions, (b) to provide flexibility to react to 
technological change, (c) to be sensitive to geographic diversity, and 
(d) to eliminate burdensome recordkeeping and reporting requirements 
that over time have proved unnecessary to ensure an effective 
regulatory program.
Major regulatory objectives regarding the mining of surface coal 
include:
 Continuing outreach activities with interested groups during 
            the rulemaking process to increase the quality of the 
            rulemaking process, improve the substance of the rules, 
            and, to the greatest extent possible, reflect consensus on 
            regulatory issues;
 Minimizing the recordkeeping and regulatory compliance burden 
            during rulemaking; and
 Publishing final rules to implement the Energy Policy Act of 
            1992, Public Law 102-486.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has three basic mission objectives:
 To assist in the development and application of an 
            environmental stewardship ethic based on ecological 
            principles and scientific knowledge of fish and wildlife;
 To guide the conservation, development, and management of the 
            Nation's fish and wildlife resources; and
 To administer a national program to provide the public with 
            opportunities to understand, appreciate, and wisely use 
            fish and wildlife resources.
These objectives are met through the following regulatory programs:
 Management of Service lands, primarily national wildlife 
            refuges;
 Management of migratory bird resources;
 Conservation of certain marine mammals and endangered species;
 Allowance of certain activities that would otherwise be 
            prohibited by law; and
 Administration of grant and assistance programs.
The Service maintains a comprehensive set of regulations in the first 
category--those that govern public access, use, and recreation on more 
than 500 national wildlife refuges and in national fish hatcheries. 
Such uses are authorized only if they are compatible with the purpose 
for which each area was established, are consistent with State and 
local laws where practicable, and afford the public economic and 
recreational opportunity as appropriate. These regulations are 
developed and continually reviewed for improvements, with a substantial 
amount of public input, and are typically of limited geographical 
interest.
Management of migratory bird resources is covered by the second 
category of regulations, required by various international treaties. 
Annually, the Department issues a regulation on migratory bird hunting 
seasons and bag limits, developed in partnership with the States, 
American Indian tribal governments, and the Canadian Wildlife Service. 
Although issued annually, regulations such as these have been in 
existence for more than 50 years and have not significantly changed 
over that period of time. The regulations are necessary to permit 
migratory bird hunting that would otherwise be prohibited. Although 
recent declines in waterfowl populations have reduced the numbers of 
such birds that may be harvested, the regulations generally do not 
change significantly from one year to another.
The third category includes regulations to fulfill the statutory 
obligation to identify and conserve species faced with extinction. The 
basis for determining endangered species is limited by law to 
biological considerations, although priorities for allocating Service 
resources are established consistent with the President's policies (by 
directing the Service's efforts to species most threatened and those 
whose protection is of the most benefit to the natural resource). 
Included in this program are regulations to enhance the conservation of 
listed species and of marine mammals for which DOI has management 
responsibility. This program also contains regulations that provide 
guidance to other Federal agencies to assist them in complying with 
section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, which requires them not to 
conduct activities that would jeopardize the existence of endangered 
species or adversely modify critical habitat of listed species. In 
designating critical habitat, the Service considers biological 
information and economic and other impacts of the designation. Areas 
may be excluded from the designation where the benefits of exclusion 
outweigh the benefits of inclusion, provided that the exclusion will 
not result in the extinction of the species.
The fourth category--the Service's regulatory program that permits 
activities otherwise prohibited by law--entails regulating possession, 
sale or trade, scientific research, and educational activities 
involving fish and wildlife and their parts or products. Generally, 
these regulations are supplemental to State protective regulations and 
cover activities that

[[Page 61273]]

involve interstate or foreign commerce, which must comply with various 
laws and international obligations. The Service is continually working 
with foreign and State governments, the industry and individuals 
affected, and other interested parties to minimize the burdens 
associated with Service-related activities. The easing of such burdens 
through regulatory actions continues to balance the benefits that may 
be made available with the necessity to ensure adequate protection to 
the natural resource. Most of the regulatory activities are permissive 
in nature, and the concerns of the public generally center on technical 
issues.
The last category--the Service's assistance programs--includes a 
limited number of regulations necessary to ensure that assistance 
recipients comply with applicable laws and Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) Circulars. Regulations in this program help the affected 
parties to obtain assistance and to comply with requirements imposed by 
Congress and OMB.
National Park Sevice
The National Park Service is dedicated to conserving the natural and 
cultural resources and values of the National Park System for the 
enjoyment, education, and inspiration of this and future generations. 
The Service is also responsible for managing a great variety of 
national and international programs designed to help extend the 
benefits of natural and cultural resource conservation and outdoor 
recreation throughout this country and the world.
There are more than 375 units in the National Park System, including 
national parks and monuments; scenic parkways, preserves, trails, 
riverways, seashores, lakeshores, and recreation areas; and historic 
sites associated with important movements, events, and personalities of 
the American past.
The National Park Service develops and implements park management plans 
and staffs the areas under its administration. It relates the natural 
values and historical significance of these areas to the public through 
talks, tours, films, exhibits, and other interpretive media. It 
operates campgrounds and other visitor facilities and provides, usually 
through concessions, lodging, food, and transportation services in many 
areas.
The National Park Service also administers the following programs: The 
State portion of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, Nationwide 
Outdoor Recreation coordination and information and State comprehensive 
outdoor recreation planning, planning and technical assistance for the 
National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, and the National Trails System, 
natural area programs, the National Register of Historic Places, 
national historic landmarks, historic preservation, technical 
preservation services, Historic American Buildings survey, Historic 
American Engineering Record, and interagency archeological services.
The National Park Service maintains a set of regulations that help 
manage public use, access, and recreation in units of the National Park 
System. The Service provides visitor and resource protection to ensure 
public safety and prevent derogation of resources. The regulatory 
program develops and reviews regulations, maintaining consistency with 
State and local laws, to allow such uses only if they are compatible 
with the purpose for which each area was established.
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, Reclamation applies management, engineering, and scientific 
skills that result in effective and environmentally sensitive 
solutions.
Reclamation projects provide for some or all of the following 
concurrent purposes: 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.
The Bureau's regulatory program is designed to ensure that its mission 
is carried out expeditiously and efficiently.
_______________________________________________________________________
DOI--Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

45. TRIBAL SELF-GOVERNANCE
Priority:


Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.


Legal Authority:


 PL 103-413


CFR Citation:


 25 CFR 1000


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rule will clarify how the Department and tribes will carry out 
their respective responsibilities under the Tribal Self-Governance Act 
of 1994. At the request of a majority of Indian tribes with self-
governance agreements, the Secretary has established a negotiated 
rulemaking committee to negotiate and promulgate such regulations as 
are necessary to carry out the Act.


Statement of Need:


The Department of the Interior (DOI) needs to clarify how it and the 
tribes will carry out their respective responsibilities under the 
Tribal Self-Governance Act of 1994. Provisions are needed to clarify or 
establish:
- Procedures for conducting negotiations, defining stable base budgets, 
time lines for the transfer of funds for tribes, and the amount of 
residual funds to be retained;
- The processes for accepting new tribes into the self-governance 
program planning and negotiation process, for awarding planning and 
negotiation grants, for approving waiver requests, and for determining 
and negotiating tribal shares of BIA and eligible non-BIA programs;
- Mechanisms for reviewing tribal trust functions;
- Retrocession procedures;
- Procedures for ensuring that proper health and safety standards exist 
in construction projects and are included in annual funding agreements;
- Reporting requirements of tribes and DOI; and
- A mechanism for negotiating the inclusion of specific provisions of 
Federal procurement regulations into annual funding agreements.
DOI expects that the rulemaking process will identify other components 
of the program that require clarification.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


The Tribal Self-Governance Act of 1994 requires DOI, upon request of a 
majority of self-governance tribes, to negotiate and promulgate 
regulations to carry out the tribal self-governance program. The Act 
calls for a negotiated rulemaking committee under 5 USC

[[Page 61274]]

565, composed of Federal and tribal representatives, with a majority of 
the tribal representatives from self-governance tribes. The Act also 
authorizes DOI to adapt negotiated rulemaking procedures to the unique 
context of self-governance and the government-to-government 
relationship between the United States and the Indian tribes. On 
November 1, 1994, a majority of self-governance tribes wrote the 
Secretary requesting the immediate initiation of negotiated rulemaking.


Alternatives:


There is a range of alternatives for each of the program components, 
from maintaining discretion and flexibility at the local level to 
standardizing requirements and procedures on the national level.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The rule is expected to promote greater efficiency of Federal and 
tribal government operations. It is also expected to reduce opportunity 
costs resulting from untimely Federal actions. The rule will improve 
the ability of Federal and tribal governments to plan their self-
governance activities. This should lead to greater stability of 
operations. Clarifying procedures for conducting operations will 
improve the ability of governments to plan for the time and cost of 
conducting negotiations. Clarifying time lines for transfer of base 
funding and other funds to tribes will improve planning and reduce the 
opportunity costs resulting from the untimely transfer of funds under 
the self-governance program. Budget and operation planning will be 
improved by specifying the process for accepting additional tribes into 
the self-governance program planning and negotiating process as well as 
the process for awarding planning and negotiation grants. Since 
retrocession procedures will be specified, governments will be better 
able to plan for retrocessions. Standardization of tribal shares will 
allow the self-governance program to comply with statutory requirements 
not to limit or reduce the services, contracts, or funds that any other 
Indian tribe or tribal organization is eligible to receive.


Risks:


By removing uncertainty and promoting a more stable framework for the 
program, the rule will greatly lower the risk of not achieving the 
stated goals of tribal self-governance. It will change the role of 
Federal agencies that serve tribes by shifting their responsibilities 
from day-to-day management of tribal affairs to those concerned with 
protecting and advocating tribal interests.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Notice of Intent60 FR 8806ish a Negotiated Rulemaking Committee02/15/95
NPRM            63 FR 7202                                     02/12/98
Final Action                                                   12/00/98
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Governmental Jurisdictions


Government Levels Affected:


Tribal, Federal


Agency Contact:
Kenneth D. Reinfeld
Senior Program/Policy Analyst
Department of the Interior
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Phone: 202 219-0240
RIN: 1076-AD20
_______________________________________________________________________
DOI--Minerals Management Service (MMS)

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

46. VALUATION OF OIL FROM FEDERAL MINERAL LEASES
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


 30 USC 181 et seq; 30 USC 351 et seq; 30 USC 1701 et seq; 30 USC 1001 
et seq; 43 USC 1301 et seq; 43 USC 1331 et seq; 43 USC 1801 et seq


CFR Citation:


 30 CFR 206


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rule would modify the valuation procedures for both arm's-length 
and non-arm's-length crude oil transactions, establish a new MMS form 
for collecting value differential data, and amend the valuation 
procedures for the sale of Federal royalty oil. These changes would 
decrease reliance on oil posted prices and assign a value to crude oil 
that better reflects market value.


Statement of Need:


Current oil valuation regulations rely primarily on posted prices and 
prices under arm's-length sales. Recently, posted prices have become 
increasingly suspect as a fair measure of market value. This rulemaking 
would modify valuation regulations to eliminate any direct reliance on 
posted prices.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


The primary legal basis for this rulemaking is the Federal Oil and Gas 
Royalty Management Act of 1982, as amended, which defines the Secretary 
of the Interior's authority to implement and maintain a royalty 
management system for Federal oil and gas leases.


Alternatives:


MMS considered a range of valuation alternatives such as making minor 
adjustments to the current gross proceeds valuation method using 
futures prices adjusted for location and quality, using spot prices 
tabulated by various publications, using the P-plus market, and taking 
oil in-kind. MMS chose to rely primarily on arm's-length sales prices 
and spot market prices as market value indicators. To account for 
regional and geographic differences this rule establishes different 
valuation procedures for each of three regions: California and Alaska, 
the Rocky Mountain region and the rest of the country.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


MMS estimates compliance with this rulemaking would cost the oil and 
gas industry approximately $160,000 in the first year. Annual burden 
will decline as industry becomes more familiar with the reporting 
requirements. The benefits of this rulemaking would be an estimated $66 
million increase in annual royalties collected on oil produced from 
Federal leases. Additional benefits would include simplification and 
increased certainty of oil pricing, reduced audit efforts, and reduced 
valuation determinations. These changes should also reduce litigation.


Risks:


The risk of not modifying current oil valuation regulations is that 
royalty recipients such as State and local governments and the U.S. 
Treasury would not receive royalties based on the true market value of 
oil produced from Federal leases.

[[Page 61275]]

Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM           60 FR 65610                                    12/20/95
ANPRM Comment Period End                                       03/19/96
NPRM            62 FR 3742                                     01/24/97
Comment Period E62 FR 7189                                     02/18/97
NPRM Comment Per62 FR 19966d to                                02/24/97
NPRM Comment Period End                                        03/25/97
Supplemental NPR62 FR 36030                                    07/03/97
Comment Period End                                             08/04/97
Comment Period E62 FR 49460                                    09/22/97
Comment Period E62 FR 49460                                    10/23/97
Comment Period E62 FR 55198                                    10/23/97
Supplementary NP63 FR 6113                                     02/06/98
Comment Period E63 FR 14057                                    03/24/98
Comment Period E63 FR 36868                                    07/08/98
Supplementary Pr63 FR 38355                                    07/16/98
Comment Period E63 FR 40073                                    07/27/98
NPRM Comment Period End                                        07/31/98
Final Action                                                   11/00/98
Final Action Effective                                         02/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions


Government Levels Affected:


State


Agency Contact:
David S. Guzy
Chief, Rules and Publications Staff
Department of the Interior
Minerals Management Service
Phone: 303 231-3432
RIN: 1010-AC09
_______________________________________________________________________
DOI--MMS
47. VALUATION OF OIL FROM INDIAN LEASES
Priority:


Other Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


 25 USC 396 et seq; 25 USC 2101 et seq; 30 USC 181 et seq; 30 USC 351 
et seq; 30 USC 1001 et seq; 30 USC 1701 et seq


CFR Citation:


 30 CFR 206


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rule would modify the regulations that establish royalty value for 
oil produced from Indian leases and create a new form for collecting 
value and value differential data. These changes would decrease 
reliance on oil posted prices and make Indian oil royalty valuation 
more consistent with the terms of Indian leases.


Statement of Need:


Current oil valuation regulations rely primarily on posted prices and 
prices under arm's-length sales. Recently, posted prices have become 
increasingly suspect as a fair measure of market value. This rulemaking 
would modify valuation regulations to place substantial reliance on the 
highest of crude oil futures prices, major portion prices, or gross 
proceeds. It would eliminate any direct reliance on posted prices. This 
rulemaking would also add more certainty to valuation of oil produced 
from Indian leases.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


The primary legal basis for this rulemaking is the Federal Oil and Gas 
Royalty Management Act of 1982, as amended, which defines the Secretary 
of the Interior's (1) authority to implement and maintain a royalty 
management system for oil and gas leases on Indian lands, and (2) trust 
responsibility to administer Indian oil and gas resources.


Alternatives:


MMS considered a range of valuation alternatives. Among these were: (1) 
Making minor adjustments to the current gross proceeds valuation method 
using spot prices; (2) using index-based prices with fixed adjustments 
for production from specific geographic zones; (3) relying on some type 
of field pricing other than posted prices; and (4) taking oil in-kind.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


MMS estimates compliance with this rulemaking would cost the oil and 
gas industry approximately $46,000 annually. Additional costs to 
industry and MMS would be up-front computer programming and other 
administrative costs associated with processing the new form. The 
benefits of this rulemaking would be an estimated $3.6 million increase 
in annual royalties collected on oil produced from Indian leases. 
Additional benefits would include simplification and increased 
certainty of oil pricing, reduced audit efforts, and reduced valuation 
determinations and associated litigation.


Risks:


The risk of not modifying current oil valuation regulations is that 
Indian recipients may not receive royalties based on the highest paid 
price or offered for the major portion of oil produced--a common 
requirement in most Indian leases. These modifications ensure that the 
Department fulfills its trust responsibilities for administering Indian 
oil and gas leases under governing mineral leasing laws, treaties, and 
lease terms.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM           60 FR 65610                                    12/20/95
ANPRM Comment Period End                                       03/19/96
NPRM            63 FR 7089                                     02/12/98
NPRM Comment Per63 FR 17349d                                   04/09/98
NPRM Comment Period End                                        05/13/98
Final Action                                                   01/00/99
Final Action Effective                                         02/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions


Government Levels Affected:


Tribal


Agency Contact:
David S. Guzy
Chief, Rules and Publications Staff
Department of the Interior
Minerals Management Service
Phone: 303 231-3432
RIN: 1010-AC24
_______________________________________________________________________
DOI--Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

48. OIL AND GAS LEASING AND OPERATIONS
Priority:


Other Significant


Reinventing Government:


This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will

[[Page 61276]]

revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline 
requirements.


Legal Authority:


 30 USC 181 et seq


CFR Citation:


 43 CFR 3100 to 3160


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rule will revise BLM's current Federal oil and gas leasing and 
operations regulations, except those concerning drainage (section 
3100.2-2), combined hydrocarbon leasing (part 3140), and oil and gas 
leasing in the National Petroleum Reserve--Alaska (part 3130), to: (1) 
use performance standards in certain places instead of prescriptive 
requirements, to allow more flexibility for operators and protect the 
environment and Federal royalty interests; (2) cite industry standards 
and incorporate them by reference rather than repeating those standards 
in the rule itself; (3) incorporate the requirements of the Onshore Oil 
and Gas Orders and national notices to lessees into the regulations to 
eliminate their overlap with the current regulations; (4) revise and 
replace BLM's current unitization regulations with a more flexible unit 
agreement process; and (5) eliminate redundancies, clarify procedures 
and regulatory requirements and streamline procedures.


Statement of Need:


This rulemaking complies with the requirements of the Government 
Performance and Results Act, the recommendations of the National 
Performance Review, and other initiatives. It will be presented in a 
user-friendly format, presented by process rather than than by subject 
matter.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


The Mineral Leasing Act gives BLM the authority to issue and administer 
the terms of oil and gas leases on Federal lands, to conduct 
inspections of drilling operations and to promulgate and enforce 
regulations pertaining to oil and gas leasing and operations. BLM is 
the only Federal agency with authority to issue leases for publicly 
owned oil and gas resources.


Alternatives:


The only alternative to the proposed regulations would be to continue 
to operate under the existing regulations. These regulations are not 
performance-based and are at times ambiguous and hard to understand. 
Further, the important information found in Onshore Operating Orders is 
published separately from the regulations and at irregular intervals. 
The proposed rule is preferable.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


BLM anticipates the following benefits: (1) more clearly written rules 
will be better understood by both oil and gas lessees and operators and 
members of the general public; (2) performance standards, rather than 
prescriptive requirements, will allow lessees and operators and BLM 
greater flexibility to deal with unique geological or engineering 
circumstances within the standards set by the rule; and (3) 
streamlining and clarifying procedures will result in better customer 
service and decreased time and money for both BLM and the user public.


Risks:


The public may misunderstand one or more performance standards. BLM 
will publish user guides that explain in detail the standards and will 
provide examples of how operators might meet specific standards.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           01/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local, Federal


Agency Contact:
Ian Senio
Regulatory Analyst
Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
Regulatory Management Team (WO-630)
1849 C Street NW.
Washington, DC 20240
Mail Stop 401 L St.
Phone: 202 452-5049
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 1004-AC94
_______________________________________________________________________
DOI--BLM
49. SURFACE MANAGEMENT (LOCATABLE MINERALS)
Priority:


Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.


Legal Authority:


 18 USC 1001; 30 USC 22; 30 USC 42; 30 USC 612; 43 USC 1061 et seq; 18 
USC 3571 et seq


CFR Citation:


 43 CFR 3809


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The proposed rule would: (1) redefine ``unnecessary and undue 
degradation'' to require the use of the ``best available technology and 
practices'' or other technology-based standards during the mining of 
locatable minerals and during the reclamation of mined lands, (2) 
incorporate performance standards for locatable mineral exploration and 
development, and (3) treat mining operations involving disturbance to 5 
acres or less in a more stringent fashion.


Statement of Need:


Current locatable mineral mining regulations provide insufficient 
environmental protection and insufficient enforcement authority for BLM 
to regulate mining activities which disturb 5 acres or less of public 
lands. The proposed regulations would strengthen environmental 
protection and would increase BLM's oversight of mining operations on 5 
acres or less of public lands.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


Section 302(b) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act gives the 
Secretary of the Interior or his or her delegated representative the 
authority to regulate the use, occupancy, and development of public 
lands. Although the Secretary may not impair the rights of mining 
claimants by regulating these activities, he or she may take any action 
necessary to prevent the unnecessary and undue degradation of the 
public lands.


Alternatives:


The proposed rule could consider three alternatives for increasing 
oversight on mining activities which disturb 5 acres or less of public 
lands: (1) repeal the current notice provision and treat these small 
operations like large ones; (2) narrow the scope of the notice 
exception so that it does not apply in areas of environmental 
sensitivity; and (3) better protect the environment against abuse by 
measures such as requiring more information from operators, giving BLM 
a longer time to review the notices, and imposing

[[Page 61277]]

greater penalties for not meeting notice requirements.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


A cost-benefit analysis has not yet been prepared. On balance the 
general public is expected to benefit by decreasing the public health 
and safety costs associated with the clean-up of hazardous and toxic 
substances generated by the mining of various locatable minerals (acid, 
draining, etc.). There may or may not be increased costs to operators 
on mining claims from their exploration, development, and reclamation 
activities, if the surface management regulations require using the 
best available technology in exploration, mining, and reclamation 
activities.


Risks:


Claimants unable to comply with increased mining costs could cease 
operations and go out of business. Some portion of the mining industry 
could cease exploration and mining operations in the United States and 
begin or increase mining operations in other countries whose policies 
are less stringent.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           01/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local, Federal


Agency Contact:
Robert Anderson
Deputy Assistant Director, Energy and Minerals Resources
Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
Phone: 202 208-4201
RIN: 1004-AD22
BILLING CODE 4310-RK-F

[[Page 61278]]

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (DOJ)
Statement of Regulatory Priorities
The Department of Justice is not a major regulatory agency, and it 
carries out its vital investigative, prosecutorial, and other law 
enforcement activities principally through means other than the 
regulatory process. Even so, the Department does have significant 
responsibilities for implementing the Americans with Disabilities Act 
(ADA), as well as the immigration laws, including the Immigration 
Reform and Control Act of 1986 and the Immigration Act of 1990. The 
Department's key regulatory goals and initiatives are set forth in 
detail below.
The Department has worked actively to implement the general regulatory 
principles of Executive Order 12866. Relatively few of the Department's 
rules are significant regulatory actions requiring review by the Office 
of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Executive order. Accordingly, 
the orientation of the OMB review process to focus on significant rules 
has required the Department to increase its own efforts to ensure that 
all of its regulations are carefully reviewed for consistency with the 
Administration's regulatory principles, including the large majority of 
rules that are not reviewed directly by OMB as significant regulatory 
actions.
Pursuant to section 4(c) of Executive Order 12866, the Department of 
Justice provides the following statement of regulatory priorities, 
focusing in particular on four regulatory initiatives in the areas of 
civil rights and immigration.
In addition to the specific initiatives set forth below, several other 
components of the Department carry out important responsibilities 
through the regulatory process. Although their regulatory efforts are 
not singled out for specific attention in this regulatory plan, those 
components carry out key roles in implementing the Department's law 
enforcement priorities. In particular, the Drug Enforcement 
Administration (DEA) is responsible for controlling abuse of narcotics 
and dangerous drugs by restricting the aggregate supply of those drugs. 
DEA accomplishes its objectives through coordination with State, local, 
and other Federal officials in drug enforcement activities, development 
and maintenance of drug intelligence systems, regulation of legitimate 
controlled substances, and enforcement coordination and intelligence-
gathering activities with foreign government agencies. DEA has various 
regulatory actions under development relating to the diversion control 
requirements and to the requirements of the Comprehensive 
Methamphetamine Control Act of 1996 which regulates certain drug 
products that are being diverted for the production of methamphetamine.
Also, on March 20, 1997, the Federal Bureau of Investigation 
promulgated final cost recovery regulations under the Communications 
Assistance to Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (CALEA). Congress enacted 
CALEA to address the recent and continuing advances in 
telecommunications technology, which have impaired and, in some 
instances, precluded law enforcement agencies from fully conducting 
various types of court-authorized electronic surveillance. The Attorney 
General is authorized to reimburse carriers for all of the reasonable 
costs directly associated with the modifications they perform on 
equipment, facilities, and services deployed on or before January 1, 
1995. These regulations provide the cost accounting standards for 
reimbursements.
In response to public comments during the cost recovery rulemaking, the 
FBI has published on April 20, 1998, a proposed rule defining the terms 
``significant upgrade'' and ``major modification.'' The FBI is 
considering the comments it has received and anticipates publishing a 
final rule in the first calendar quarter of 1999. On March 12, 1998, 
the FBI, on behalf of law enforcement, published a final Notice of 
Capacity (following two previously published notices on the same 
subject) informing telecommunications carriers offering local exchange 
services and certain commercial mobile radio services (specifically 
cellular service and broadband PCS) of the estimated actual and maximum 
number of simultaneous interceptions that law enforcement might conduct 
on or after specified dates. Later this year, the FBI will publish a 
Notice of Inquiry (NOI) soliciting information and suggestions from 
interested parties for developing reasonable methodologies for 
characterizing the capacity requirements for telecommunications 
services other than those covered by the March 12, 1998, final notice. 
Comments received on this NOI will assist the FBI in developing future 
Notice(s) of Capacity requirements for these other services, as the FBI 
is obligated to do by CALEA.
Civil Rights
The Department and its Civil Rights Division are deeply committed to a 
rigorous and revitalized approach to the enforcement of this Nation's 
civil rights laws. In keeping with that commitment, the Division will 
be reviewing, updating, and improving its civil rights regulations; 
implementing the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA); and 
promulgating regulations implementing the prohibition against sex 
discrimination in federally assisted education programs and activities 
that is contained in title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. The 
Department's regulatory plan has two civil rights initiatives.
The Department is planning to make revisions in its regulations 
implementing titles II and III of the ADA to amend the ADA Standards 
for Accessible Design to be consistent with the revised accessibility 
guidelines for State and local facilities and children's facilities 
that have been developed by the Architectural and Transportation 
Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board) and to make conforming changes 
in the Department's rules. Title II of the ADA prohibits discrimination 
on the basis of disability by public entities and title III prohibits 
such discrimination by places of public accommodation and requires 
accessible design and construction of places of public accommodation 
and commercial facilities. The Access Board's new accessibility 
guidelines for State and local facilities and children's facilities are 
the subject of related, pending rulemakings that are expected to be 
completed during fiscal year 1999. These rulemakings have been the 
subject of considerable scrutiny through the Board's regulatory 
process. The Department of Justice, which is required by statute to 
promulgate standards that are consistent with the guidelines developed 
by the Access Board, has proposed to incorporate them in the 
Department's regulations.
These amendments to the ADA regulations are an important step forward 
in fulfilling the promise of the ADA in ushering in a new era of 
opportunity and dignity for the many millions of Americans with 
disabilities. These regulations will open doors that have shut out 
people with disabilities in the past.
In addition, the Department will be promulgating regulations 
implementing the prohibition against sex discrimination in federally 
assisted education programs and activities that is contained in title 
IX of the Education

[[Page 61279]]

Amendments of 1972. The Department will be issuing this regulation as 
part of a joint rulemaking by several Federal agencies in the coming 
year.
The Department's promulgation of a regulation implementing title IX 
will provide guidance to its recipients who administer education 
programs or activities. Since all departments and agencies should 
interpret title IX consistently, it is important that they all be 
governed by similar regulatory standards. The Department's regulation 
will closely follow that of the Department of Education, which funds 
most educational institutions covered by title IX. A regulation is 
essential for adequate enforcement of title IX because a regulation 
contains administrative requirements (such as promulgation of grievance 
procedures, designation of a coordinator, and processing of 
complaints), as well as essential statutory interpretations.
Immigration
The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) is responsible for 
facilitating the entry of persons legally admissible as visitors or as 
immigrants to the United States, for preventing unlawful entry or 
receipt of immigration benefits by those who are not entitled to 
receive them, and for apprehending or removing those aliens who enter 
or remain illegally in the United States. Though many of the 
Administration's goals for more effective immigration process flow from 
either new statutory authority or increased resources, the regulatory 
process is a vital aspect of carrying out the goals of the immigration 
laws.
Certainly, one of the regulatory challenges facing the Department of 
Justice is to improve the effectiveness of those regulatory efforts. 
Commissioner Meissner established three fundamental goals at the time 
of her confirmation: To increase the professionalism of the Service, to 
provide immigration control with compassion, and to build the Service's 
role in immigration policy leadership and communication. The regulatory 
priorities for the Service follow those priorities, though other 
desired improvements may require legislative action. Two INS 
initiatives are included in this regulatory plan.
First, the Service will publish a proposed rule to implement the new 
grounds of inadmissibility and their waivers, especially those 
established under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant 
Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA). This regulation will clarify the 
interplay between the new grounds of inadmissibility and existing law 
and will set forth changes in procedures and policies. Second is the 
Service's ongoing effort to facilitate the U.S. business community's 
ability to comply with the employer sanctions provisions of the 
Immigration Control and Reform Act.
The Service anticipates additional progress in its efforts to simplify 
the employers' compliance with employment verification (Form I-9) 
requirements of the Act. The Service published a proposed rule on 
February 2, 1998. This proposal reflected numerous changes stemming 
from IIRIRA and from a comprehensive review of the 10-year-old 
verification regulations, as required by the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act. The result was a comprehensive overhaul of the regulations. The 
Service adopted a ``plain language'' approach and simplified the 
structure of the regulation. Both steps were well received by the 
public. In addition, the list of documents acceptable for employment 
verification was shortened, and several other requirements were 
clarified. The Service received thoughtful comments from the public on 
the proposal. Those are now being reviewed, and the Service anticipates 
publishing a final rule during the coming fiscal year.
_______________________________________________________________________
DOJ--Civil Rights Division (CRT)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

50. NONDISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF SEX IN FEDERALLY ASSISTED 
PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES--IMPLEMENTATION OF TITLE IX OF THE EDUCATION 
AMENDMENTS OF 1972
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


 20 USC 1682 et seq


CFR Citation:


 28 CFR 54 (New)


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


On June 17, 1980, the Department published a proposed regulation to 
implement the requirements of title IX of the Education Amendments of 
1972, as amended, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of an 
individual's sex in federally assisted educational programs. That 
regulation was never issued in final form. As a result of subsequent 
statutory amendments, it is necessary to revise the prior proposed 
title IX regulation and begin a new rulemaking process. The 
Department's regulation will be published as a common rule with other 
agencies that need title IX regulations.


Statement of Need:


Title IX directs each department and agency that provides Federal 
financial assistance to effectuate its provisions by issuing rules, 
regulations, or orders of general applicability, 20 U.S.C. 1682. The 
Department must issue a title IX regulation because it funds many 
educational programs. Since all departments and agencies should 
interpret title IX consistently, it is important that they all be 
governed by similar regulatory standards. The Department's regulation 
will closely follow that of the Department of Education, which funds 
most educational institutions covered by title IX. A regulation is 
essential for adequate enforcement of title IX because a regulation 
contains administrative requirements (such as promulgation of grievance 
procedures, designation of a coordinator, and processing of complaints) 
as well as essential statutory interpretations.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


Title IX specifically authorized the promulgation of regulations to 
effectuate the statute, 20 U.S.C. 1682.


Alternatives:


Because title IX requires an agency (such as the Department of Justice) 
that funds educational programs to issue an implementing regulation, 
issuance of a title IX regulation is mandatory. With respect to the 
contents of a title IX regulation, the Department will consider all 
comments received during the public comment period before issuing a 
final regulation.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


In order to carry out this Administration's commitment to equal 
educational opportunity for women, it is essential that the Department 
of Justice issue its own regulation implementing title IX. Currently, 
the Department has no regulation in place to provide guidance to 
recipients on compliance or identify formal procedures for addressing 
complaints of sex discrimination in funded programs. In providing 
Federal financial

[[Page 61280]]

assistance to educational programs, the Department and its recipients 
have been subject to the requirements of title IX since it was enacted 
in 1972. Therefore, promulgating this regulation should not impose any 
new costs upon recipients of Federal financial assistance.


Risks:


Without a regulation, individuals who are granted protection from 
discrimination on the basis of sex will not have their rights protected 
in the Department's programs to the same extent as if they participated 
in programs funded by agencies with title IX regulations.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           12/00/98
NPRM Comment Period End                                        02/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local


Agency Contact:
Merrily A. Friedlander
Chief
Coordination and Review Section
Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
P.O. Box 66560
Washington, DC 20035-6560
Phone: 202 307-2222
TDD: 202 307-2678
Fax: 202 307-0595
RIN: 1190-AA28
_______________________________________________________________________
DOJ--CRT

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

51. NONDISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF DISABILITY IN STATE AND LOCAL 
GOVERNMENT SERVICES; PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS AND COMMERCIAL FACILITIES; 
ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


 42 USC 12134; 42 USC 12186; 5 USC 301; 28 USC 509; 28 USC 510; PL 101-
336


CFR Citation:


 28 CFR 35; 28 CFR 36; 28 CFR 38


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


On July 26, 1991, the Department published its final rules implementing 
titles II and III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which 
prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability by public entities 
(title II) and in places of public accommodation and commercial 
facilities (title III). Those regulations included accessibility 
guidelines required for facilities covered by title III -- the ADA 
Standards for Accessible Design (ADA Standards) -- but did not 
specifically include guidelines for facilities covered by title II, 
such as courthouses or prisons. Title II entities now have the option 
of using the ADA Standards (without certain exceptions applicable only 
to title III facilities) or another existing standard, the Uniform 
Federal Accessibility Standards.
The final rule will amend titles II and III to adopt a revised version 
of the ADA Standards, which incorporates new guidelines for facilities 
typically covered by title II. The new guidelines were issued as the 
interim final ADA Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) by the Architectural 
and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board) and were 
published on the same day as the Department's proposed rule.


Statement of Need:


Section 504 of the ADA requires the Access Board to issue supplemental 
minimum guidelines and requirements for accessible design of buildings 
and facilities subject to the ADA, including titles II and III. 
Sections 204(c) and 306(c) of the ADA provide that the Attorney General 
shall promulgate regulations implementing titles II and III that are 
consistent with the Access Board's ADA guidelines. Because the 
Department of Justice is required by statute to promulgate regulations 
that do not go below the Access Board's minimum guidelines, and because 
this rule will adopt standards that are consistent with the guidelines 
issued by the Access Board, as also required by statute, this rule is 
required by statute.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


The summary of the legal basis of authority for this regulation is set 
forth above in the Legal Authority and in the Statement of Need.


Alternatives:


The Department is required by the ADA to issue this regulation as 
described in the Statement of Need above. All comments (including those 
that suggest alternatives to the current proposed guidelines) received 
by the Department on the proposed rule and by the Access Board on its 
current interim rule and its guidelines published December 21, 1992, 
have been thoroughly analyzed and considered by the Department.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The Clinton Administration is deeply committed to ensuring that the 
goals of the ADA are met. Promulgating this amendment to the 
Department's ADA regulations will ensure that entities subject to the 
ADA will have one comprehensive regulation to follow. Currently, 
entities subject to title II of the ADA (State and local governments) 
have a choice between following the Department's ADA standards for 
title III, which were adopted for places of public accommodation and 
commercial facilities and which do not contain standards for common 
State and local government buildings (such as courthouses and prisons), 
or the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards (UFAS). By developing 
one comprehensive standard, the Department will eliminate the confusion 
that arises when governments try to mesh two different standards. As a 
result, the overarching goal of improving access to the built 
environment to persons with disabilities will be better served.
The Access Board has analyzed the impact of applying its proposed 
amendments to ADAAG to entities covered by titles II and III of the ADA 
and has determined that they are a significant regulatory action for 
purposes of Executive Order 12866. The Access Board has prepared a 
Regulatory Assessment, which includes a cost impact analysis for 
certain accessibility elements and a discussion of the regulatory 
alternatives considered.
The Access Board's proposed rule contained provisions that would have 
had a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. Therefore, the Board included a regulatory flexibility 
analysis in its regulatory assessment. Because of significant changes 
that were made to the final rule pursuant to public comment, the final 
rule published by the Access Board does not have a significant economic 
impact on small entities. The Access Board's determination will apply 
as well to the revised ADA Standards published by the Department. The 
Department's

[[Page 61281]]

proposed procedural amendments will not have a significant impact on 
small entities.
The Access Board has made every effort to lessen the impact of its 
proposed guidelines on State and local governments, but recognizes that 
the guidelines will have some federalism impacts. These impacts are 
discussed in the Access Board's Regulatory Assessment, which also 
applies to the Department's proposed rule.


Risks:


Without this amendment to the Department's ADA regulations, regulated 
entities will be subject to confusion and delay as they attempt to sort 
out the requirements of conflicting design standards. This amendment 
should eliminate the costs and risks associated with that process.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            59 FR 31808                                    06/20/94
NPRM Comment Period End                                        08/19/94
Final Action                                                   03/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


Governmental Jurisdictions


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local


Agency Contact:
John Wodatch
Chief, Disability Rights Section
Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
P.O. Box 66738
Washington, DC 20035-6738
Phone: 800 514-0301
TDD: 800 514-0383
Fax: 202 307-1198
RIN: 1190-AA26
_______________________________________________________________________
DOJ--Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

52. REVISED GROUNDS OF INADMISSIBILITY, WAIVERS FOR IMMIGRANTS AND 
NONIMMIGRANTS, AND EXCEPTIONS
Priority:


Other Significant


Reinventing Government:


This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will 
revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline 
requirements.


Legal Authority:


 5 USC 552; 5 USC 552a; 8 USC 1101; 8 USC 1102; 8 USC 1103; 8 USC 1151; 
8 USC 1153; 8 USC 1154; 8 USC 1157; 8 USC 1158; 8 USC 1159; 8 USC 1160; 
8 USC 1182; 8 USC 1183; 8 USC 1184


CFR Citation:


 8 CFR 103; 8 CFR 207; 8 CFR 208; 8 CFR 209; 8 CFR 210; 8 CFR 212; 8 
CFR 214; 8 CFR 232; 8 CFR 235; 8 CFR 240; 8 CFR 241; 8 CFR 245; 8 CFR 
245a; 8 CFR 248; 8 CFR 249; ...


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This regulation covers the grounds of inadmissibility applicable to 
those aliens seeking admission to the United States temporarily or 
permanently. On September 30, 1996, the President signed the Illegal 
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) 
which substantially revised most grounds of inadmissibility under 
section 212 of the Act and the waivers available to both immigrants and 
nonimmigrants. The Immigration and Naturalization Service will publish 
regulations implementing these new grounds of inadmissibility and new/
revised waiver provisions. In addition, this rule will incorporate the 
changes made to the grounds of inadmissibility and waivers provided for 
in the Immigration Act of 1990 (IMMACT 90), Pub. L. 101-649; the 
Miscellaneous and Technical Immigration and Naturalization Amendments 
of 1991 (MTINA), Pub. L. 102-232; the National Institutes of Health 
Revitalization Act of 1993, Pub. L. 103-43; the Immigration and 
Nationality Technical Corrections Act of 1991 (INTCA), Pub. L. 103-416; 
and the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), 
Pub. L. 104-132.


Statement of Need:


This regulation is necessary to implement the IIRIRA and IMMACT 90, 
Pub. L. 101-649; the MTINA, Pub. L. 102-232; the National Institutes of 
Health Revitalization Act of 1996, Pub. L. 103-43; and the AEDPA, Pub. 
L. 104-132.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


See Statement of Need.


Alternatives:


None


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The INS anticipates a relatively low cost for staff time and resources 
necessary to conduct training and disseminate new guidelines to the 
field on implementation of the revised grounds of inadmissibility and 
waivers available to both immigrants and nonimmigrants. With respect to 
certain waivers for the new vaccination requirements that fall under 
the health-related grounds of inadmissibility, the blanket waiver 
procedures (that entail a delegation of authority from INS to 
Department of State consular officers) minimize the administrative 
burdens not only on the agencies responsible for administering this 
requirement--Center for Disease Control, Department of State, and INS--
but also the administrative burden on the alien applicant for such 
waiver. This, in turn, reduces the incentive for fraud, that enhances 
the public health initiative contemplated by the newly enacted 
vaccination requirements. Moreover, the new application for waiver, 
Form I-724, that will be implemented concurrently with the promulgation 
of the regulation will consolidate numerous forms currently used to 
determine eligibility for such classes of aliens.


Risks:


This regulatory initiative is critical for complete and clear 
implementation of the new grounds of inadmissibility and their waivers, 
especially those established under IIRIRA. The regulation will clarify 
the confusion that presently exists due to the interplay between the 
new grounds of inadmissibility and existing law. It will also clarify 
changes in procedures or policies.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM (INS No. 1255 FR 438nt Period End 2/5/90                  01/05/90
NPRM                                                           05/00/99
Final Action                                                   12/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Federal

[[Page 61282]]

Additional Information:


INS No. 1413-92
Consolidated INS Rules 1304, RIN 1115-AC01; 1235, RIN 1115-AB39; 1232, 
RIN 1115-AB45; and 1648, RIN 1115-AD62.
8 CFR 274a, 8 CFR 299.


Agency Contact:
Sophia Cox
Staff Officer
Examinations
Department of Justice
Immigration and Naturalization Service
425 I Street NW.
Room 3214
Washington, DC 20536
Phone: 202 514-5014
RIN: 1115-AB45
_______________________________________________________________________
DOJ--INS

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

53. REDUCTION OF THE NUMBER OF ACCEPTABLE DOCUMENTS AND OTHER CHANGES 
TO EMPLOYMENT VERIFICATION REQUIREMENTS (SECTION 610 REVIEW)
Priority:


Other Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Reinventing Government:


This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will 
revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline 
requirements.


Legal Authority:


 8 USC 1324a; PL 104-208


CFR Citation:


 8 CFR 274a


Legal Deadline:


 Final, Statutory, March 31, 1998.


An interim rule, published Sept. 30, 1997, makes the minimal changes 
required by statute. The provisions will remain in effect until 
completion of this rulemaking.


Abstract:


On September 30, 1996, the President signed the Illegal Immigration 
Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA). Section 
412(a) of IIRIRA requires a reduction in the number of documents that 
may be accepted in the employment verification process. Section 412(d) 
clarifies the applicability of section 274A to the Federal Government. 
Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act requires agencies to 
review rules that have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities every 10 years. The Service is conducting this 
review in conjunction with IIRIRA implementation. The proposed 
rulemaking published 2/12/98 implements sections 212(a) and (d) of 
IIRIRA and proposes other changes to the employment verification 
process identified through that review. A revised Form I-9 was included 
with the proposed rulemaking.
The comment period closed on 4/3/98. The Service is analyzing the 
comments. It should be noted that this action supersedes the previously 
published regulatory plan titled ``Reduction in the Number of Documents 
Accepted for Employment Verification.'' In order to avoid confusion, 
this regulatory action is being referenced under the current RIN, which 
captures all prior actions related to employment verification.


Statement of Need:


The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 amended the Immigration 
and Nationality Act (INA) to require employers to hire only persons who 
are eligible to work in the United States and to verify the work 
eligibility of all new hires. Form I-9 was designated for that purpose. 
Newly hired individuals must attest to the status that makes them 
eligible to work and present documents that establish their identity 
and eligibility to work. In its third review of employer sanctions 
regulations, the GAO reported that employer confusion over the 
``multiplicity'' of acceptable documents contributed to discrimination 
against authorized workers. See GAO/GGD Report No. 90-62, dated March 
29, 1990. Section 412(a) of IIRIRA requires a reduction in the number 
of documents that may be accepted in the employment verification 
process. Implementation of these provisions along with other 
simplifications and clarifications will reduce potential employment 
discrimination based upon misapplication of the verification 
requirements.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


The legal basis of authority for this regulation is set forth above in 
Legal Authority. Parts of this regulatory action are required by 
IIRIRA.


Alternatives:


The lists of documents for employment verification have been 
controversial throughout the 10 years that employer sanctions have been 
in effect. When the INS first published implementing regulations in 
1987, the supplementary information noted that the list of identity 
documents had been expanded in response to public comment. When the law 
was new, a consensus emerged that an inclusive list of documents would 
ensure that all persons who are eligible to work could easily meet the 
requirements. As early as 1990, there was evidence that some employers 
found the list confusing. As noted in the ``Statement of Need,'' GAO 
linked employer confusion over the ``multiplicity'' of acceptable 
documents to discrimination against authorized workers. The INS has 
taken steps to address this criticism. In July 1988, INS committed to 
the establishment of a uniform employment authorization policy. First 
the INS limited the number and types of ``paper'' documents on which 
employment could be authorized. Second, a standardized Employment 
Authorization Document (EAD) I-688B was introduced in 1989. In February 
1997, a more secure EAD Form (I-766) was produced with state of the art 
technology.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Employment is often the magnet that attracts individuals to come to or 
stay in the United States illegally. The employer sanctions provisions 
help reduce the strength of this magnet by requiring employers to hire 
only those individuals who may legally work in the United States. This 
rule, by reducing the number of documents that are acceptable for 
employment eligibility verification purposes and clarifying other 
requirements, will reduce confusion on the part of employers. This in 
turn, will increase employer compliance, preserving jobs for persons 
who are eligible to work in the United States.


Risks:


An employment eligibility verification system that relies on a wide 
range of documents may result in employment discrimination based upon 
misapplication of the employment eligibility verification requirements. 
In addition, a complicated system may encourage fraud and result in 
individuals who are authorized to work in the United States being 
displaced by unauthorized individuals.

[[Page 61283]]

Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM-INS No. 13958 FR 61846eriod End 12/23/93                  11/23/93
NPRM-INS No. 13360 FR 32472Period End 07/24/95                 06/22/95
Notice-INS No. 160 FR 61630 1713 Applications Due 01/29/96     11/30/95
Appl. Extension Through 3/8/96 Notice Pilot Demonstration Program-INS 
        No. 171361 FR 4378                                     02/06/96
Final Rule INS N61 FR 46534                                    09/04/96
Interim Final Ru62 FR 510011818                                09/30/97
NPRM-INS No. 18963 FR 5287nt Period End 04/03/98               02/02/98
Final Rule INS No. 1980-97                                     12/00/98
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, Organizations


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local, Tribal, Federal


Additional Information:


The deadline for implementing section 412(a) of IIRIRA was extended to 
March 31, 1998 by P.L. 105-54. This rulemaking has been delayed by the 
need to coordinate implementation with other provisions of IIRIRA, by 
several complex policy and regulatory issues that have taken time to 
resolve, and by the review required by section 610 of the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act.
INS No. 1890-97; PL 104-208, title 4.
INS Nos. 1399 and 1399S-94, Control of Employment of Aliens, 
Supplemental Rule; Action for INS No. 1399 and 1399S is canceled as a 
result of IIRIRA requirements.
INS No. 1399E is an extracted portion of INS No. 1399, published 
separately to allow for the production of a new, more secure Employment 
Authorization Document.
INS No. 1713-95, Demonstration Project for Electronic I-9s, contact Bob 
Reed, (202) 514-2998.
Interim Rule INS No. 1818 was published on 9/30/97 at 62 FR 51001 to 
maintain the status quo as much as possible until the Service completes 
the more comprehensive document reduction initiative designated by INS 
No. 1890-97.


Agency Contact:
Marion Metcalf
Policy Analyst
Office of Programs
Department of Justice
Immigration and Naturalization Service
425 I Street NW.
HQPGM
Washington, DC 20536
Phone: 202 514-2764
RIN: 1115-AB73
BILLING CODE 4410-BP-F

[[Page 61284]]

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR (DOL)
Statement of Regulatory Priorities
Executive Summary
The Secretary of Labor has set three strategic goals for the 
Department: First, to enhance opportunities for America's workforce; 
second, to promote the economic security of workers and their families; 
and third, to foster quality workplaces that are safe, healthy, and 
fair. The 180 labor laws and related regulations that the Department of 
Labor (DOL) administers advance these goals.
Regulations that implement newly enacted legislation help DOL and its 
stakeholders work together to achieve that statute's goal by providing 
clear, effective, flexible plans of action for the regulated community. 
Rules that revise existing regulations also facilitate the achievement 
of DOL's goals by updating old or ineffective standards or by making 
them easier to understand and use. DOL has always recognized that 
changes in the workplace, such as new business practices, improved or 
safer technologies, or new hazards, may render existing rules 
ineffective or demand the creation of new ones.
In keeping with the President's plain language memorandum of June 1, 
1998, the Department remains committed to issuing regulations that are 
easy to understand, effective, and that minimize burdens on the 
regulated community. Regulations that are easy to understand help 
promote voluntary compliance and improve customer satisfaction. Most of 
the regulated community would comply with workplace regulations if 
given the information and knowledge they need. When writing or revising 
rules, DOL will explore new approaches to achieve our regulatory goals 
at lower costs and with greater flexibility for the regulated 
community. DOL will also ensure that those who are protected by the new 
rules or must abide by them have been given the opportunity to 
participate in the rulemaking process and that they have been provided 
timely, user-friendly compliance assistance materials.
DOL's 1998 regulatory plan highlights the Department's 29 most 
important, significant regulations from five of our major regulatory 
agencies: Employment Standards Administration (ESA), Mine Safety and 
Health Administration (MSHA), Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration (OSHA), Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration 
(PWBA), and Employment and Training Administration (ETA). The entries 
in the regulatory plan were carefully selected as the most important; 
that is, they are essential to the fulfillment of the Department's 
three strategic goals.
The Secretary of Labor's Strategic Goals
A Prepared Workforce: This first goal is to assure that American 
workers have the opportunity to obtain the information and tools they 
will need throughout their careers to enhance their productivity and 
raise their standard of living. The new economy requires workers to 
continue their education beyond a high school diploma or even a college 
degree--education must mean lifelong learning and continuous 
development of new skills.
A Secure Workforce: The rapidly changing global economy imposes 
economic security concerns on both employers and employees. The life 
cycles of many products are shorter and shorter, requiring quick 
adjustments by both industry and labor. Competitive forces can lead to 
plant closures and layoffs, plant and employee relocations, and in some 
cases, to an attempt to avoid legal obligations. The Department will 
continue to do all it can to increase compliance with worker protection 
laws, protect workers' benefits, and provide workers with retraining.
Quality Workplaces: The intensely competitive global economy offers 
unparalleled opportunities for both business and labor, but also can 
pressure some unscrupulous employers to shrink from their 
responsibilities to their employees. Smart employers recognize that 
they must utilize all of the talent that is available to them and that 
a quality workplace is a productive workplace. The Department works 
with employers to prevent workplace discrimination and to help them 
recognize the benefits of ensuring equal opportunity for all workers. 
DOL also is committed to doing all it can to guarantee safety and 
health in the workplace and to obtain compliance with other important 
labor standards such as the minimum wage, overtime, and family and 
medical leave requirements. The Department is particularly committed to 
reducing the exploitation of child labor. The Department's ultimate 
goal is full compliance with employment laws which will ensure workers 
a safe, healthy, and fair workplace.
The Department's Regulatory Priorities
The Employment Standards Administration's (ESA's) Wage and Hour 
Division enforces several statutes establishing minimum labor standards 
that protect the Nation's work force, including the Fair Labor 
Standards Act (FLSA), the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker 
Protection Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Service Contract 
Act, the Davis-Bacon Act, the Employee Polygraph Protection Act, and 
certain provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act. These labor 
standards include requirements for payment of minimum wages and 
overtime pay, protections for working youth under child labor 
standards, job protection for employees who take leave for certain 
family or medical reasons, and minimum working conditions for 
agricultural workers. The regulatory activities required to implement 
these statutory responsibilities represent an important aspect of the 
Division's work--affecting over 100 million employees in the workforce. 
When developing regulatory proposals, the Division's focus is to assure 
fair, safe, and healthful workplaces for the Nation's workers, while at 
the same time providing clear compliance guidance and minimizing 
burdens on the regulated community.
Updating the child labor regulations issued under the FLSA will help 
guarantee a safe, healthy, and fair workplace for the Nation's working 
youth to balance their education with job-related experiences. Many 
workers first gain job-related skills through their initial exposure to 
work as teenagers. Updated child labor regulations that better reflect 
today's workplace will assist young workers in having safe jobs and 
enhance their opportunity to gain the skills to find and hold good jobs 
with the potential to increase their earnings over time. Ensuring safe 
and reasonable work hours for working youth will also ensure that top 
priority is given to education while allowing young workers to 
contribute to the economic security of their family.
Updating and clarifying the criteria that define the minimum wage and 
overtime exemptions for ``executive,'' ``administrative,'' 
``professional,'' and ``outside sales'' employees under the FLSA and 
clarifying when ``helpers'' may be used on federally funded and 
assisted construction contracts covered by the prevailing wage 
requirements of the Davis-Bacon and related acts will help guarantee 
workers a secure and quality workplace. Revising and updating these 
regulations will help employers meet their obligations voluntarily and 
enhance employees' understanding of their rights and benefits.

[[Page 61285]]

ESA's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) is charged 
with enforcing the requirements of Executive Order 11246, selected 
provisions of the Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 
1974 (VEVRAA), and section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. 
Regulations issued under the Executive Order and the two acts cover 
nondiscrimination and affirmative action obligations for Federal 
contractors and subcontractors. They help to ensure that workplace 
policies and practices are fair and provide equal opportunity to all 
workers. OFCCP's regulatory plan entry, the proposed amendments to 
regulations implementing Executive Order 11246, some of which became 
effective in 1997, will streamline and clarify the existing regulatory 
language and reduce paperwork requirements of covered Federal 
contractors while ensuring that their obligations under the Executive 
Order and the two acts are met.
The mission of the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) is to 
protect the safety and health of the Nation's miners. The Federal Mine 
Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act) places primary responsibility 
for preventing unsafe and unhealthful working conditions in mines on 
the operators, with the assistance of the miners. The Mine Act requires 
MSHA to determine compliance with Federal safety and health standards 
through inspections and investigations and to work cooperatively with 
States and the mining industry to improve training programs aimed at 
preventing accidents and occupationally caused diseases.
MSHA is committed to providing the Nation's miners with a safer and 
healthier workplace. Despite MSHA's past efforts, miners face safety 
and health hazards daily at levels unknown in most other occupations. 
Government intervention alone cannot eliminate occupational deaths, 
injuries, and illnesses in mining. The commitment of miners, mine 
operators, and Government is needed. MSHA's 1998 regulatory plan 
reflects this commitment. It will continue to concentrate on improving 
existing health standards and addressing emerging health hazards in 
mining--especially occupational exposure to coal mine dust, noise, and 
diesel exhaust particulate. These health hazards are pervasive in all 
types of mines; that is, surface and underground mines and large and 
small mines.
Several significant regulatory actions exemplify MSHA's commitment to 
improving workplace health for miners. The first action addresses the 
need to update the Agency's existing standard for exposure to noise. 
The noise final rule will improve the level of protection provided by 
existing standards. Many miners are currently exposed to the maximum 
noise levels currently permitted by MSHA regulations and, as a result, 
may be suffering hearing impairments.
To complement the recently finalized diesel-powered equipment standard, 
MSHA has issued a proposed rule for diesel particulate for underground 
coal miners to reduce the potential health hazards associated with the 
exhaust emitted by diesel-powered equipment in the mining environment. 
MSHA soon plans to issue a proposed rule for diesel particulate for 
underground metal and nonmetal miners.
While there have been significant reductions in levels of respirable 
coal mine dust over the years, some miners exposed to respirable coal 
mine dust at certain mine operations continue to develop coal workers' 
pneumoconiosis (black lung) and silicosis. In February 1996, the 
Secretary convened a Federal Advisory Committee (Advisory Committee) to 
assess the adequacy of MSHA's current coal dust program and standards, 
as well as other ways to eliminate black lung and silicosis among coal 
miners. The Advisory Committee submitted its report to the Secretary in 
November 1996. MSHA is continuing its efforts to implement the Advisory 
Committee's recommendations, which involve both regulatory and 
administrative actions. Based on the recommendations of the Advisory 
Committee and other findings, the Agency is considering rulemaking to 
lower the exposure limit to coal mine dust, to extend the x-ray medical 
surveillance program to surface coal miners, and to provide a means to 
verify operators' dust control plans.
MSHA identified the above actions for the 1998 regulatory plan because 
occupational lung diseases and hearing loss are the most serious and 
pervasive occupational illnesses in mining. Together, MSHA believes 
that these expanded health initiatives will greatly improve health 
protection for miners, thereby helping achieve the Secretary's goals of 
a safe and secure workplace.
Several years ago, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration 
(OSHA) recognized the need to find a better way to carry out its 
mission--to save the lives and improve the safety and health of 
America's working men and women. In the regulatory arena, this meant 
that OSHA had to define a regulatory approach to support its Strategic 
Plan objectives, establish clear and sensible priorities, emphasize 
consensus-based approaches to rulemaking, focus on developing a basic 
safety and health programs rule, and rewrite difficult-to-follow rules 
in plain language.
The 10 regulations in OSHA's regulatory plan directly support OSHA's 
mission, as well as the Secretary's goal of assuring America's workers 
a quality workplace by fostering workplaces that are safe, healthy, and 
fair. Each regulation is designed to reduce occupational deaths, 
injuries, and illnesses among America's workers or to enhance 
compliance through ``plain language'' revision of detailed, out-dated, 
and confusing regulations. OSHA's plan entries address the causes of 
the most dangerous occupational injuries; i.e., those with fatal or 
disabling consequences, those affecting large numbers of workers, those 
for which recognized solutions are available, and those identified as 
top priorities by the Agency's Strategic Plan. In addition, some 
entries, such as OSHA's revision to its reporting and recordkeeping 
system, are included because employers, employees, academics, and 
safety and health professionals have long recognized these efforts as 
essential to obtaining better data on workplace injuries, fatalities, 
and illnesses.
Some of OSHA's standards, particularly those adopted wholesale from 
national consensus standards in 1971, are written in highly detailed, 
specification-driven language that limits compliance flexibility and 
makes it difficult for employers and employees to comply. To address 
these problems, OSHA has launched a series of initiatives aimed at 
streamlining and rationalizing the Agency's regulations and ensuring 
that all future OSHA rules will pass plain language and common sense 
tests. In addition, the Agency is actively soliciting input from 
stakeholders--business, labor, small employers, professional 
associations, and affected government entities--as it moves forward on 
these rulemaking initiatives. The OSHA rules in the 1998 regulatory 
plan reflect the rulemaking approach that is being followed by the 
``New OSHA.'' For example, the Agency is actively working with 
stakeholders to develop permissible exposure limits (PELs) for a group 
of air contaminants that both OSHA and the regulated community 
recognize as hazardous to worker health. The rulemaking requires

[[Page 61286]]

the development of new risk assessment methods for linking exposure to 
these substances to such potentially life-threatening effects as 
neurological damage, occupational asthma, and heart disease.
One of the most important regulatory initiatives ever undertaken by 
OSHA--development of a safety and health programs rule--is the 
centerpiece of the Agency's current regulatory plan. This rule will 
ensure that employers in the general and maritime industries treat 
worker protection as a fundamental goal of their business and will help 
employers identify job-related hazards in the workplace, correct those 
so identified, and prevent others from occurring. Evidence of the 
effectiveness of safety and health programs in achieving OSHA's 
ultimate goal--the prevention of deaths, injuries, and illnesses on the 
job--is widespread and growing daily, as more and more companies report 
that their accident rates and their workers' compensation costs have 
fallen after the implementation of such programs. OSHA has held a 
series of stakeholder meetings designed to identify ways of meeting the 
business community's need for a strong but simple rule and of 
recognizing existing safety and health programs that are demonstrably 
effective. Included among these was a series of regional meetings with 
small businesses, and employees at small businesses, to gain input on 
the rule at the grassroots level. The Department believes that, by 
actively involving both employers and employees in the implementation 
of safety and health programs, this rule will help to produce the high-
performance workplaces of tomorrow. In summary, OSHA's regulatory 
strategy is designed to achieve a body of rules that will make sense to 
ordinary people and protect the safety and health of the U.S. work 
force.
The Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration (PWBA) administers and 
enforces the provsions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act 
of 1974, as amended (ERISA). ERISA establishes reporting, disclosure, 
and other standards applicable to an estimated 700,000 private-sector 
employee pension benefit plans, covering approximately 85 million 
participants, and an estimated 6 million employee welfare benefit 
plans, including group health plans covering approximately 185 million 
participants. PWBA's regulatory priorities for 1998 continue to focus 
on efforts to simplify and otherwise facilitate compliance with benefit 
laws, to improve pension and welfare plan coverage, and to protect the 
benefits of American workers. PWBA's top regulatory priorities involve 
implementation of the President's directive to adopt regulatory changes 
for group health plans, consistent with the recommendations of the 
President's Advisory Commission on Consumer Protection and Quality in 
the Health Care Industry; to improve the disclosure of health care 
benefit information; and to strengthen the claims review processes to 
ensure timely claim determinations and full and fair reviews of denied 
claims. A continuing high regulatory priority for PWBA is 
implementation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability 
Act of 1996 and the Newborns' and Mothers' Health Protection Act of 
1996, amendments to ERISA.
PWBA's other top regulatory priority is to work with the Department of 
Health and Human Services to develop regulations under the Child 
Support Performance and Incentive Act of 1998, establishing a model 
qualified medical child support order for use by State child support 
agencies to facilitate the extension of health care coverage to 
children under their jurisdiction.
Section 5001 of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 authorized the 
Department of Labor to provide Welfare-to-Work Grants to State and 
local communities to create additional job opportunities for the 
hardest-to-employ recipients of the Temporary Assistance for Needy 
Families (TANF)--the new system of block grants created by passage of 
the new welfare reform legislation. The Employment and Training 
Administration (ETA) has issued interim planning guidance under this 
legislation. Moving people from welfare to work is not only a primary 
goal of Federal welfare to work opportunities but also responds to the 
Secretary's goal of a Prepared Workforce. Guidance and regulations 
reflect minimal amplification of the law and were written only when 
further information or clarification was needed to make the program 
operational. Reporting requirements assure program integrity and 
provide timely information for tracking performance against established 
measures. Performance measures will be consistent with long-term goals. 
Wherever possible, existing regulations and systems will be used.
The Workforce Investment Act of 1998, signed into law by President 
Clinton on August 7, 1998, makes significant changes to employment and 
training programs. The Act establishes a single delivery system for 
adult employment and training and for dislocated worker employment and 
training that maximizes worker choice in the selection of occupations 
and training providers. The Employment and Training Administration will 
issue regulations and other guidance and provide technical assistance 
designed to permit maximum State and local government flexibility in 
implementing the Act.
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--Employment Standards Administration (ESA)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

54. GOVERNMENT CONTRACTORS: NONDISCRIMINATION AND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION 
OBLIGATIONS, EXECUTIVE ORDER 11246 (ESA/OFCCP) (SECTION 610 REVIEW)
Priority:


Other Significant


Reinventing Government:


This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will 
revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline 
requirements.


Legal Authority:


 EO 11246, as amended


CFR Citation:


 41 CFR 60-1; 41 CFR 60-2


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


These regulations cover nondiscrimination and affirmative action 
obligations of Federal contractors under Executive Order 11246, as 
amended. The part 60-1 Final Rule, published 8/19/97, revised parts of 
the regulations implementing E.O. 11246. OFCCP's review of regulatory 
options continues with emphasis on streamlining and clarifying the 
regulatory language and reducing paperwork requirements associated with 
compliance. OFCCP plans to propose revisions to written affirmative 
action program (AAP) requirements to reduce burdens on the regulated 
community and to improve the enforcement of the Executive Order.


Statement of Need:


Parts of the regulations implementing Executive Order 11246 need to be

[[Page 61287]]

revised to reflect changes in the law that have occurred over time, 
streamlined, and clarified. Executive Order 11246 requires all Federal 
contractors and subcontractors and federally assisted construction 
contractors and subcontractors to apply a policy of nondiscrimination 
and affirmative action in employment with respect to race, color, 
religion, sex, and national origin. The regulatory revisions are 
necessary in order to allow the DOL to effectively and efficiently 
enforce the provisions of the Executive Order. As a first step in 
updating its Executive Order regulations, the Department published 
changes to the provisions that govern preaward review requirements; 
recordkeeping and record retention requirements; certification 
requirements; and related provisions. In addition, other revisions have 
been made that conform Executive Order 11246 regulations to the recent 
changes made in the Department's regulations implementing Section 503 
of the Rehabilitation Act.
A second phase of revision will contain proposals to change provisions 
that govern requirements for written affirmative action plans and the 
provisions concerning evaluation of contractor procedures.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


No aspect of this action is required by statute or court order.


Alternatives:


After careful review, it was decided that the most effective way to 
improve compliance with the Executive Order 11246 provisions and reduce 
burdens on contractors, was to propose revisions to these regulations. 
Administrative actions alone could not produce the desired results.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


It is anticipated that the net effect of the proposed changes will 
increase compliance with the nondiscrimination and affirmative action 
requirements of the Executive Order and reduce compliance costs to 
Federal contractors. The Department will also be able to utilize its 
resources more efficiently and more effectively.


Risks:


Failure to move forward with OFCCP's regulatory agenda would cause the 
continuation of outdated methods of evaluating contractor compliance 
and impede effective enforcement of the E.O. 11246.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM Affirmative Action Plans (60-2)                           03/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Additional Information:


Under the reinventing government initiative, OFCCP's emphasis is on 
regulatory reform, e.g., to revise the Executive Order 11246 
regulations to reduce paperwork burdens, eliminate unnecessary 
regulations, and simplify and clarify the regulations while improving 
the efficiency and effectiveness of the contract compliance program.


Agency Contact:
James I. Melvin
Director, Division of Policy, Planing and Program Development, OFCCP
Department of Labor
Employment Standards Administration
200 Constitution Avenue NW.
Room C3325, FP Building
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-0102
TDD: 800 326-2577
Fax: 202 219-6195
RIN: 1215-AA01
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--ESA
55. CHILD LABOR REGULATIONS, ORDERS, AND STATEMENTS OF INTERPRETATION 
(ESA/W-H)
Priority:


Other Significant


Reinventing Government:


This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will 
revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline 
requirements.


Legal Authority:


 29 USC 203(e)


CFR Citation:


 29 CFR 570


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


Section 3(l) of the Fair Labor Standards Act requires the Secretary of 
Labor to issue regulations with respect to minors between 14 and 16 
years of age ensuring that the periods and conditions of their 
employment do not interfere with their schooling, health, or well-
being. The Secretary is also directed to designate occupations that may 
be particularly hazardous for minors 16 and 17 years of age. Child 
Labor Regulation No. 3 sets forth the permissible industries and 
occupations in which 14- and 15-year-olds may be employed, and 
specifies the number of hours in a day and in a week, and time periods 
within a day, that such minors may be employed. The Department has 
invited public comment in considering whether changes in technology in 
the workplace and job content over the years require new hazardous 
occupation orders, and whether changes are needed in some of the 
applicable hazardous occupation orders. Comment has also been solicited 
on whether revisions should be considered in the permissible hours and 
time of day standards for 14- and 15-year-olds. Comment has been sought 
on appropriate changes required to implement school-to-work transition 
programs. Additionally, Congress enacted Public Law 104-174 (August 6, 
1996), which amended FLSA section 13(c) and requires changes in the 
regulations under Hazardous Occupation Order No. 12 regarding power-
driven paper balers and compactors, to allow 16- and 17-year-olds to 
load, but not operate or unload, machines meeting applicable American 
National Standards Institute (ANSI) safety standards and certain other 
conditions.


Statement of Need:


Because of changes in the workplace and the introduction of new 
processes and technologies, the Department is undertaking a 
comprehensive review of the regulatory criteria applicable to child 
labor. Other factors necessitating a review of the child labor 
regulations are changes in places where young workers find employment 
opportunities, the existence of differing Federal and State standards, 
and the divergent views on how best to correlate school and work 
experiences.
Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Secretary of Labor is directed 
to provide by regulation or by order for the employment of youth 
between 14 and 16 years of age under periods and conditions which will 
not interfere with their schooling, health and well-being. The 
Secretary is also directed to designate occupations that may be 
particularly hazardous for youth between the ages of 16 and 18 years

[[Page 61288]]

or detrimental to their health or well-being. The Secretary has done so 
by specifying, in regulations, the permissible industries and 
occupations in which 14- and 15-year-olds may be employed, and the 
number of hours per day and week and the time periods within a day in 
which they may be employed. In addition, these regulations designate 
the occupations declared particularly hazardous for minors between 16 
and 18 years of age or detrimental to their health or well-being.
Public comment has been invited in considering whether changes in 
technology in the workplace and job content over the years require new 
hazardous occupation orders or necessitate revision to some of the 
existing hazardous orders. Comment has also been invited on whether 
revisions should be considered in the permissible hours and time-of-day 
standards for the employment of 14- and 15-year-olds, and whether 
revisions should be considered to facilitate school-to-work transition 
programs. When developing regulatory proposals (after receipt of public 
comment on the advance notice of proposed rulemaking), the Department's 
focus will be on assuring healthy, safe and fair workplaces for young 
workers, and at the same time promoting job opportunities for young 
people and making regulatory standards less burdensome to the regulated 
community.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


These regulations are issued under sections 3(1), 11, and 12 of the 
Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 USC Secs. 203(1), 211, and 212, which 
require the Secretary of Labor to issue regulations prescribing 
permissible time periods and conditions of employment for minors 
between 14 and 16 years old so as not to interfere with their 
schooling, health, or well-being, and to designate occupations that may 
be particularly hazardous or detrimental to the health or well-being of 
minors under 18 years old.


Alternatives:


Regulatory alternatives will be developed based on the public comments 
responding to the advance notice of proposed rulemaking. Alternatives 
likely to be considered include specific additions or modifications to 
the hazardous occupation orders and changes to the hours 14- and 15-
year-olds may work.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Preliminary estimates of the anticipated costs and benefits of this 
regulatory action will be developed once decisions are reached on 
particular proposed changes in the child labor regulations. Benefits 
will include safer working environments and the avoidance of injuries 
with respect to young workers.


Risks:


An assessment of the magnitude of the risk addressed by this action 
will be prepared once decisions are reached on particular proposed 
changes in the child labor regulations.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Final Rule on HO56 FR 58626                                    11/20/91
Final Rule Effective                                           12/20/91
ANPRM           59 FR 25167                                    05/13/94
ANPRM Comment Pe59 FR 40318                                    08/11/94
NPRM                                                           12/00/98
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
John R. Fraser
Deputy Director
Wage and Hour Division
Department of Labor
Employment Standards Administration
200 Constitution Avenue NW.
Room S3502, FP Building
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-0051
Fax: 202 219-5122
RIN: 1215-AA09
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--ESA
56. DEFINING AND DELIMITING THE TERM ``ANY EMPLOYEE EMPLOYED IN A BONA 
FIDE EXECUTIVE, ADMINISTRATIVE, OR PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY'' (ESA/W-H)
Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Unfunded Mandates:


This action may affect State, local or tribal governments and the 
private sector.


Legal Authority:


 29 USC 213(a)(1)


CFR Citation:


 29 CFR 541


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


These regulations set forth the criteria for exemption from the Fair 
Labor Standards Act's minimum wage and overtime requirements for 
``executive,'' ``administrative,'' ``professional'' and ``outside sales 
employees.'' To be exempt, employees must meet certain tests relating 
to duties and responsibilities and be paid on a salary basis at 
specified levels. A final rule increasing the salary test levels was 
published on January 13, 1981 (46 FR 3010), to become effective on 
February 13, 1981, but was indefinitely stayed on February 12, 1981 (46 
FR 11972). On March 27, 1981, a proposal to suspend the final rule 
indefinitely was published (46 FR 18998), with comments due by April 
28, 1981. As a result of numerous comments and petitions from industry 
groups on the duties and responsibilities tests, and as a result of 
recent case law developments, the Department concluded that a more 
comprehensive review of these regulations was needed. An ANPRM 
reopening the comment period and broadening the scope of review to 
include all aspects of the regulations was published on November 19, 
1985, with the comment period subsequently extended to March 22, 1986.
The Department has revised these regulations since the ANPRM to address 
specific issues. In 1991, as the result of an amendment to the Fair 
Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the regulations were revised to permit 
certain computer systems analysts, computer programmers, software 
engineers, and other similarly skilled professional employees to 
qualify for the exemption, including those paid on an hourly basis if 
their rates of pay exceed 6-1/2 times the applicable minimum wage. 
Also, in 1992 the Department issued a final rule which provided, in 
part, that an otherwise exempt public sector employee would not be 
disqualified from the exemption's requirement for payment on a ``salary 
basis'' solely because the employee is paid according to a public pay 
and leave system that, absent the use of paid leave, requires the 
employee's pay to be reduced for absences of less than one workday. In 
addition, a number of court rulings have caused confusion on the 
factors

[[Page 61289]]

to consider in meeting the regulation's ``salary basis'' criteria, in 
both the public and private sectors.


Statement of Need:


These regulations set forth the criteria used in the determination of 
the application of the FLSA exemption for ``executive,'' 
``administrative,'' ``professional,'' and ``outside sales employees.'' 
The existing salary test levels used in determining which employees 
qualify as exempt from the minimum wage and overtime rules were adopted 
in 1975 on an interim basis. These salary level tests are outdated and 
offer little practical guidance in the application of the exemption. In 
addition numerous comments and petitions have been received in recent 
years from industry groups regarding the duties and responsibilities 
tests in the regulations. These factors, as well as recent case law 
developments, have led the Department to conclude that a review of 
these regulations is needed.
These regulations have been revised in recent years to deal with 
specific issues. In 1991, as the result of an amendment to the FLSA, 
the regulations were revised to permit certain computer systems 
analysts, computer programmers, software engineers, and other similarly 
skilled professional employees to qualify for the exemption, including 
those paid on an hourly basis if their rates of pay exceed 6 1/2 times 
the applicable minimum wage. Also in 1991, the Department undertook 
separate rulemaking on another aspect of the regulations, the 
definition of ``salary basis'' for public-sector employees. This 
interim final rule provided, in part, that an otherwise exempt public-
sector employee would not be disqualified from the exemption's 
requirement for payment on a ``salary basis'' solely because the 
employee is paid according to a public pay and leave system that, 
absent the use of paid leave, requires the employee's pay to be reduced 
for absences of less than one workday. In 1992, the Department issued 
its final rule on this matter.
Because of the limited nature of these revisions, the regulations are 
still in need of updating and clarification. In addition, recent court 
rulings have caused confusion as to what constitutes compliance with 
the regulation's ``salary basis'' criteria in both the public and 
private sectors.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


These regulations are issued under the statutory exemption from minimum 
wage and overtime pay provided by section 13(a)(1) of the Fair Labor 
Standards Act, 29 USC 213(a)(1), which requires the Secretary of Labor 
to issue regulations that define and delimit the terms ``any employee 
employed in a bona fide executive, administrative, or professional 
capacity ..., or in the capacity of outside salesman...,'' for purposes 
of applying the exemption to employees who meet the specified criteria.


Alternatives:


The Department will involve affected interest groups in developing 
regulatory alternatives. Following completion of these outreach and 
consultation activities, full regulatory alternatives will be 
developed.
Although legislative proposals have been introduced in the Congress to 
address certain aspects of these regulations, the Department will 
continue to pursue revisions to the regulations as the appropriate 
response to the concerns raised. Alternatives likely to be considered 
include particular changes to address ``salary basis'' and salary level 
issues to a comprehensive overhaul of the regulations that also 
addresses the duties and responsibilities tests.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Some 23 million employees are estimated to be within the scope of these 
regulations. Legal developments in court cases are causing progressive 
loss of control of the guiding interpretations under this exemption and 
are creating law without considering a comprehensive analytical 
approach to current compensation concepts and workplace practices. 
These court rulings are creating apprehension in both the private and 
public sectors. Clear, comprehensive, and up-to-date regulations would 
provide for central, uniform control over the application of these 
regulations and ameliorate this apprehension. In the public sector, 
State and local government employers contend that the rules are based 
on production workplace environments from the 1940s and 1950s, and that 
they do not readily adapt to contemporary government functions. The 
Federal government also has concerns regarding the manner in which the 
courts and arbitration decisions are applying the exemption to the 
Federal workforce. Resolution of confusion over how the regulations are 
to be applied in the public sector will ensure that employees are 
protected, that employers are able to comply with their 
responsibilities under the law, and that the regulations are 
enforceable. Preliminary estimates of the specific costs and benefits 
of this regulatory action will be developed once the various regulatory 
alternatives are identified.


Risks:


This action does not affect public health, safety, or the environment.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Indefinite Stay 46 FR 11972le                                  02/12/81
Proposal To Susp46 FR 18998definitely                          03/27/81
ANPRM           50 FR 47696                                    11/19/85
Extension of ANP51 FR 2525 Period From 01/21/86 to 03/22/86    01/17/86
ANPRM Comment Pe51 FR 2525                                     03/22/86
NPRM                                                           09/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, Organizations


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local, Federal


Agency Contact:
John R. Fraser
Deputy Director
Wage and Hour Division
Department of Labor
Employment Standards Administration
200 Constitution Avenue NW.
Room S3502, FP Building
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-0051
Fax: 202 219-5122
RIN: 1215-AA14
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--ESA
57. PROCEDURES FOR PREDETERMINATION OF WAGE RATES (29 CFR PART 1) AND 
LABOR STANDARDS PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO CONTRACTS COVERING FEDERALLY 
FINANCED AND ASSISTED CONSTRUCTION (29 CFR PART 5)
Priority:


Other Significant

[[Page 61290]]

Legal Authority:


 40 USC 276a to 276a(7)


CFR Citation:


 29 CFR 1; 29 CFR 5


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Department attempted to implement revised rules governing the 
circumstances in which ``helpers'' may be used on federally funded and 
assisted construction contracts subject to the Davis-Bacon Act in May 
1982 (see 47 FR 23644, 23658 (May 28, 1982); 47 FR 32090 (July 20, 
1982)). After protracted litigation, a final rule was published in 
January 1989 (see 54 FR 4234) which became effective on February 4, 
1991. Thereafter, on two occasions, Congress acted to prevent the 
Department from expending any funds to implement these revised helper 
regulations--through the Dire Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act 
of 1991, PL 102-27, 105 Stat. 130,151 (1991), and then through section 
104 of the DOL Appropriations Act of 1994, PL 103-112. There is no such 
prohibition in the DOL's Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1998, 
Public Law 105-78 (November 13, 1997). Given the uncertainty of 
continuation of such moratoriums, the Department has determined that 
the helper issue needs to be addressed through further rulemaking. A 
notice inviting public comment on a proposal to continue the suspension 
of the former helper regulations while the Department conducts 
additional rulemaking proceedings was published August 2, 1996 (61 FR 
40366). A final rule continuing the suspension while further rulemaking 
is considered was published December 30, 1996 (61 FR 68641).


Statement of Need:


The current helper rules are difficult to administer and enforce and--
as evidenced by the prolonged litigation history and subsequent 
Congressional actions--are highly controversial. In May 1982, the 
Department attempted to implement revised rules governing the 
circumstances in which ``helpers'' may be used on federally funded and 
assisted construction contracts subject to the Davis-Bacon Act. After 
protracted litigation, a final rule was published in January 1989 and 
became effective on February 4, 1991. Thereafter, on two occasions, 
Congress acted to prevent the Department from expending any funds to 
implement these revised helper regulations through appropriations 
riders. Given the uncertainty of continuation of such moratoriums, the 
Department has determined that the helper issue needs to be addressed 
through further rulemaking.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


These regulations are issued under the authority conferred upon the 
Secretary of Labor by Reorganization Plan No. 14 of 1950 (64 Stat. 
1267, 5 USC Appendix) and the Copeland Act (40 USC 276c), in order to 
provide coordinated enforcement of the prevailing wage provisions of 
the Davis-Bacon Act (40 USC 276a-276a-7) and several additional Federal 
statutes that require payment of prevailing wages as determined by the 
Secretary of Labor according to the Davis-Bacon Act to laborers and 
mechanics working on federally funded or assisted construction 
contracts (see list of statutes in 29 CFR Sec. 5.1).


Alternatives:


The Administration has determined that there are only limited 
alternatives to addressing this issue through rulemaking, in addition 
to possible legislative changes.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


A new rulemaking regarding the helper criteria will seek to make 
administration of the Davis-Bacon Act more efficient by establishing 
reasonable ``helper'' criteria and methodology--thus resolving the 
controversy and uncertainty currently experienced by interested 
parties. Changes in the helper regulations may affect prior estimates 
of potential construction procurement cost savings anticipated from the 
earlier rulemaking. Estimates of the financial impacts of revised 
``helper'' regulations will be prepared for inclusion in the NPRM.


Risks:


This action does not affect public health, safety, or the environment.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM Continue Su61 FR 40367                                    08/02/96
Final Continue S61 FR 68641                                    12/30/96
NPRM                                                           11/00/98
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local, Tribal, Federal


Agency Contact:
John R. Fraser
Deputy Director
Wage and Hour Division
Department of Labor
Employment Standards Administration
200 Constitution Avenue NW.
Room S3502, FP Building
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-0051
Fax: 202 219-5122
RIN: 1215-AA94
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--Employment and Training Administration (ETA)

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

58. WELFARE-TO-WORK (WTW) GRANTS
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


 42 USC 601 to 619


CFR Citation:


 20 CFR 645


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, November 3, 1997, 90 days from enactment.


Abstract:


The Employment and Training Administration published interim final 
regulations on November 18, 1997, implementing the Welfare-to-Work 
Grants Program. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity 
Reconciliation Act reformed the Nation's welfare laws, when enacted in 
August 1996, by creating a new system of block grants to the States for 
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). Moving people from 
welfare to work is one of the primary goals of Federal welfare policy 
as well as one of five goals the Secretary of Labor has identified for 
the Department of Labor. Section 5001 of the Balanced Budget Act of 
1997 authorized the Department of Labor to provide Welfare-to-Work 
Grants to States and local communities to create additional job 
opportunities for the hardest-to-employ recipients of TANF. The 
Welfare-to-Work Grants will be provided to the States through the use 
of a formula, and in a competitive process to local communities. A 
small

[[Page 61291]]

amount of total grant funds will be set aside for special purposes: one 
percent for Indian tribes; 0.8 percent for evaluation; and $100 million 
for performance bonuses to successful States.
The interim final regulations and other guidance focus on providing 
maximum local flexibility. Guidance and regulations reflect minimal 
amplification of the law and provide further information or 
clarification as needed to make the program operational. Existing 
regulations and systems are used wherever possible. Reporting 
requirements will assure program integrity and provide timely 
information for tracking performance. Performance measures will be 
established and will serve as the basis for the award of FY 2000 bonus 
grants to the States based on successful performance. Products provided 
link welfare agencies and workforce development system agencies at the 
operational level in order to maximize resources available and avoid 
duplication and overlap. Leveraging of non-Federal resources at the 
State and local level is encouraged.
These funds will allow States and local communities to help move 
eligible individuals into jobs by: job creation through public or 
private sector wage subsidies; on-the-job training; contracts with 
public or private providers of job readiness, job placement, and post-
employment services; job vouchers for similar services; community 
service or work experience; or job retention and supportive services 
(if such services are not otherwise available).


Statement of Need:


Since the passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity 
Reconciliation Act, the President and the Congress recognized the need 
for a measure to complement the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 
(TANF) block grant created as a result of the Act. On August 5, 1997, 
President Clinton signed into law the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, 
which authorized the Department of Labor to provide Welfare-to-Work 
Grants to States and local communities to create additional job 
opportunities for the hardest-to-employ recipients of TANF. The basic 
goal of the program is to move welfare recipients into unsubsidized 
jobs with good career potential for economic self-sufficiency. Welfare-
to-Work formula and competitive grants provide States and local 
communities with an array of tools to help them accomplish this goal in 
ways that make sense and are most effective for their particular 
population needs. The Employment and Training Administration will issue 
final regulations and other guidance, provide technical assistance, and 
establish performance standards which will drive State and local 
efforts towards the program's goal while still allowing maximum local 
flexibility.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


Promulgation of these regulations is authorized by SSA section 403 
(a)(1)(5)(C)(viii).


Alternatives:


Regulatory alternatives will be developed once determinations have been 
made with regard to the scope and nature of the regulatory guidance 
which will be necessary to carry out the new provisions.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Preliminary estimates of the anticipated costs of this regulatory 
action have not been determined at this time and will be determined at 
a later date. Welfare recipients will receive job placement and 
temporary, transitional employment opportunities leading to lasting 
employment and self-sufficiency. Employers will have ready access to a 
large pool of motivated hard-working entry-level workers who will be 
eligible for job retention and support services to maintain employment. 
Businesses will be eligible to receive wage and on-the-job training 
subsidies when they hire the hard-to-employ welfare recipients.


Risks:


This action does not affect public health, safety, or the environment.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Interim Final Ru62 FR 61587                                    11/18/97
Final Action                                                   12/00/98
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local, Tribal


Agency Contact:
Dennis Lieberman
Director, Office of Welfare To Work
Department of Labor
Employment and Training Administration
200 Constitution Avenue NW.
Room C4524, FP Building
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 219-0181
RIN: 1205-AB15
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--ETA
59.  WORKFORCE INVESTMENT ACT OF 1998
Priority:


Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Legal Authority:


 Workforce Investment Act of 1998, section 506c


CFR Citation:


 20 CFR 660


Legal Deadline:


Other, Statutory, February 7, 1999, Interim Final Rule.


Final, Statutory, December 31, 1999.


Abstract:


The Workforce Investment Act of 1998 was signed into law by President 
Clinton on August 7, 1998. titles I, III and V of the Act fall under 
the purview of the Employment and Training Administration. The Act 
makes significant changes in the way this country's employment and 
training programs do business. The Act will ensure that Americans have 
the information and training they need to qualify for good jobs and 
successfully manage their careers. The interim final regulations, final 
regulations, and other guidance will focus on providing maximum local 
flexibility. Guidance and regulations will reflect minimal 
amplification of the law and will provide further information or 
clarification as needed to make the program operational. Reporting 
requirements will assure program integrity and provide timely 
information for tracking performance.


Statement of Need:


The purpose of title I of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 is to 
provide workforce investment activities, through statewide and local 
workforce investment systems, that increase the

[[Page 61292]]

employment, retention, and earnings of participants, and skill 
attainment of participants, and as a result, improve the quality of the 
workforce, reduce welfare dependency, and enhance the productivity and 
competitiveness of the Nation. The Employment and Training 
Administration will issue regulations and other guidance and provide 
technical assistance that will focus State and local efforts towards 
the program's goal while allowing maximum local flexibility. The 
Department of Labor and its partners must move quickly to implement the 
reforms contained in the legislation. The law requires that interim 
final regulations be published no later than 180 days after the date of 
enactment, and that final regulations be published no later than 
December 31, 1999.


Alternatives:


Regulatory alternatives will be developed once determinations have been 
made with regard to the scope and nature of the regulatory guidance 
necessary to carry out new provisions under the new legislation, the 
Workforce Investment Act of 1998.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Preliminary estimates of the anticipated costs of this newly enacted 
legislation have not been determined at this time, but will be at a 
later date. It is anticipated, however, that successful implementation 
of this legislation will result in changes in the way this country's 
employment and training programs do business, and will ensure that 
Americans have the training they need to qualify for good jobs and 
successfully manage their careers. The Act consolidates more than 60 
Federal programs. It will significantly enhance the ability of State 
and local areas to effectively implement welfare reform and move 
welfare recipients from welfare to work. It establishes a single 
delivery system for adult employment and training and for dislocated 
worker employment and training that maximizes choice in the selection 
of occupations and training providers. Under the Act, individuals with 
disabilities will have access to a comprehensive job training system 
capable of serving all. Unemployed individuals with disabilities will 
have broader job opportunities allowing them to re-enter or in some 
cases enter the workforce for the first time.


Risks:


This action does not affect public health, safety, or the environment.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Interim Final Rule                                             02/00/99
Final Action                                                   12/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local, Tribal, Federal


Agency Contact:
Eric Johnson
Director, One-Stop
Department of Labor
Employment and Training Administration
200 Constitution Avenue NW.
Room N4700, FP Building
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 219-8395
RIN: 1205-AB20
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration (PWBA)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

60. REVISION OF THE FORM 5500 SERIES AND IMPLEMENTING AND RELATED 
REGULATIONS UNDER THE EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT INCOME SECURITY ACT OF 1974 
(ERISA)
Priority:


Economically Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Reinventing Government:


This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will 
revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline 
requirements.


Legal Authority:


 29 USC 1021; 29 USC 1022; 29 USC 1023; 29 USC 1024; 29 USC 1025; 29 
USC 1026; 29 USC 1027; 29 USC 1029; 29 USC 1030; 29 USC 1059; 29 USC 
1135; 29 USC 1166; 29 USC 1168


CFR Citation:


 29 CFR 2520


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


Under title I of ERISA, title IV of ERISA, and the Internal Revenue 
Code, as amended, pension and other employee benefit plans are 
generally required to file returns/reports annually concerning, among 
other things, the financial condition and operations of the plan. These 
annual reporting requirements are satisfied generally by filing the 
Form 5500 series in accordance with its instructions and related 
regulations. The Department of Labor, IRS, and PBGC have undertaken a 
comprehensive review of the annual return/report forms in an effort to 
streamline the information required to be reported and the methods by 
which such information is filed and processed.


Statement of Need:


This project was included in prior PWBA regulatory plans. The Form 5500 
Series is the primary source of information concerning the operation 
funding, assets and investments of pension and other employee benefit 
plans, and is both an important compliance and research tool for the 
Department, and a disclosure document for plan participants and 
beneficiaries and a source of information and data for use by other 
Federal agencies, Congress, and the private sector in assessing 
employee benefit, tax, and economic trends and policies.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


Title I of ERISA, sections 101 through 105, 107, 209, and 606 impose 
specific reporting and disclosure obligations on administrators of 
employee benefit plans. Sections 104(a)(2), 104(a)(3) and 110 of ERISA 
provide the Secretary with the authority to prescribe simplified 
reports, exemptions and alternative methods of compliance for employee 
welfare benefit plans and employee pension benefit plans. Section 505 
provides the Secretary with general authority to prescribe regulations 
necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions of title I of 
ERISA.


Alternatives:


Amendments to the annual report regulations implementing the revisions 
to the Form 5500 Series are in development.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


By simplifying the Form 5500 Series and creating an automated 
processing system for the filed reports, it is anticipated that filer 
costs of preparing forms and Government processing costs will be 
reduced. These measures will eliminate reporting requirements for 
information that is not needed for the

[[Page 61293]]

discharge of the Department's statutory responsibilities, while 
ensuring that participants and beneficiaries have access to the 
information they need to protect their rights and benefits under ERISA.


Risks:


Failure to revise the Form 5500 Series Annual Reports for Employee 
Benefit Plans could deprive plans, sponsors and participants and 
beneficiaries, as well as the Government, of the cost savings and 
related benefits associated with streamlining the forms and their 
processing.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Proposed Forms R62 FR 46556                                    09/03/97
Proposed Forms Comment Period End                              11/03/97
NPRM Implementing/ Related Regulations                         11/00/98
Final Action                                                   06/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Additional Information:


Public hearing held November 17, 1997. Hearing comment period ended 12/
03/97.


Agency Contact:
John J. Canary
Supervisory Pension Law Specialist
Department of Labor
Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration
200 Constitution Avenue NW.
Room N5669, FP Building
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 219-8521
RIN: 1210-AA52
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--PWBA
61. AMENDMENTS TO SUMMARY PLAN DESCRIPTION REGULATIONS
Priority:


Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Legal Authority:


 29 USC 1024; 29 USC 1135


CFR Citation:


 29 CFR 2520.102-3; 29 CFR 2520.102-5


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


These proposed amendments to the regulations governing the contents of 
summary plan descriptions are intended to ensure that all participants 
in group health plans are provided, consistent with the recommendations 
of the President's Advisory Commission on Consumer Protection and 
Quality in the Health Care Industry, understandable information 
concerning their plan; provider network composition; preauthorization 
and utilization review procedures; whether, and under what 
circumstances, coverage is provided for existing and new drugs; and 
whether, and under what circumstances, coverage is provided for 
experimental drugs devices and procedures. These amendments will 
include the repeal of special rules limiting the information that must 
be included in summary plan descriptions with respect to certain health 
maintenance organizations. In addition, the proposed amendments will 
include provisions that are intended to update or clarify the 
application of certain SPD content requirements affecting both pension 
and welfare benefit plans.


Statement of Need:


This regulation is necessary to improve the disclosure of group health 
plan benefit information, consistent with the recommendations of the 
President's Advisory Commission on Consumer Protection and Quality in 
the Health Care Industry, as set forth in its November 20, 1997, 
report. The amendments will also update the general SPD content 
requirements and update other relevant regulatory provisions.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


Promulgation of this regulation is authorized by sections 101(a), 
102(b), and 505 of ERISA


Alternatives:


Regulatory alternatives will be developed once determinations have been 
made with regard to the scope and nature of the amendments which are 
necessary to improve the disclosure of benefit information to 
participants and beneficiaries of group health plans under the 
applicable ERISA regulations.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The Department estimates that the aggregate additional costs associated 
with the proposed regulation would average approximately $76 million 
per year for the years 1999, 2000, and 2001, although the Department 
believes that this estimate may be conservatively high. However, the 
Department believes that the proposed regulation would assure that 
participants have better access to more complete information on their 
benefit plans. Better information will lead both participants and plan 
sponsors to make more economically efficient decisions regarding 
benefit plans. This enhanced value and efficiency from better 
information constitute the benefits of the regulation.


Risks:


Failure to issue the regulation would deprive participants, 
beneficiaries, and plan sponsors of the improvements in health care 
market efficiency which would be generated by the regulatory amendments 
specified therein.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            63 FR 48376                                    09/09/98
NPRM Comment Period End                                        11/09/98
Final Action                                                   03/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
John J. Canary
Supervisory Pension Law Specialist
Department of Labor
Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration
200 Constitution Avenue NW.
Room N5669, FP Building
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 219-8521
RIN: 1210-AA69

[[Page 61294]]

_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--PWBA

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

62. REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING THE HEALTH CARE ACCESS, PORTABILITY AND 
RENEWABILITY PROVISIONS OF THE HEALTH INSURANCE PORTABILITY AND 
ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 1996
Priority:


Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Legal Authority:


 PL 104-91 section 101; 29 USC 1027; 29 USC 1059; 29 USC 1135; 29 USC 
1171; 29 USC 1172; 29 USC 1177


CFR Citation:


 29 CFR 2590


Legal Deadline:


Other, Statutory, April 1, 1997, Per Section 734 of ERISA as added by 
Section 101 of HIPAA.


Abstract:


The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) 
amended title I of ERISA by adding a new part 7, designed to improve 
health care access, portability and renewability. This rulemaking will 
provide regulatory guidance to implement these provisions.


Statement of Need:


HIPAA added a new part 7 to title I of ERISA, containing provisions 
designed to improve the availability and portability of health 
insurance coverage. Part 7 includes provisions limiting exclusions for 
preexisting conditions and providing credit for prior coverage, 
guaranteeing availability of health coverage for small employers, 
prohibiting discrimination against employees and dependents based on 
health status, and guaranteeing renewability of health coverage to 
employers and individuals.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


Promulgation of these regulations is authorized by sections 505 and 734 
of ERISA.


Alternatives:


Regulatory alternatives will be developed once determinations have been 
made, in conjunction with other concerned agencies with regard to the 
scope and nature of the final regulatory guidance which will be 
necessary to carry out the new provisions.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Preliminary estimates of the anticipated costs and benefits of the 
regulatory actions found to be necessary to implement the new provision 
will be developed once decisions are reached on which specific actions 
are necessary.


Risks:


Failure to provide regulatory guidance necessary to carry out these 
important health care reforms would adversely impact the availability 
and portability of health insurance coverage for American families.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Interim Final Ru62 FR 16894                                    04/08/97
Interim Final Rule Effective                                   06/07/97
Interim Final Rule Comment Period End                          07/07/97
Final Action                                                   06/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Daniel J. Maguire
Director, Health Care Task Force
Department of Labor
Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration
200 Constitution Avenue NW.
Room N4611, FP Building
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 219-4592
RIN: 1210-AA54
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--PWBA
63. AMENDMENT OF SUMMARY PLAN DESCRIPTION AND RELATED ERISA REGULATIONS 
TO IMPLEMENT STATUTORY CHANGES IN THE HEALTH INSURANCE PORTABILITY AND 
ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 1996
Priority:


Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Legal Authority:


 PL 104-191 section 101; PL 104-204 section 603


CFR Citation:


 29 CFR 2520.102-3; 29 CFR 2520.104b-1; 29 CFR 2520.104b-3


Legal Deadline:


NPRM, Statutory, April 1, 1997, Per Section 707 of ERISA as added by 
Section 101 of HIPAA.


Abstract:


The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) 
amended ERISA's summary plan description (SPD) and related reporting 
and disclosure provisions to require that participants and 
beneficiaries receive from their group health plans: (i) more timely 
notice if there is a material reduction in services or benefits under 
the plan; (ii) more information regarding the financing and 
administration of the plan; and (iii) specific identification of 
Department of Labor offices through which they can seek assistance or 
information about HIPAA. The Newborns' and Mothers' Health Protection 
Act of 1996 (NMHPA) also amended ERISA's SPD and related reporting and 
disclosure provisions. This rulemaking will amend the Department's SPD 
and related regulations to implement those statutory changes.


Statement of Need:


The existing SPD and related reporting and disclosure provisions need 
to be revised to reflect the changes made by HIPAA. HIPAA's statutory 
changes modify the requirements concerning the manner and timing of how 
certain important plan information is communicated to participants and 
beneficiaries by plan administrators. Without revised regulatory 
guidance, administrators may not be able to improve the timely 
disclosure of plan information on both a quantitative and qualitative 
basis. HIPAA also requires the Secretary to issue regulations within 
180 days after its enactment providing alternative mechanisms to 
delivery by mail through which group health plans may notify 
participants and beneficiaries of material reductions in covered 
services or benefits.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


Promulgation of these regulations is authorized by sections 104(b), 505 
and 734 of ERISA.


Alternatives:


Regulatory alternatives will be developed once determinations have been 
made with regard to the scope and nature of the regulatory guidance 
which

[[Page 61295]]

will be necessary to carry out the new provisions.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


There is estimated to be no capital/start-up cost. Total burden cost 
for operating maintenance is to average $73,000,000 annually for the 
years 1997, 1998, and 1999. However, the Department believes that the 
regulation assures that participants have better access to more 
complete information about their benefit plans.


Risks:


The SPD is a critical plan document for participants and beneficiaries. 
Without access to accurate and timely information participants and 
beneficiaries will not be able to protect their rights under ERISA. 
Improved disclosure requirements also should serve to facilitate 
compliance by plan administrators, thereby reducing litigation and 
penalty risks to plan administrators. The failure to issue revised 
disclosure regulations also may result in a failure to achieve HIPAA's 
objective of improving the disclosure of plan information.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Interim Final Ru62 FR 16979                                    04/08/97
Interim Final Rule Comment Period End                          05/31/97
Interim Final Rule Effective                                   06/01/97
Interim Final Ru63 FR 48372                                    09/09/98
Interim Final Rule Effective                                   11/09/98
Comment Period End                                             11/09/98
Final Action                                                   06/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
John J. Canary
Supervisory Pension Law Specialist
Department of Labor
Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration
200 Constitution Avenue NW.
Room N5669, FP Building
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 219-8521
RIN: 1210-AA55
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--PWBA
64. AMENDMENTS TO EMPLOYEE BENEFIT PLAN CLAIMS PROCEDURES REGULATION
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


 29 USC 1133; 29 USC 1135


CFR Citation:


 29 CFR 2560.503-1


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Department is proposing to amend the regulation governing the 
establishment and maintenance of benefit claims procedures by employee 
benefit plans covered by title I of the Employee Retirement Income 
Security Act (ERISA). The proposal would establish new standards for 
the processing of group health and other employee benefit plan claims 
filed by participants and beneficiaries. In the case of group health 
plans, as well as certain plans providing disability benefits, the new 
standards are intended to ensure more timely benefit determinations, 
improved access to information on which a benefit determination is 
based, and greater assurance that participants and beneficiaries will 
be afforded a full and fair review of denied claims.


Statement of Need:


This regulation is necessary to insure more timely benefit 
determinations, improve access to information on which a benefit 
determination is made, and provide greater assurance that participants 
and beneficiaries will be afforded a full and fair review of denied 
claims.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


Promulgation of this regulation is authorized by sections 503 and 505 
of ERISA.


Alternatives:


Regulatory alternatives will be developed once determinations have been 
made with regard to the scope and nature of the amendments which are 
necessary to update the rules which implement section 503 of ERISA.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


On the basis of available data, the Department believes that the 
projected benefits of this proposed regulation would outweigh its 
projected costs. In particular, updating the existing regulation to 
address recent changes in the delivery and financing of health care 
services would improve health care quality by averting harmful, 
inappropriate delays and denials of health benefits, thereby yielding 
substantial social benefits.


Risks:


Failure to issue this regulation would deprive many plan participants 
and beneficiaries of the benefits of an improved claims review process.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Request for Information--Amendment of Regulations on Plan Claims 
        Procedur62 FR 47262                                    09/08/97
Comment Period End                                             11/07/97
NPRM            63 FR 48340                                    09/09/98
Final Action                                                   03/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Susan G. Lahne
Senior Pension Law Specialist
Department of Labor
Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration
200 Constitution Avenue NW.
Room N5669, FP Building
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 219-0521
  
Jeffrey Turner
Pension Law Specialist
Department of Labor
Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration
200 Constitution Avenue NW.
Room N5669, FP Building
Washington, DC 20910
Phone: 202 219-8671
RIN: 1210-AA61
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--PWBA
65. HEALTH CARE STANDARDS FOR MOTHERS AND NEWBORNS
Priority:


Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined

[[Page 61296]]

Legal Authority:


 29 USC 1181 (PL 104-204; 110 Stat 2935); 29 USC 1135; 29 USC 1194


CFR Citation:


 29 CFR 2590.711


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Newborns' and Mothers' Health Protection Act of 1996 (NMHPA) was 
enacted on September 26, 1996 (PL 104-204). NMHPA amended the Public 
Health Service Act (PHSA) and the Employee Retirement Income Security 
Act of 1974, as amended, (ERISA) to provide protection for mothers and 
their newborn children with regard to the length of hospital stays 
following the birth of a child. NMHPA provisions are set forth in title 
XXVII of the PHSA and part 7 of subtitle B of title I of ERISA. The 
interim rules will provide guidance with regard to the provisions of 
the NMHPA.


Statement of Need:


These regulations are needed to provide guidance to the public 
concerning the application of the provisions of section 711 of ERISA, 
which establishes requirements for group health plan standards for 
minimum hospital stays following birth.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


Promulgation of these regulations is authorized by sections 505 and 734 
of ERISA.


Alternatives:


Regulatory alternatives will be developed once determinations have been 
made with regard to the scope and nature of the regulatory guidance 
which will be necessary to implement Section 711 of ERISA.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Preliminary estimates of the anticipated costs and benefits of the 
regulatory actions found to be necessary to implement the new provision 
will be developed once decisions are reached on which specific actions 
are necessary.


Risks:


Failure to issue these regulations would be likely to impair compliance 
by group health plans with the new standards established by section 711 
of ERISA for mothers' and newborns' health care.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Interim Final Rule                                             10/00/98
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


None


Additional Information:


LEGAL AUTHORITY CONT: Secs. 107, 209, 505, 701-703, 711, 712 731-734 of 
ERISA (29 U.S.C. 1027, 1059, 1135, 1171-1173, 1181 1182, 1191-1194), 
and amended by HIPAA (Pub. L. 104-191, 101 Stat. 1936) and NMHPA (Pub. 
L. 104-204) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-87, 52 FR 13139, April 
21, 1987.


Agency Contact:
Amy Turner
Pension Law Specialist
Department of Labor
Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration
200 Constitution Avenue NW.
Room N5669, FP Building
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 219-8671
RIN: 1210-AA63
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--PWBA
66.  NATIONAL MEDICAL SUPPORT NOTICE
Priority:


Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.


Legal Authority:


 PL 105-200, section 401(b); 29 USC 1135; 29 USC 1169


CFR Citation:


 29 CFR 2565


Legal Deadline:


Other, Statutory, May 16, 1999, Interim Final Rule.


Final, Statutory, May 16, 2000.


Abstract:


The purpose of this rulemaking is to develop regulations which 
establish a model qualified medical child support order for use by 
State child support agencies to facilitate the extension of health care 
coverage to children under their jurisdiction. This initiative is 
mandated by the Child Support Performance and Incentive Act of 1998, 
P.L.105-200.


Statement of Need:


These regulations are needed to provide guidance to the public 
concerning the application of the provisions of section 401 of the 
Child Support Performance and Incentive Act of 1998 (CSPIA) and section 
609 of ERISA, which require, respectively, the promulgation of a 
National Medical Support Notice to be used by State child support 
agencies to order health care coverage for children under their 
jurisdiction, and that such notice is to be deemed a qualified medical 
child support order for purposes of section 609 of ERISA.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


Promulgation of these regulations is mandated by section 401 of CSPIA, 
and authorized by sections 505 and 609 of ERISA.


Alternatives:


Regulatory alternatives will be developed once determinations have been 
made with regard to the scope and nature of the regulatory guidance 
which will be necessary to implement section 401 of CSPIA and section 
609 of ERISA. Section 401 of CSPIA mandates the promulgation of a 
National Medical Support Notice.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Preliminary estimates of the anticipated costs and benefits of the 
regulatory actions found necessary to implement the new provisions will 
be developed once decisions are reached on which specific actions are 
necessary.


Risks:


Failure to issue these regulations would be likely to impair compliance 
by State child support agencies with the new standards established by 
section 401 of CSPIA and by group health plans with the requirements of 
section 609 of ERISA for the extension of health care coverage to 
children of plan participants.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Interim Final Rule                                             05/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined

[[Page 61297]]

Agency Contact:
David J. Lurie
Pension Law Specialist
Department of Labor
Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration
200 Constitution Avenue NW.
Room N5669, FP Building
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 219-8671
RIN: 1210-AA72
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA)

                              -----------

                             PRERULE STAGE

                              -----------

67. OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE TO COAL MINE DUST (LOWERING EXPOSURE LIMIT)
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


 30 USC 811; 30 USC 812


CFR Citation:


 30 CFR 70; 30 CFR 71; 30 CFR 75; 30 CFR 90


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969 established the 
first comprehensive respirable dust standards for coal mines. These 
standards were designed to reduce the incidence of coal workers' 
pneumoconiosis (black Lung) and silicosis and eventually eliminate 
these diseases. While significant progress has been made toward 
improving the health conditions in our Nation's coal mines, miners 
continue to be at risk of developing occupational lung disease, 
according to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 
(NIOSH) . In September 1995, NIOSH issued a Criteria Document in which 
it recommended that the respirable coal mine dust permissible exposure 
limit (PEL) be cut in half. In February 1996, the Secretary of Labor 
convened a Federal Advisory Committee on the Elimination of 
Pneumoconiosis Among Coal Miners (Advisory Committee) to assess the 
adequacy of MSHA's current program and standards to control respirable 
dust in underground and surface coal mines, as well as other ways to 
eliminate black lung and silicosis among coal miners. The Committee 
represented the labor, industry, and academic communities. The 
Committee submitted its report to the Secretary of Labor in November 
1996, with the majority of the recommendations unanimously supported by 
the Committee members. The Committee recommended that MSHA consider 
lowering the coal dust PEL.


Statement of Need:


Respirable coal mine dust levels in this country are significantly 
lower than they were over two decades ago. Despite this progress, there 
continues to be concern about the respirable coal mine dust sampling 
program and its effectiveness in presenting an accurate picture of 
exposure levels in mines. Coal workers exposed after the implementation 
of the current PEL continue to develop pneumoconiosis. In response to 
this concern, MSHA undertook an extensive review of the Agency's 
respirable coal mine dust program. The MSHA Coal Mine Respirable Dust 
Task Group, which issued its report in June 1992, found that 
vulnerabilities exist which could impact miner health protection and 
made recommendations for improving the monitoring program. The Advisory 
Committee also addressed this issue and made recommendations.
The Agency has carefully reviewed the NIOSH Criteria Document 
Occupational Exposure to Respirable Coal Mine Dust and the 
recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Elimination of 
Pneumoconiosis among Coal Mine Workers. MSHA finds that there remains 
unacceptable risk to miners' health at the current exposure limit for 
dust in coal mines. Therefore, the Agency is in the preliminary 
rulemaking process for seeking information to lower this risk.


Alternatives:


MSHA will consider all recommendations carefully and will seek the 
public's input into alternatives through the use of an Advance Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM). In the ANPRM, the Agency includes 
suggestions of alternative approaches, e.g., operation specific PEL, or 
an action level to trigger certain protective measures.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Benefits sought are reduced dust levels over a miner's working 
lifetime, the key to eliminating black lung and silicosis as a risk to 
coal miners. Enhanced protection of miners from these diseases also 
will reduce the cost of future black lung benefits and lead to lower 
operator insurance premiums. MSHA is considering a rule to reduce the 
amount of respirable coal mine dust permitted in mines but has not yet 
developed cost estimates. As the Agency proceeds with the rulemaking, 
however, estimates will be developed and made available for public 
review.


Risks:


Respirable coal mine dust is one of the most serious occupational 
hazards in the mining industry. Long-term exposure to excessive levels 
of respirable coal mine dust can cause black lung and silicosis, which 
are both potentially disabling and can cause death.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Recommendations 61 FR 60120                                    11/26/96
Policy Document-63 FR 5664                                     02/03/98
ANPRM                                                          12/00/98
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


Additional Information:


This rulemaking is related to 1219-AA81.


Agency Contact:
Carol J. Jones
Acting Director, Office of Standards
Regulations, and Variances
Department of Labor
Mine Safety and Health Administration
4015 Wilson Boulevard, Room 631
Arlington, VA 22203
Phone: 703 235-1910
Fax: 703 235-5551
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 1219-AB08
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--MSHA

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

68. DIESEL PARTICULATE (UNDERGROUND COAL)
Priority:


Other Significant

[[Page 61298]]

Legal Authority:


 30 USC 811; 30 USC 813; 30 USC 957; 30 USC 961


CFR Citation:


 30 CFR 72; 30 CFR 75


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


Several epidemiological studies have found that diesel exhaust presents 
potential health risks to workers. These possible health effects range 
from headaches and nausea to respiratory disease and cancer. In 1988, 
the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health recommended 
that ``whole diesel exhaust be regarded as a potential occupational 
carcinogen.'' In addition, in 1989 the International Agency for 
Research on Cancer concluded that ``diesel engine exhaust is probably 
carcinogenic to humans.''
In 1988, an advisory committee made recommendations to the Secretary of 
Labor concerning safety and health standards for the use of diesel-
powered equipment in underground coal mines. One of the recommendations 
was that the Secretary of Labor set in motion a mechanism whereby a 
diesel particulate standard could be set. Based on that recommendation, 
MSHA published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking, in January 
1992, seeking information relative to exposure limits, risk assessment, 
sampling and monitoring methods, and control feasibility. In April 
1998, MSHA issued a proposed rule to control diesel particulate matter 
in underground coal mines.


Statement of Need:


The use of diesel-powered equipment in underground mines has increased 
significantly and rapidly during the past decade. MSHA estimates that 
approximately 13,000 miners are occupationally exposed to diesel 
exhaust emissions in underground mines.
Several epidemiological studies have shown a positive carcinogenic risk 
associated with exposure to diesel exhaust. Other reported health 
effects associated with exposure to diesel exhaust include dizziness, 
drowsiness, headaches, nausea decreased visual acuity, and forced 
expiratory volume. In addition, studies by MSHA and the former Bureau 
of Mines show that miners working in underground mining operations that 
use diesel equipment are probably the most heavily exposed workers of 
any occupational group. Based on the levels of diesel particulate 
measured in underground mining operations and the evidence of adverse 
health effects associated with exposure to diesel exhaust, MSHA is 
concerned about the potential health risk to miners. The proposed rule 
would control exposure of miners to diesel particulate matter by 
requiring the installation of high-efficiency filters on diesel powered 
equipment to trap diesel particulates before they enter the mine 
atmosphere.


Alternatives:


In the fall of 1995, MSHA held a series of public workshops to gather 
suggestions for possible approaches to limit miners' exposure to diesel 
particulate. In addition, over the past 10 years, MSHA and the former 
Bureau of Mines have conducted research on methodologies for the 
measurement and control of diesel particulate in the mining 
environment. This research has demonstrated that the use of low sulfur 
fuel, good engine maintenance, exhaust after-treatment, new engine 
technology, and optimized application of ventilating air all play a 
role in reducing miners' exposure to diesel exhaust particulate matter.
MSHA considered establishing a PEL for diesel particulate, but found 
that technology for measuring it in the presence of coal mine dust is 
not currently feasible. MSHA encourages the mining community to 
continue to voluntarily use protective measures to address exposure to 
diesel exhaust. In addition, the proposal provides for MSHA technical 
assistance to operators and a phased-in period for compliance.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


MSHA estimates that the per year compliance costs are just over $10 
million, of which underground coal mine operators would incur about $10 
million and manufacturers of diesel engines and equipment would incur 
about $30,000.
The proposed rule would reduce a significant health risk to underground 
miners, reducing the potential for acute sensory irritations and 
respiratory symptoms, lung cancer, and premature death, along with the 
attendant suffering and costs thereof to their employees, their 
families, and society.


Risks:


Several epidemiological studies have found that exposure to diesel 
exhaust presents potential health risks to workers. In addition, 
laboratory tests have shown diesel exhaust to be carcinogenic in rats, 
as well as toxic and mutagenic. These potential adverse health effects 
range from headaches and nausea to respiratory disease and cancer. In 
the confined space of the underground mine environment, occupational 
exposure to diesel exhaust may present a greater hazard due to 
ventilation limitations and the presence of other airborne 
contaminants, such as toxic mine dusts or mine gases. The Agency 
believes that the health evidence forms a reasonable basis for 
exploring possible methods to reduce miners' exposure to diesel 
particulate.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM           57 FR 500                                      01/06/92
ANPRM Comment Pe57 FR 7906                                     07/10/92
NPRM            63 FR 17492                                    04/09/98
Extension of Com63 FR 41755                                    08/05/98
Comment Period E63 FR 17492                                    08/07/98
Public Hearings                                                12/00/98
Final Action                                                   09/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Agency Contact:
Carol J. Jones
Acting Director, Office of Standards
Regulations, and Variances
Department of Labor
Mine Safety and Health Administration
4015 Wilson Boulevard, Room 631
Arlington, VA 22203
Phone: 703 235-1910
Fax: 703 235-5551
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 1219-AA74
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--MSHA
69. X-RAY SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM FOR SURFACE COAL MINERS
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


 30 USC 811; 30 USC 812


CFR Citation:


 30 CFR 70; 30 CFR 72; 30 CFR 90


Legal Deadline:


None

[[Page 61299]]

Abstract:


The Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969 established the 
first comprehensive respirable dust standards for coal mines. These 
standards were designed to reduce the incidence of coal workers' 
pneumoconiosis (black lung) and silicosis and eventually eliminate 
these diseases. While significant progress has been made toward 
improving the health conditions in our Nation's coal mines, miners 
continue to be at risk of developing occupational lung disease, 
according to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 
(NIOSH). In February 1996, the Secretary of Labor convened a Federal 
Advisory Committee on the Elimination of Pneumoconiosis Among Coal 
Miners (Advisory Committee) to assess the adequacy of MSHA's current 
program and standards to control respirable dust in underground and 
surface coal mines, as well as other ways to eliminate black lung and 
silicosis among coal miners. The Committee represented the labor, 
industry, and academic communities. The Committee submitted its report 
to the Secretary of Labor in November 1995, with the majority of the 
recommendations unanimously supported by the Committee members.
MSHA has completed an indepth review of the Advisory Committee's 
recommendations. There are 20 principal recommendations set out in the 
Advisory Committee report, which are further subdivided into a total of 
approximately 100 distinct action items. The recommendations are both 
extensive and significant. The Agency is giving each careful 
consideration and has prioritized them for regulatory or administrative 
action.
The Agency will provide information to the mining community as it 
determines how to implement the Advisory Committee recommendations.


Statement of Need:


Respirable coal mine dust levels in this country are significantly 
lower than they were over two decades ago. Despite this progress, there 
continues to be concern about the respirable coal mine dust sampling 
program and its effectiveness in presenting an accurate picture of 
exposure levels in mines. Such exposure levels are linked directly to 
the development of pneumoconiosis. In response to this concern, MSHA 
undertook an extensive review of the Agency's respirable coal mine dust 
program. The MSHA Coal Mine Respirable Dust Task Group, which issued 
its report in June 1992, found that vulnerabilities exist which could 
impact miner health protection and made recommendations for improving 
the monitoring program. The Advisory Committee also addressed this 
issue and made recommendations.
Recommendations contained in the NIOSH Criteria Document Occupational 
Exposure to Respirable Coal Mine Dust, and the Advisory Committee's 
report state that surface coal miners should be included in the x-ray 
medical surveillance program. Therefore, the Agency is considering 
regulatory action.


Alternatives:


MSHA will consider all related recommendations carefully. MSHA is 
considering extending the x-ray surveillance program to surface coal 
miners. MSHA is also considering programs for greater outreach, 
training and education, and approaches to increase participation in the 
program.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Benefits sought are detection of black lung and silicosis because of 
the significance of health risk to coal miners. Enhanced protection of 
miners from progression of these diseases also will reduce the cost of 
future black lung benefits and lead to lower operator insurance 
premiums. MSHA is developing a proposed rule; however, at this stage, 
MSHA does not have cost estimates. As we proceed, however, we will 
develop estimates and make them available for public review.


Risks:


Respirable coal mine dust is one of the most serious occupational 
hazards in the mining industry. Long-term exposure to excessive levels 
of respirable coal mine dust can cause black lung and silicosis, which 
are both potentially disabling and can cause death. MSHA recognizes the 
continuing risks presented to miners by inhalation of coal mine dust 
and is developing an integrated approach to reduce this risk.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Recommendations 61 FR 60120                                    11/26/96
Policy Document-63 FR 5664                                     02/03/98
NPRM                                                           02/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


Additional Information:


In a companion rulemaking the National Institute for Occupational 
Safety and Health, HHS, would revise related regulations contained in 
42 CFR part 37. This rulemaking is related to 1219-AA81.


Agency Contact:
Carol J. Jones
Acting Director, Office of Standards
Regulations, and Variances
Department of Labor
Mine Safety and Health Administration
4015 Wilson Boulevard, Room 631
Arlington, VA 22203
Phone: 703 235-1910
Fax: 703 235-5551
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 1219-AB09
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--MSHA
70. DIESEL PARTICULATE (UNDERGROUND METAL AND NONMETAL MINES)
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


 30 USC 811; 30 USC 813; 30 USC 961; 30 USC 957


CFR Citation:


 30 CFR 57


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


Several epidemiological studies have found that diesel exhaust presents 
potential health risks to workers. These possible health effects range 
from headaches and nausea to respiratory disease and cancer. In 1988, 
the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health recommended 
that ``whole diesel exhaust be regarded as a potential occupational 
carcinogen.'' In addition, in 1989, the International Agency for 
Research on Cancer concluded that ``diesel engine exhaust is probably 
carcinogenic to humans.''
In 1988, an advisory committee made recommendations to the Secretary of 
Labor concerning safety and health standards for the use of diesel-
powered equipment in underground coal mines. One of the recommendations 
was that

[[Page 61300]]

the Secretary of Labor set in motion a mechanism whereby a diesel 
particulate standard could be set. Based on that recommendation, MSHA 
published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) in January 
1992, seeking information relative to exposure limits, risk assessment, 
sampling and monitoring methods, and control feasibility. In April 
1998, MSHA issued a proposed rule to control diesel particulate matter 
in underground coal mines. The underground coal proposal would require 
the use of a very effective control technology (filters) to reduce 
exposures, because of a problem with measuring diesel particulate 
matter in coal mines. Due to differences in mining conditions, MSHA 
will be proposing a rule for underground metal and nonmetal mines that 
is different from the proposed rule for underground coal mines.
The proposed rule for underground metal nonmetal mines would establish 
a concentration limit for diesel particulate matter.


Statement of Need:


The use of diesel-powered equipment in underground mines has increased 
significantly and rapidly during the past decade. MSHA estimates that 
about 7,500 miners working in production or development areas are 
occupationally exposed to diesel exhaust emissions in underground metal 
and nonmetal mines.
Several epidemiological studies have shown a positive carcinogenic risk 
associated with exposure to diesel exhaust. Other reported health 
effects associated with exposure to diesel exhaust include dizziness, 
drowsiness, headaches, nausea, decreased visual activity, and decreased 
forced expiratory volume. In addition, studies by MSHA and the former 
Bureau of Mines show that miners working in underground mining 
operations that use diesel equipment are probably the most heavily 
exposed workers of any occupational group. Based on the levels of 
diesel particulate measured in underground mining operations and the 
evidence of adverse health effects associated with exposure to diesel 
exhaust, MSHA is concerned about the potential health risk to miners. 
The proposed rule for underground metal and nonmetal mines would 
establish a concentration limit for diesel particulate matter.


Alternatives:


In the fall of 1995, MSHA held a series of public workshops to gather 
suggestions for possible approaches to limit miners' exposure to diesel 
particulate. In addition, over the past 10 years, MSHA and the former 
Bureau of Mines have conducted research on methodologies for the 
measurement and control of diesel particulate in the mining 
environment. This research has demonstrated that the use of low sulfur 
fuel, good engine maintenance, exhaust after-treatment, new engine 
technology, and optimized application of ventilating air all play a 
role in reducing miners' exposure to diesel exhaust particulate matter.
MSHA encourages the mining community to continue to voluntarily use 
protective measures to address exposure to diesel exhaust. In addition, 
the proposal provides for MSHA technical assistance to operators and a 
phase-in period for compliance.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


MSHA estimates that the compliance costs for underground metal and 
nonmetal operators would be approximately $19 million. The compliance 
costs to manufacturers are assumed to be passed through to underground 
metal and nonmetal operators and, therefore, they would not incur any 
direct costs as a result on the rule. The proposed rule would reduce a 
significant health risk to underground miners, reducing the potential 
for acute sensory irritations and respiratory symptoms, lung cancer, 
and premature death, along with the attendant suffering and costs 
thereof to their employees, their families, and society. In addition to 
savings related to acute health effects, MSHA estimates that some lung 
cancer would also be avoided.


Risks:


Several epidemiological studies have found that exposure to diesel 
exhaust presents potential health risks to workers. Laboratory tests 
have shown diesel exhaust to be carcinogenic in rats, as well as toxic 
and mutagenic. Potential adverse health effects range from headaches 
and nausea to respiratory disease and cancer. In the confined space of 
the underground mine environment, occupational exposure to diesel 
exhaust may present a greater hazard due to ventilation limitations and 
the presence of other airborne contaminants, such as toxic mine dusts 
or mine gases. The Agency believes that the health evidence forms a 
reasonable basis for reducing miners' exposure to diesel particulate.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM           57 FR 500                                      01/06/92
ANPRM Comment Pe57 FR 7906                                     07/10/92
National Environ63 FR 37797cy Act                              07/14/98
NPRM                                                           11/00/98
Final Action                                                   09/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Carol J. Jones
Acting Director, Office of Standards
Regulations, and Variances
Department of Labor
Mine Safety and Health Administration
4015 Wilson Boulevard, Room 631
Arlington, VA 22203
Phone: 703 235-1910
Fax: 703 235-5551
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 1219-AB11
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--MSHA
71. VERIFICATION OF DUST CONTROL PLAN
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


 30 USC 811; 30 USC 812


CFR Citation:


 30 CFR 70; 30 CFR 75


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1969 established the first 
comprehensive respirable dust standards for coal mines. These standards 
were designed to reduce the incidence of coal workers' pneumoconiosis 
(black lung) and silicosis and eventually eliminate these diseases. 
While significant progress has been made toward improving the health 
conditions in our Nation's coal mines, miners continue to be at risk of 
developing occupational lung disease,

[[Page 61301]]

according to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 
(NIOSH). In February 1996, the Secretary of Labor convened a Federal 
Advisory Committee on the Elimination of Pneumoconiosis Among Coal 
Miners (Advisory Committee) to assess the adequacy of MSHA's current 
program and standards to control respirable dust in underground and 
surface coal mines, as well as other ways to eliminate black lung and 
silicosis among coal miners. The Committee represented the labor, 
industry, and academic communities. The committee submitted its report 
to the Secretary of Labor in November 1996, with the majority of the 
recommendations unanimously supported by the Committee members.
MSHA has completed an in-depth review of the Advisory Committee's 
recommendations. There are 20 principal recommendations set out in the 
Advisory Committee report, which are further subdivided into a total of 
approximately 100 distinct action items. The recommendations are both 
extensive and significant. The Agency is giving each recommendation 
careful consideration and has prioritized them for regulatory or 
administrative action.
The Agency will provide information to the mining community as it 
determines how to implement the Advisory Committee recommendations.


Statement of Need:


Respirable coal mine dust levels in this country are significantly 
lower than they were over two decades ago. Despite this progress, there 
continues to be concern about the respirable coal mine dust sampling 
program and its effectiveness in presenting an accurate picture of 
exposure levels in mines. MSHA regulations require that all underground 
coal mine operators develop and follow a mine ventilation plan approved 
by the Agency. The dust control portion of the mine ventilation plan is 
the key element of an operator's strategy to control respirable dust in 
the work environment. Although such plans are required to be designed 
to control respirable dust, there is no current requirement that 
provides for early in-mine verification of the proposed plan's 
effectiveness under typical mining conditions. Consequently, plans may 
be implemented that may later be shown as inadequate to control 
respirable dust. To minimize this from occurring, the Advisory 
Committee recommended that MSHA should require coal mine operators to 
verify the adequacy of the dust control provisions in new or revised 
plans by demonstrating that the plan will be effective under typical 
mining conditions.
Therefore, MSHA is considering regulatory actions which would require 
mine operators to verify a plan's adequacy in controlling respirable 
dust.


Alternatives:


In developing the proposed rule, MSHA will consider alternatives 
related to typical production levels and the use of appropriate dust 
control strategies.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Benefits sought are reduced dust levels over a miner's working 
lifetime, the key to eliminating black lung and silicosis as a risk to 
coal miners. Enhanced protection of miners from these diseases also 
will reduce the cost of future black lung benefits and lead to lower 
operator insurance premiums. MSHA is in the early stages of developing 
proposed rules and does not have cost estimates. As we proceed, 
however, we will develop estimates and make them available for public 
review.


Risks:


Respirable coal mine dust is one of the most serious occupational 
hazards in the mining industry. Long-term exposure to excessive levels 
of respirable coal mine dust can cause black lung and silicosis, which 
are both potentially disabling and can cause death. MSHA is pursuing 
both regulatory and nonregulatory actions to eliminate pneumoconiosis 
through the control of coal mine respirable dust levels in mines and 
the reduction of miners' exposure.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Recommendations 61 FR 60120                                    11/26/96
Policy Document-63 FR 5664                                     02/03/98
NPRM                                                           12/00/98
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


Additional Information:


This rulemaking is related to 1219-AA81


Agency Contact:
Carol J. Jones
Acting Director, Office of Standards
Regulations, and Variances
Department of Labor
Mine Safety and Health Administration
4015 Wilson Boulevard, Room 631
Arlington, VA 22203
Phone: 703 235-1910
Fax: 703 235-5551
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 1219-AB14
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--MSHA

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

72. NOISE STANDARD
Priority:


Other Significant


Reinventing Government:


This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will 
revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline 
requirements.


Legal Authority:


 30 USC 811; 30 USC 813


CFR Citation:


 30 CFR 56; 30 CFR 57; 30 CFR 62; 30 CFR 70; 30 CFR 71


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


Notwithstanding MSHA's firm enforcement of its current noise 
regulations, miners are continuing to incur hearing impairment. Data 
indicate that hearing impairment can be reduced significantly, however, 
if effective protective action is used both to reduce or eliminate the 
noise and to minimize exposure to the noise. MSHA has published a 
proposed rule applicable to all types of mining which would require 
that protective measures be taken where exposure to noise is at a level 
lower than that which is currently permitted. The final rule would 
address, for example, a hearing conservation plan and an ``action 
level.''
Consistent with the Mine Act and in response to comments, the final 
rule would include a new provision providing affected miners and their 
representatives with an opportunity to observe required operator 
monitoring.

[[Page 61302]]




Statement of Need:


MSHA's existing standards, in spite of enforcement efforts, do not 
provide adequate protection against exposure to hazardous occupational 
noise levels. Several factors have shown that there is a need to 
replace the existing standards so that miners are adequately protected. 
One factor is that miners are continuing to incur occupational, noise-
induced hearing loss. Another factor is that existing MSHA standards no 
longer reflect the opinions of experts or the current scientific 
evidence. In addition, MSHA's current noise standards for coal mines 
differ from those for metal and nonmetal mines. MSHA's final rule will 
provide consistent requirements for all mines.
Section 103(c) of the Mine Act requires, among other things, that when 
the Secretary issues regulations requiring operator monitoring, such 
regulations ``shall provide the miners' or their representatives with 
an opportunity to observe such monitoring or measuring, and to have 
access to the records thereof.'' The final rule would implement section 
103(c) of the Mine Act.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


Section 101(a) of the Mine Act requires that MSHA's promulgation of 
health standards adequately assure, on the basis of the best available 
evidence, that no miner will suffer material impairment of health or 
functional capacity over the miner's working lifetime. In addition to 
the attainment of the highest degree of health and safety protection 
for the miner, the Mine Act requires that factors, such as the latest 
scientific data in the field, the feasibility of the standard, and the 
experience gained under the Mine Act and other health and safety laws, 
be considered when promulgating mandatory standards pertaining to toxic 
materials or harmful physical agents.


Alternatives:


MSHA published a proposed rule which requested comments and data on a 
number of regulatory alternatives. In addition, MSHA held six public 
hearings providing the public an opportunity to comment on the noise 
proposal and submit data. Based upon its own research and experience, 
and data and information submitted to the record, MSHA is considering 
the respective roles of engineering controls and administrative 
controls and the use of personal hearing protection in controlling 
noise exposure; lowering the permissible exposure level and 
implementing a new action level; the lowering of the exchange rate; and 
the parameters and criteria for audiometric testing, exposure 
monitoring, and miner training. The proposed rule reflected the 
Agency's tentative decisions on these alternatives, mindful of their 
economic impact on small mines. The final rule will derive from MSHA's 
deliberations and decisions on the issues and alternatives.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


MSHA prepared an analysis of benefits which compared the numbers of 
miners projected to incur a material impairment of hearing under the 
existing standards and under the proposal. At this stage in the 
development of the final rule, MSHA anticipates that the rule would 
reduce the risk of impairment by 67 percent protecting about 709 
incidents of occupationally related material impairments of hearing per 
year. MSHA anticipates that the incremental annual cost of the final 
rule would be about $5.56 million. Since the final rule is still under 
development, these estimates are preliminary.


Risks:


Noise is a serious occupational hazard in the mining industry. 
Occupational exposure to loud noises results in hearing loss and 
hearing impairment, which affect both quality of life and functional 
capacity. In addition, cases of hearing loss reported to MSHA indicate 
that a significant number of these miners received all of their noise 
exposure under existing standards. The Agency believes that the health 
evidence forms a reasonable basis for revising MSHA's existing noise 
standards.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM           54 FR 50209                                    12/04/89
ANPRM Comment Pe55 FR 6011                                     06/22/90
NPRM            61 FR 66348                                    12/17/96
Extension of Com62 FR 5554d to 4/21/97; Notice of Public Hearin02/06/97
Hearings - Date 62 FR 9404ension of Comment Period to 6/20/97  03/03/97
Extension of Com62 FR 32252 to 8/1/97                          06/13/97
NPRM Comment Per62 FR 32252                                    08/01/97
Availability of 62 FR 65777                                    12/16/97
Request for Comm62 FR 67013bility                              12/23/97
Extension of Com63 FR 2642d                                    01/16/98
National Environ63 FR 28496cy Act                              05/26/98
Final Action                                                   02/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local, Tribal


Additional Information:


On December 31, 1997, MSHA issued a proposed rule on Observation of 
Operator Noise Monitoring (RIN 1219-AB05) (62 FR 68468). On April 10, 
1998, the Agency issued a notice announcing extension of comment period 
and close of record (63 FR 17781). The Agency has combined this 
rulemaking with the Noise rule (RIN 1219-AA53).


Agency Contact:
Carol J. Jones
Acting Director, Office of Standards
Regulations, and Variances
Department of Labor
Mine Safety and Health Administration
4015 Wilson Boulevard, Room 631
Arlington, VA 22203
Phone: 703 235-1910
Fax: 703 235-5551
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 1219-AA53
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)

                              -----------

                             PRERULE STAGE

                              -----------

73. STANDARDS ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON METALWORKING FLUIDS
Priority:


Economically Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Legal Authority:


 29 USC 655(b)(1); 29 USC 656(b)

[[Page 61303]]

CFR Citation:


 29 CFR 1910


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


In December 1993, the International Union, United Automobile Aerospace 
and Agricultural Implement Workers of America petitioned OSHA to take 
emergency regulatory action to protect workers from the risks of 
occupational cancers and respiratory illnesses due to exposure to 
metalworking fluids. OSHA sent an interim response to the UAW stating 
that the decision to proceed with rulemaking would depend on the 
results of the OSHA Priority Planning Process. Following the Priority 
Planning Process report, which identified metalworking fluids as an 
issue worthy of Agency action, the Assistant Secretary asked the 
National Advisory Committee on Occupational Safety and Health (NACOSH) 
for a recommendation about how to proceed with metalworking fluids. 
NACOSH unanimously recommended that OSHA form a Standards Advisory 
Committee (SAC) to address the health risks caused by occupational 
exposure to metalworking fluids. The Assistant Secretary accepted the 
recommendation of NACOSH; OSHA has established a 15-member SAC to make 
recommendations regarding a standard, a guideline, or other appropriate 
response to the dangers of occupational exposures to metalworking 
fluids. The Committee has a balanced membership, including individuals 
appointed to represent the following affected interests: industry; 
labor; Federal and State safety and health organizations; professional 
organizations; and national standards-setting groups.


Statement of Need:


Under Table Z-1 of the 1971 air contaminants rule, OSHA enforces a 
permissible exposure limit of 5 mg/m3 for mineral oil mists, but 
evidence suggests this level is outdated and that exposure to 
metalworking fluids can lead to cancer, non-malignant lung disease, and 
dermatitis. Giving a SAC the opportunity to examine and comment upon 
current studies and data concerning the risks associated with all 
metalworking fluid mixtures (straight oils, synthetic, and 
semisynthetic) will provide valuable information the Agency can use to 
develop a proposed rule for metalworking fluids or other appropriate 
response to hazards posed by occupational exposure to metalworking 
fluids. The SAC will also report on related issues such as fluid 
management, engineering controls, medical surveillance, and economic 
and technological feasibility.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


The legal basis for convening this standards advisory committee is 
found at section 7(b) of the OSH Act.


Alternatives:


The Agency recognizes the complex and difficult nature of the issues 
surrounding the regulation of metalworking fluids and believes a SAC 
can best alleviate some areas of confusion. The Committee has a unique 
opportunity to provide needed data and academic and professional 
expertise, as well as large and small industry and labor perspectives. 
Through OSHA's exhaustive Priority Planning Process and NACOSH 
recommendations, metalworking fluids were identified as a regulatory 
candidate that could be handled most successfully through a SAC. The 
option of going directly to 6(b) rulemaking has been bypassed in favor 
of a SAC, which will give beneficial input to the agency as to how best 
to deal with the problems and the opportunity to build some consensus 
before a proposal is issued.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Because the SAC is still considering the issues, the form of the 
Committee's recommendations is unknown at the present time. However, 
once the SAC report is written, OSHA will review it and determine how 
to proceed with a proposed rule and other actions to protect employees. 
Quantitative estimates of costs and benefits will be made only after 
the proposed rule has been drafted.


Risks:


OSHA has not yet assessed the risks confronting workers exposed to 
metalworking fluids, although the National Institute for Occupational 
Safety and Health has published risk estimates for some of the adverse 
health effects of interest to the SAC.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Appointed Members                                              07/11/97
Charter Approved                                               08/15/97
Committee Meeting                                              09/18/98
SAC Information to Asst Secy                                   09/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Additional Information:


The Agency is particularly concerned with the potential impact a 
metalworking fluids rule would have on small businesses. OSHA has been 
working closely with the Small Business Administration to reach small 
employers in order to involve them in the process at the earliest 
possible time. At least 30 small business interests have been 
identified to date. The Agency is required to have balanced committee 
representation and small business is represented on the SAC.


Agency Contact:
Adam Finkel
Director, Health Standards Programs
Department of Labor
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
200 Constitution Avenue NW.
Room N3718, FP Building
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 219-7075
Fax: 202 219-7125
RIN: 1218-AB58
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--OSHA
74. OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE TO CRYSTALLINE SILICA
Priority:


Economically Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Legal Authority:


 29 USC 655(b); 29 USC 657


CFR Citation:


 29 CFR 1910; 29 CFR 1926; 29 CFR 1915; 29 CFR 1916; 29 CFR 1917; 29 
CFR 1918


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


Silica exposure remains a serious threat to nearly 2 million U.S. 
workers, including more that 100,000 workers in high risk jobs such as 
abrasive blasting, foundry work, stonecutting, rock drilling, quarry 
work and tunneling. The seriousness of the health hazards associated 
with silica exposure is demonstrated by the fatalities and disabling 
illnesses that continue to occur in sandblasters and rock drillers and 
by recent studies that demonstrate

[[Page 61304]]

a statistically significant increase in lung cancer among silica-
exposed workers. In October 1996, the International Agency for Research 
on Cancer classified crystalline silica as ``carcinogenic to humans.'' 
Exposure studies indicate that some workers are still exposed to very 
high levels of silica. Although OSHA currently has a permissible 
exposure limit for crystalline silica (10mg/m3 divided by the percent 
of silica in the dust + 2, respirable), more than 30 percent of OSHA-
collected silica samples from 1982 through 1991 exceeded this limit. 
Additionally, recent studies suggest that the current OSHA standard is 
insufficient to protect against silicosis. For example, a recent study 
concluded that a 45-year exposure under the current OSHA standard would 
lead to a lifetime risk of silicosis of 35 percent to 47 percent.
OSHA plans to publish a proposed rule on crystalline silica because the 
agency has preliminarily concluded that there will be no significant 
progress in the prevention of silica-related diseases without the 
adoption of a full and comprehensive silica standard, including 
provisions for exposure monitoring, engineering and work practice 
controls, training and education, respiratory protection, and medical 
surveillance. A comprehensive standard will improve worker protection, 
ensure adequate prevention programs, and further reduce the incidence 
of silica-related diseases.


Statement of Need:


The current OSHA permissible exposure limit for silica is 10mg/m3 
divided by the percent of silica in the dust + 2 (respirable) and 30 
mg/m3 divided by the percent of silica in the dust + 2 (total dust). In 
the interval since this limit was promulgated, there have been a number 
of studies of workers that have estimated that close to 50 percent of 
workers exposed to silica at the current limit for a 45-year working 
lifetime would develop silicosis, a disabling, progressive and 
sometimes fatal disease involving scarring of the lung, coughing, and 
shortness of breath. There are currently about 300 deaths reported per 
year from silicosis. However, the actual number of cases and the true 
risk is unknown due to inadequate case ascertainment, which means that 
the number of deaths is probably under-reported. Also, since the 
promulgation of OSHA's permissible exposure limit studies have 
demonstrated a statistically significant, dose-related increase in lung 
cancer in several occupational groups.
Because of these recent findings, OSHA believes that it will be 
necessary to conduct a risk assessment to determine whether the current 
permissible exposure limit is protective of worker health. OSHA also 
believes that, in addition to the permissible exposure limit, the 
ancillary provisions, such as engineering controls, provided by a 
comprehensive standard will be necessary to reduce worker exposure to 
crystalline silica.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


The legal basis for the proposed rule is a preliminary determination by 
the Secretary of Labor that exposure to silica at the Agency's current 
permissible exposure limits poses a significant risk of material 
impairment of health and that a standard will substantially reduce that 
risk.


Alternatives:


OSHA has considered or conducted several programs designed to reduce 
worker exposure to crystalline silica. The OSHA Special Emphasis 
Program for Silicosis provides inspection targeting to reduce or 
eliminate workplace exposures to crystalline silica. The National 
Campaign to Eliminate Silicosis being conducted by OSHA (in conjunction 
with the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, the 
Mine Safety and Health Administration, and the American Lung 
Association) is an ongoing program involving outreach and education and 
the dissemination of materials on methods to reduce worker exposure to 
crystalline silica. Other nonregulatory approaches might include the 
issuance of nonmandatory guidelines, enforcing lower limits through the 
``general duty'' clause of the OSH Act in cases where substantial 
evidence exists that exposure presents a recognized hazard of death or 
serious physical harm, and the issuance of hazard alerts. Although 
these approaches may be partially effective in reducing worker exposure 
to crystalline silica and reducing disease risk, OSHA believes that 
progress in the prevention of silica-related diseases demands the 
issuance of a comprehensive silica standard.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The scope of the proposed rule is currently under development, and thus 
quantitative estimates of costs and benefits have not been determined 
at this time.


Risks:


OSHA has not yet completed an assessment of the risks of exposure to 
crystalline silica. Other studies have shown risks ranging from 35 to 
47 percent among workers exposed over a working lifetime and have 
additionally identified silica as a potential occupational carcinogen.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Public Meeting                                                 10/00/98
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Agency Contact:
Adam Finkel
Director, Health Standards Programs
Department of Labor
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
200 Constitution Avenue NW.
Room N3718, FP Building
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 219-7075
Fax: 202 219-7125
RIN: 1218-AB70
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--OSHA

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

75. STEEL ERECTION (PART 1926) (SAFETY PROTECTION FOR IRONWORKERS)
Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Reinventing Government:


This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will 
revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline 
requirements.


Legal Authority:


 29 USC 655; 40 USC 333


CFR Citation:


 29 CFR 1926.750 (Revision); 29 CFR 1926.751 (Revision); 29 CFR 
1926.752 (Revision)


Legal Deadline:


None

[[Page 61305]]

Abstract:


On December 29, 1992, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration 
(OSHA) announced its intention to form a negotiated rulemaking advisory 
committee to negotiate issues associated with a revision of the 
existing steel erection standard. The Steel Erection Negotiated 
Rulemaking Advisory Committee (SENRAC), a 20-member committee, was 
established, and the SENRAC charter was signed by Secretary Reich on 
May 26, 1994 and was recently re-chartered for a 2-year period. The 
primary issues the committee negotiated include the need to expand the 
scope and application of the existing standard to include construction 
specifications and work practices, written construction safety erection 
plans, and fall protection. The Committee met 11 times over an 18-month 
period and completed work on the draft regulatory text for the proposed 
steel erection standard on December 1, 1995.
The negotiated rulemaking process has been successful in bringing 
together the interested parties that will be affected by the proposed 
revision to the steel erection rule to work out contrasting positions, 
find common ground on the major issues, and develop language for a 
proposed rule. The use of this process and a neutral facilitator 
allowed the stakeholders to develop an ownership stake in the proposal 
that they would not have had without the use of this process.
The process has led to a proposed revision to subpart R of 29 CFR 1926 
that contains innovative provisions that will help to minimize the 
major causes of steel erection injuries and fatalities. Many of these 
provisions could not have been developed without this process, which 
has brought together industry and labor experts, via face-to-face 
negotiations, to discuss different approaches to resolving the issues. 
This process has proved mutually beneficial to all the parties involved 
(including OSHA), with each Committee member participating in resolving 
the issues and developing practical and effective rules to make the 
steel erection industry safer.


Statement of Need:


In 1989, OSHA was petitioned by the Ironworkers Union and National 
Erectors Association to revise its construction safety standard for 
steel erection through the negotiated rulemaking process. OSHA asked an 
independent consultant to review the issues involved in a steel 
erection revision, render an independent opinion, and recommend a 
course of action to revise the standard. The consultant recommended 
that OSHA address the issues through negotiated rulemaking. Based on 
the consultant's findings and the continued requests for negotiated 
rulemaking, OSHA decided to use the negotiated rulemaking process to 
develop a proposed revision of subpart R. The use of negotiated 
rulemaking was thought to be the best approach to resolving steel 
erection safety issues, some of which have proven intractable in the 
past.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


The legal basis for the proposed steel erection rule is a preliminary 
finding that workers engaged in steel erection work are at significant 
risk of serious injury or death as a result of that work.


Alternatives:


An alternative to using the negotiated rulemaking process is to publish 
a notice of proposed rulemaking developed by Agency staff and consider 
the concerns of the affected interests through the public comment and 
public hearing process. OSHA anticipated that this alternative would 
result in an extremely long and contentious rulemaking proceeding, with 
subsequent challenge in the Court of Appeals. Another alternative would 
be not to revise the Agency's current steel erection rules for 
construction. This alternative was rejected because it would permit 
steel erection-related injuries and fatalities to continue.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The estimated compliance costs of the proposal are approximately $50 
million per year, and the Agency believes that the benefits of the 
standard would include the prevention of an estimated 14 fatalities and 
824 lost workday injuries per year.


Risks:


The risk associated with steel erection activities is great. OSHA 
estimates that 28 workers are killed every year during steel erection 
activities. Falls are currently the number one killer of construction 
workers, and since the erection of buildings necessarily involves high 
exposure to fall hazards, the central focus of this rule will be to 
eliminate or reduce the risks associated with falls.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Notice of Commit59 FR 24389shment                              05/11/94
NPRM            63 FR 43451                                    08/13/98
NPRM Comment Period End                                        11/17/98
Public Hearing                                                 12/00/98
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Russel B. Swanson
Director
Directorate of Construction
Department of Labor
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
200 Constitution Avenue NW.
Room S1506, FP Building
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 219-8644
Fax: 202 219-6599
RIN: 1218-AA65
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--OSHA
76. PREVENTION OF WORK-RELATED MUSCULOSKELETAL DISORDERS
Priority:


Economically Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Legal Authority:


 29 USC 651; 29 USC 652; 29 USC 655; 29 USC 657; 33 USC 941; 40 USC 333


CFR Citation:


 29 CFR 1910; 29 CFR 1915


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


Work-related musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) are a leading cause of 
pain, suffering, and disability in American workplaces. Since the 
1980's, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has 
had a number of initiatives related to addressing these problems, 
including enforcement under the general duty clause, issuance of 
guidelines for the meatpacking industry, and

[[Page 61306]]

development of other compliance-assistance materials.
Ultimately, the Agency decided that, given the increasing magnitude of 
the problem, a regulatory approach should be explored to ensure that 
the largest possible number of employers and employees become aware of 
the problems and ways of preventing work-related musculoskeletal 
disorders. OSHA has examined and analyzed the extensive scientific 
literature documenting the problem of work-related musculoskeletal 
disorders, the causes of the problem, and effective solutions; 
conducted a telephone survey of over 3,000 establishments regarding 
their current practices to prevent work-related musculoskeletal 
disorders; and completed a number of site visits to facilities with 
existing programs. The Agency has also held numerous stakeholder 
meetings to solicit input from individuals regarding the possible 
contents of a standard to prevent work-related musculoskeletal 
disorders. Agency representatives have delivered numerous outreach 
presentations to people who are interested in this subject and 
consulted professionals in the field to obtain expert opinions on the 
options considered by the Agency. Information obtained from these 
activities is undergoing Agency review. Options for regulatory action 
are being developed.
The Agency believes that the scientific evidence supports the need for 
a standard and that the availability of effective and reasonable means 
to control these hazards has been demonstrated. The criteria that have 
been developed for setting OSHA priorities support the need to reduce 
the incidence of work-related musculoskeletal disorders. The Agency is 
currently developing a proposed rule for ergonomics. The National 
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has issued a 
report evaluating the scientific basis for the relationship of 
workplace stressors to MSDs. The report concludes that such a 
relationship exists for many stressors.


Statement of Need:


OSHA estimates that work-related musculoskeletal disorders in the 
United States account for over 600,000 injuries and illnesses (34 
percent of all lost workdays reported to the Bureau of Labor Statistics 
(BLS)). These disorders now account for one out of every three dollars 
spent on workers' compensation. It is estimated that employers spend 
$20 billion a year on direct costs for MSD-related workers' 
compensation, and up to five times that much for indirect costs, such 
as those associated with hiring and training replacement workers. In 
addition to these monetary effects, MSDs often impose a substantial 
personal toll on affected workers who can no longer work or perform 
simple personal tasks like buttoning their clothes or brushing their 
hair.
Scientific evidence associates MSDs with stresses to various body parts 
caused by the way certain tasks are performed. The positioning of the 
body and the type of physical work that must be done to complete a job 
may cause persistent pain and lead to deterioration of the affected 
joints, tissues, and muscles. The longer the worker must maintain a 
fixed or awkward posture, exert force, repeat the same movements, 
experience vibration, or handle heavy items, the greater the chance 
that such a disorder will occur. These job-related stresses are 
referred to as ``workplace risk factors,'' and the scientific 
literature demonstrates that exposure to these risk factors, 
particularly in combination, significantly increases an employee's risk 
of developing a work-related musculoskeletal disorder. Jobs involving 
exposure to workplace risk factors appear in all types of industries 
and in all sizes of facilities.
Musculoskeletal disorders occur in all parts of the body-- the upper 
extremity, the lower extremity, and the back. An example of the 
increasing magnitude of the problem involves repeated trauma to the 
upper extremity, or that portion of the body above the waist, in forms 
such as carpal tunnel syndrome and shoulder tendinitis. In 1996, 
employers reported 281,000 repeated trauma cases to the BLS. As a point 
of comparison, the number of reported cases in this category was only 
22,700 in 1981. When the data are adjusted to reflect changes in the 
size of the employee population, they indicate that such cases have 
increased more than 7-fold in the last ten years. In industries such as 
meatpacking and automotive assembly, approximately 10 out of 100 
workers report work-related MSDs from repeated trauma each year. The 
number of work-related back injuries occurring each year is even larger 
than the number of upper extremity disorders. Industries reporting a 
large number of cases of back injuries include hospitals and personal 
care facilities.
The evidence OSHA has assembled and analyzed indicates that 
technologically and economically feasible measures are available to 
significantly reduce exposures to workplace risk factors and the risk 
of developing work-related musculoskeletal disorders. Many companies 
that have voluntarily implemented ergonomics programs have demonstrated 
that effective ergonomic interventions are available to reduce MSDs. 
Many of these interventions are simple and inexpensive, but 
nevertheless have a significant effect on the occurrence of work-
related musculoskeletal disorders. Benefits include substantial savings 
in workers' compensation costs, increased productivity, and decreased 
turnover.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


The legal basis for this proposed rule is a preliminary finding by the 
Secretary of Labor that workers in workplaces within OSHA's 
jurisdiction are at significant risk of incurring work-related 
musculoskeletal disorders.


Alternatives:


OSHA is considering many different regulatory alternatives. These 
include variations in the scope of coverage, particularly with regard 
to industrial sectors, work processes, and degree of hazard. The Agency 
has also considered various phase-in options related to the size of the 
facility. The agency is still developing and refining its regulatory 
alternatives.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Implementation costs of a regulation would include those related to 
identifying and correcting problem jobs using engineering and 
administrative controls. Benefits expected include reduced pain and 
suffering, both from prevented disorders as well as reduced severity in 
those disorders that do occur, decreased numbers of workers' 
compensation claims, and reduced lost work time. Secondary benefits may 
accrue from improved quality and productivity due to better designed 
work systems.


Risks:


The data OSHA has obtained and analyzed indicate that employees are at 
a significant risk of developing or aggravating musculoskeletal 
disorders due to exposure to risk factors in the workplace. In 
addition, information from site visits, the scientific literature, the 
Agency's compliance experience, and other sources indicates that there 
are economically and technologically feasible means of addressing and 
reducing these risks to prevent the development or aggravation of such 
disorders, or to reduce their severity. These data and analyses will be

[[Page 61307]]

presented in the preamble to any proposed standard published in the 
Federal Register.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM           57 FR 34192                                    08/03/92
ANPRM Comment Period End                                       02/01/93
NPRM                                                           09/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, Organizations


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Agency Contact:
Adam Finkel
Director, Health Standards Programs
Department of Labor
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
200 Constitution Avenue NW.
Room N3718, FP Building
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 219-7075
Fax: 202 219-7125
RIN: 1218-AB36
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--OSHA
77. SAFETY AND HEALTH PROGRAMS (FOR GENERAL INDUSTRY AND THE MARITIME 
INDUSTRIES)
Priority:


Economically Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Legal Authority:


 29 USC 655; 29 USC 652; 29 USC 654; 29 USC 657


CFR Citation:


 29 CFR 1910; 29 CFR 1915; 29 CFR 1917; 29 CFR 1918


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), many of the 
States, members of the safety and health community, insurance 
companies, professional organizations, companies participating in the 
Agency's Voluntary Protection Program, and many proactive employers in 
all industries have recognized the value of worksite-specific safety 
and health programs in preventing job-related injuries, illnesses, and 
fatalities. The effectiveness of these programs is seen most 
dramatically in the reductions in job-related injuries and illnesses, 
workers' compensation costs, and absenteeism that occur after employers 
implement such programs. To assist employers in establishing safety and 
health programs, OSHA in 1989 (54 FR 3904) published nonmandatory 
guidelines that were based on a distillation of the best safety and 
health management practices observed by OSHA in the years since the 
Agency was established. OSHA's decision to expand on these guidelines 
by developing a safety and health programs rule is based on the 
Agency's recognition that occupational injuries, illnesses, and 
fatalities are continuing to occur at an unacceptably high rate; for 
example, an average of about 17 workers were killed each day in 1997 in 
occupational fatalities.
The safety and health programs required by the proposed rule will 
include at least the following elements: management leadership of the 
program; active employee participation in the program; analysis of the 
worksite to identify serious safety and health hazards of all types; 
and requirements that employers eliminate or control those hazards in 
an effective and timely way. In addition, in response to extensive 
stakeholder involvement, OSHA has, among other things, focused the rule 
on significant hazards and reduced burdens on small business to the 
extent consistent with the goals of the OSH Act.


Statement of Need:


Worksite-specific safety and health programs are increasingly being 
recognized as the most effective way of reducing job-related accidents, 
injuries, and illnesses. Many States have to date passed legislation 
and/or regulations mandating such programs for some or all employers, 
and insurance companies have also been encouraging their client 
companies to implement these programs, because the results they have 
achieved have been dramatic. In addition, all of the companies in 
OSHA's Voluntary Protection Program have established such programs and 
are reporting injury and illness rates that are sometimes only 20 
percent of the average for other establishments in their industry. 
Safety and health programs apparently achieve these results by actively 
engaging front-line employees, who are closest to operations in the 
workplace and have the highest stake in preventing job-related 
accidents, in the process of identifying and correcting occupational 
hazards. Finding and fixing workplace hazards is a cost-effective 
process, both in terms of the avoidance of pain and suffering and the 
prevention of the expenditure of large sums of money to pay for the 
direct and indirect costs of these injuries and illnesses. For example, 
many employers report that these programs return between $5 and $9 for 
every dollar invested in the program, and almost all employers with 
such programs experience substantial reductions in their workers' 
compensation premiums. OSHA believes that having employers evaluate the 
job-related safety and health hazards in their workplace and address 
any hazards identified before they cause occupational injuries, 
illnesses, or deaths is an excellent example of ``regulating smarter,'' 
because all parties will benefit: workers will avoid the injuries and 
illnesses they are currently experiencing; employers will save 
substantial sums of money and increase their productivity and 
competitiveness; and OSHA's scarce resources will be leveraged as 
employers and employees join together to identify, correct, and prevent 
job-related safety and health hazards.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


The legal basis for the proposed rule is a preliminary finding by the 
Secretary of Labor that employees in industries within OSHA's 
jurisdiction are at significant risk of injury, illness, and death as a 
result of their work and that the safety and health programs required 
by the rule are necessary and appropriate to reduce that risk.


Alternatives:


In the last few years, OSHA has considered both nonregulatory and 
regulatory alternatives in the area of safety and health program 
management. First, OSHA published, in 1989, a set of voluntary 
management guidelines designed to assist employers to establish and 
maintain programs such as the one envisioned by the proposed safety and 
health programs rule. Although these guidelines have received 
widespread praise from many employers and professional safety and 
health associations, they have not been adequately effective in 
reducing job-related deaths, injuries, and illnesses, which have 
continued to occur at unacceptably high levels. Many of the States have 
also recognized the value

[[Page 61308]]

of these programs and have mandated that some or all covered employers 
establish them; this has led to inconsistent coverage from State to 
State, with many States having no coverage and others imposing 
stringent program requirements.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Costs and benefits have not been determined at this time.


Risks:


Workers in all major industry sectors in the United States continue to 
experience an unacceptably high rate of occupational fatalities, 
injuries, and illnesses. In 1996 the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports 
that 6.2 million injuries and illnesses occurred within private 
industry, and in 1997, 6,218 workers lost their lives on the job. There 
is increasing evidence that addressing hazards in a piecemeal fashion, 
as employers tend to do in the absence of a comprehensive safety and 
health program, is considerably less effective in reducing accidents 
than a systematic approach. Dramatic evidence of the seriousness of 
this problem can be found in the staggering workers' compensation bill 
paid by America's employers and employees: approximately $54 billion 
annually. These risks can be reduced by the implementation of safety 
and health programs, as evidenced by the experience of OSHA's Voluntary 
Protection Program participants, who regularly achieve injury and 
illness rates averaging one-fifth to one-third those of competing firms 
in their industries. Other benefits of reducing accidents include 
enhanced productivity, improved employee morale, and reduced 
absenteeism. Because these programs address all significant job-related 
hazards--including those that are covered by OSHA standards as well as 
those not currently addressed by these standards--the proposed rule 
will be effective in ensuring a systematic approach to the control of 
long-recognized hazards, such as lead, and emerging hazards, such as 
lasers and violence in the workplace.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           04/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


State


Additional Information:


A separate rule is being developed for the construction industry (29 
CFR 1926). OSHA will coordinate the development of the two rules.


Agency Contact:
Marthe B. Kent
Acting Deputy Director
Directorate of Policy
Department of Labor
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
200 Constitution Avenue NW.
Room N3641, FP Building
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 219-4690
Fax: 202 219-4383
RIN: 1218-AB41
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--OSHA
78. OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE TO TUBERCULOSIS
Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Unfunded Mandates:


This action may affect the private sector under PL 104-4.


Legal Authority:


 29 USC 655(b)


CFR Citation:


 29 CFR 1910.1035


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


On August 25, 1993, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration 
(OSHA) was petitioned by the Labor Coalition to Fight TB in the 
Workplace to initiate rulemaking for a permanent standard to protect 
workers against occupational transmission of tuberculosis (TB). 
Although the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have 
developed recommendations for controlling the spread of TB in several 
work settings (e.g., correctional institutions, health-care facilities, 
and homeless shelters), the petitioners stated that in every recent TB 
outbreak investigated by the CDC, noncompliance with CDC's TB control 
guidelines was evident. After reviewing the available information, OSHA 
preliminarily concluded that a significant risk of occupational 
transmission of TB exists for some workers and has accordingly issued a 
proposed rule. OSHA already regulates the exposure to the biological 
hazard of bloodborne pathogens (e.g. HIV, hepatitis B) under 29 CFR 
1910.1030 and believes that development of a TB standard is consistent 
with the Agency's mission and previous activity. On October 17, 1997, 
OSHA published its proposed standard for occupational exposure to 
tuberculosis (62 FR 54160). The proposed rule covers workers in 
hospitals, nursing homes, hospices, correctional facilities, homeless 
shelters, and certain other work settings where workers are at 
significant risk of incurring TB infection while caring for their 
patients and clients or performing certain procedures. The proposed 
standard would require employers to protect TB-exposed employees by 
means of infection prevention and control measures that have been 
demonstrated to be highly effective in reducing or eliminating job-
related TB infections. Such measures include procedures for early 
identification of individuals with infectious TB, isolation of 
individuals with infectious TB using appropriate ventilation, use of 
respiratory protection in certain situations, skin testing and training 
of employees with occupational exposure, and medical management and 
follow-up after exposure incidents or skin test conversions.
The written comment period ended on February 17, 1998. Subsequently, 
informal public hearings were held in Washington, DC (April 7-17), Los 
Angeles, CA (May 5-7), New York City, NY (May 19-21) and Chicago, IL 
(June 2-4). At the end of the hearings a post-hearing comment period 
was established. The deadline for final summation, briefs and written 
comments is October 5, 1998.
In addition to the public hearings, OSHA consulted with parties outside 
of the Agency with regard to the proposal. The preliminary Risk 
Assessment was peer-reviewed by four individuals with specific 
knowledge in the areas of tuberculosis and risk assessment. In 
addition, OSHA conducted stakeholder meetings with representatives of 
relevant professional organizations, trade associations, labor unions, 
and other groups. The proposal was also reviewed and commented on by 
affected small business entities under the Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA). In addition, the draft 
proposed standard and preamble were

[[Page 61309]]

reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.


Statement of Need:


For centuries, TB has been responsible for the deaths of millions of 
people throughout the world. TB is a contagious disease caused by the 
bacterium  Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Infection is generally acquired 
by the inhalation of airborne particles carrying the bacterium. These 
airborne particles, called droplet nuclei, can be generated when 
persons with pulmonary or laryngeal tuberculosis in the infectious 
state of the disease cough, sneeze, speak, or sing. In some individuals 
exposed to droplet nuclei, TB bacilli enter the alveoli and establish 
an infection. In most cases, the bacilli are contained by the 
individual's immune response. However, in some cases, the bacilli are 
not contained by the immune system and continue to grow and invade the 
tissue, leading to the progressive destruction of the organ involved. 
Although in most cases this organ is the lung (i.e., pulmonary 
tuberculosis), other organs outside of the lung may also be infected 
and become diseased (i.e. extrapulmonary tuberculosis).
From 1953, when active cases began to be reported in the United States, 
until 1984, the number of annual reported cases declined 74 percent, 
from 84,304 to 22,255. However, this steady decline in TB cases has not 
continued. Instead, from 1985 through 1992, the number of reported TB 
cases increased 20.1 percent. In 1992, more than 26,000 new cases of 
active TB were reported in the United States. In New York City alone, 
3,700 cases of active TB were reported in 1991. While a decrease in 
active cases has been observed recently, there were still 21,337 
reported cases in 1996. A large portion of the decrease occurred in 
high incidence areas where intervention efforts have been focused. 
However, over twenty states showed an increase or no change in the 
number of reported cases in 1996. In addition, the factors that led to 
the recent resurgence of TB (e.g., increases in homelessness, HIV 
infection, immigration from countries with high rates of infection) 
still exist and the job duties of certain workers require them to be 
exposed to patients and clients with suspected or confirmed infectious 
TB. In addition, strains of tuberculosis have emerged that are 
resistant to several of the first-line anti-TB drugs. This multidrug-
resistant TB (MDR-TB) is often fatal due to the difficulty of halting 
the progression of the disease. Individuals with MDR-TB often remain 
infectious for longer periods of time due to delays in diagnosing 
resistance patterns and initiating proper treatment. This lengthened 
period of infectiousness increases the risk that the organism will be 
transmitted to other persons coming in contact with such individuals.
Providing health care for individuals with TB increases the risk of 
occupational exposure among health care workers. In fact, several 
outbreaks of tuberculosis, including MDR-TB, have recently occurred in 
health care facilities, resulting in transmission to both patients and 
health care workers. CDC found that factors contributing to these 
outbreaks included delayed diagnosis of TB, delayed recognition of drug 
resistance, delayed initiation of effective therapy, delayed initiation 
and inadequate duration of TB isolation, inadequate ventilation in TB 
isolation rooms, lapses in TB isolation practices, inadequate 
precautions for cough-inducing procedures, and lack of adequate 
respiratory protection. CDC analyzed data from three of the health care 
facilities involved in the outbreaks, and determined that transmission 
of TB decreased significantly or ceased entirely in areas where 
recommended TB control measures were implemented. In addition workers 
outside of health care may provide services to patient or client 
populations that have an increased rate of TB. For example, 
occupational transmission of TB has been documented in correctional 
facilities.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


The legal basis for the proposed TB standard is a preliminary finding 
by the Secretary of Labor that workers in hospitals, nursing homes, 
hospices, correctional facilities, homeless shelters, and certain other 
work settings are at significant risk of incurring TB infection while 
caring for their patients and clients or performing certain procedures.


Alternatives:


Prior to a decision to publish a proposal, OSHA considered a number of 
options, including whether or not to develop an emergency temporary 
standard, publish an advance notice of proposed rulemaking, or to 
enforce existing regulations.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Costs will be incurred by employers for engineering controls, 
respiratory protection, medical surveillance, training, exposure 
control, recordkeeping, and work practice controls. Benefits will 
include the prevention of occupationally-related TB transmissions and 
infections, and a corresponding reduced risk of exposure among the 
general population. OSHA estimates that more than 5 million workers are 
exposed to TB in the course of their work. The Agency estimates that 
the proposed provisions will result in an annual cost of 245 million 
dollars. Implementation of the standard is estimated to reduce the 
number of job-related cases of TB by 70-90 percent in the work settings 
covered, thus preventing approximately 21,400 to 25,800 work-related 
infections per year, 1,500 to 1,700 active cases of TB resulting from 
these infections, and 115 to 136 deaths resulting from these active 
cases.


Risks:


From 1985 to 1992, the number of reported cases of TB in the U.S. 
increased, reversing a previous 30-year downward trend. While there has 
been a recent decrease in the reported number of cases of TB in the 
general population, a large part of this decrease can be attributed to 
focused intervention efforts in areas of high incidence of TB. Over 20 
states showed an increase or no change in the number of reported TB 
cases in 1996, and the factors that contributed to the resurgence 
continue to exist, along with exposure of certain workers to patient 
and client populations with an increased rate of TB. In addition, 
strains of multidrug-resistant TB have emerged which are more often 
fatal. Therefore, employees in work settings such as health care or 
correctional facilities, who have contact with infectious individuals, 
are at high risk of occupational transmission. TB is a contagious 
disease spread by airborne particles known as droplet nuclei. Active 
disease can cause signs and symptoms such as fatigue, weight loss, 
fever, night sweats, loss of appetite, persistent cough, and shortness 
of breath, and may possibly result in serious respiratory illness or 
death.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
SBREFA Panel                                                   09/10/96
NPRM            62 FR 54160                                    10/17/97
NPRM Comment Per62 FR 65388                                    02/17/98
Post Hearing Comment End                                       10/05/98
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes

[[Page 61310]]

Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, Organizations


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local, Tribal, Federal


Additional Information:


During the rulemaking, OSHA has met with small business stakeholders to 
discuss their concerns, and has conducted an initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis to identify any significant impacts on a 
substantial number of small entities. In addition, OSHA has conducted a 
special study of homeless shelters and has set aside certain hearing 
dates for persons who wished to testify on homeless shelter issues.


Agency Contact:
Adam Finkel
Director, Health Standards Programs
Department of Labor
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
200 Constitution Avenue NW.
Room N3718, FP Building
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 219-7075
Fax: 202 219-7125
RIN: 1218-AB46
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--OSHA
79. PERMISSIBLE EXPOSURE LIMITS (PELS) FOR AIR CONTAMINANTS
Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Unfunded Mandates:


This action may affect the private sector under PL 104-4.


Legal Authority:


 29 USC 655 (b)


CFR Citation:


 29 CFR 1910.1000


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


OSHA enforces hundreds of permissible exposure limits (PELs) for toxic 
air contaminants found in U.S. workplaces. These PELs set OSHA-
enforceable limits on the magnitude and duration of employee exposure 
to each contaminant. The amount of exposure permitted by a given PEL 
depends on the toxicity and other characteristics of the particular 
substance. OSHA's PELs for air contaminants are codified in 29 CFR 
1910.1000, Tables Z-1, Z-2, and Z-3. The air contaminant limits were 
adopted by OSHA in 1971 from existing national consensus standards 
issued by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists 
and the American National Standards Institute. These PELs, which have 
not been updated since 1971, thus reflect the results of research 
conducted in the 1950s and 1960s. Since then, much new information has 
become available that indicates that, in most cases, these early limits 
are outdated and insufficiently protective of worker health. To correct 
this situation, OSHA published a proposal in 1988 updating the air 
contaminant limits in general industry. That proposal became a final 
rule in 1989 (54 FR 2332); it lowered the existing PELs for 212 toxic 
air contaminants and established PELs for 164 previously unregulated 
air contaminants. On June 12, 1992 (57 FR 26001), OSHA proposed a rule 
that would have extended these limits to workplaces in the 
construction, maritime, and agriculture industries. However, on July 
10, 1992, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the 1989 final 
rule on the grounds that ``(1) OSHA failed to establish that existing 
exposure limits in the workplace presented significant risk of material 
health impairment or that new standards eliminated or substantially 
lessened the risk; (2) OSHA did not meet its burden of establishing 
that its 428 new permissible exposure limits (PELs) were either 
economically or technologically feasible.'' The Court's decision to 
vacate the rule forced the Agency to return to the earlier, 
insufficiently protective limits.
OSHA continues to believe that establishing a rulemaking approach that 
will permit the Agency to update existing air contaminant limits and 
establish new ones as toxicological evidence of the need to do so 
becomes available is a high priority. The rulemaking described in this 
Regulatory Plan entry reflects OSHA's intention to move forward with 
this process. In determining how to proceed, OSHA is being guided by 
the OSH Act and the Eleventh District Court decision regarding the 
extent of the risk and feasibility analyses required to support revised 
and new air contaminant limits. The Agency will rely on a risk-based 
prioritization system to identify those air contaminants that present 
significant risks to exposed employees and for which technologically 
and economically feasible controls exist. State-of-the-art risk 
assessment methodologies will be utilized for both carcinogens and 
noncarcinogens, and the determinations of feasibility contained in the 
economic analysis accompanying the proposal will be extensive. OSHA 
published (61 FR 1947) the substances selected for proposed new PELs 
for the first update of the air contaminants rule: carbon disulfide, 
carbon monoxide, chloroform, dimethyl sulfate, epichlorohydrin, 
ethylene dichloride, glutaraldehyde, n-hexane, 2-hexanone, hydrazine, 
hydrogen sulfide, manganese and compounds, mercury and compounds, 
nitrogen dioxide, perchloroethylene, sulfur dioxide, toluene, toluene 
diisocyanate, trimellitic anhydride, and vinyl bromide. The specific 
hazards associated with the air contaminants preliminarily selected for 
regulation include cancer, neurotoxicity, respiratory sensitivity, etc. 
Using the same criteria as those used in the Priority Planning Process, 
OSHA evaluated each substance: severity of the health effect, the 
number of exposed workers, toxicity of the substance, uses and 
prevailing exposure levels of the substance, the potential risk 
reduction, availability and quality of information useful in 
quantitative risk assessment to ensure that significant risks are 
addressed and that workers will experience substantial benefits in the 
form of enhanced health and safety. Publication of the proposal will 
allow OSHA to institutionalize a mechanism for updating and extending 
its air contaminant limits, which will, at the same time, provide added 
protection to many workers who are currently being overexposed to toxic 
substances in the workplace. OSHA is also considering supplemental 
mechanisms proposed by stakeholders to increase the effectiveness of 
the process.


Statement of Need:


OSHA's current Tables Z-1, Z-2, and Z-3 contain approximately 470 PELs 
for various forms (e.g., dust, fumes, vapors) of the regulated 
contaminants, many of which are widely used in industrial settings. 
These PELs, which were adopted wholesale by OSHA in 1971 and have not 
been revised since then, often lead to adverse effects when workers are 
exposed to them. In addition, new chemicals are constantly being 
introduced into the working environment, and exposure to these 
substances can result in both acute and chronic health effects. Acute 
effects

[[Page 61311]]

include respiratory and sensory irritation, chemical burns, and ocular 
damage; chronic effects include cardiovascular disease, respiratory, 
liver and kidney disease, reproductive effects, neurological damage, 
and cancer. For these reasons, it is a high OSHA priority to establish 
an ongoing regular process that will allow OSHA routinely to update 
existing PELs and establish limits for previously unregulated 
substances. The first step in achieving this goal is to publish an air 
contaminants proposal for a number of substances that will establish 
streamlined but scientifically sound and defensible procedures for 
conducting risk assessments and performing feasibility analyses that 
will permit regular updating and review of permissible exposure limits 
for air contaminants. The ability to lower existing limits and 
establish limits for new contaminants is an essential component of 
OSHA's mandate to protect the health and functional well-being of 
America's workers.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


The legal basis for the proposed PELs for selected air contaminants is 
a preliminary determination by the Secretary of Labor that the 
substances for which PELs are being proposed pose a significant risk to 
workers and that the new limits will substantially reduce that risk.


Alternatives:


OSHA has considered a variety of nonregulatory approaches to address 
the problem of the Agency's outdated exposure limits for air 
contaminants. These include the issuance of nonmandatory guidelines, 
enforcing lower limits through the ``general duty'' clause of the OSH 
Act in cases where substantial evidence exists that exposure presents a 
recognized hazard of serious physical harm, and the issuance of hazard 
alerts. OSHA believes, however, that the problem of overexposure to 
hazardous air contaminants is so widespread, and the Agency's current 
limits are so out of date, that only a regulatory approach will achieve 
the necessary level of protection. The regulatory approach also has 
advantages for employers, because it gives them the information they 
need to establish appropriate control strategies to protect their 
workers and reduce the costs of job-related illnesses. This first phase 
of an ongoing air contaminants updating and revision process will begin 
to resolve a problem of long-standing and major occupational health 
import.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The scope of the proposed rule is currently under development, and thus 
quantitative estimates of costs and benefits have not been determined 
at this time. Implementation costs associated with the proposed 
standard include primarily those related to identifying and correcting 
over-exposures using engineering controls and work practices. 
Additional costs may be incurred for the implementation of 
administrative controls and the purchase and use of personal protective 
equipment. Estimates of the magnitude of the problem of occupational 
illnesses, both acute and chronic, vary considerably. In 1989, OSHA 
concluded that its Air Contaminants rule in general industry, which 
lowered 212 exposure limits and added 164 where none had previously 
existed, would result in a reduction of approximately 700 deaths, 
55,000 illnesses and over 23,300 lost-workday illnesses annually. 
Chronic effects include cardiovascular disease, respiratory, liver and 
kidney disease, reproductive effects, neurological damage, and cancer. 
Acute effects include respiratory and sensory irritation, chemical 
burns, and ocular effects.


Risks:


Risk assessments for the substances under consideration for this first 
phase of the air contaminants updating and revision process have not 
yet been completed.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           01/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Additional Information:


During the rulemaking, OSHA will meet with small business stakeholders 
to discuss their concerns, and will conduct an initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Screening Analysis to identify any significant impacts on a 
substantial number of small entities.


Agency Contact:
Adam Finkel
Director, Health Standards Programs
Department of Labor
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
200 Constitution Avenue NW.
Room N3718, FP Building
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 219-7075
Fax: 202 219-7125
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 1218-AB54
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--OSHA
80. PLAIN LANGUAGE REVISION OF EXISTING STANDARDS (PHASE I)
Priority:


Other Significant


Reinventing Government:


This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will 
revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline 
requirements.


Legal Authority:


 29 USC 655(b); 5 USC 553


CFR Citation:


 29 CFR 1910.107; 29 CFR 1910.94(c); 29 CFR 1910.94(d); 29 CFR 1910.35; 
29 CFR 1910.36; 29 CFR 1910.37; 29 CFR 1910.38


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) adopted its 
initial package of workplace safety and health standards in the 1970's. 
Section 6(a) of the Act directed OSHA to adopt nationally recognized 
consensus standards, developed by groups such as the National Fire 
Protection Association (NFPA) and the American National Standards 
Institute (ANSI), and existing Federal standards as OSHA standards 
without public participation or other public comment. Many of these 
standards have been identified by the regulated community as being 
overly complex, difficult to read and follow, and out of date with 
current technology.
This project is part of a Presidential initiative to respond to 
concerns about the complexity and obsolescence of certain Federal 
regulations. OSHA believes that some of the Agency's section 6(a) 
standards in subpart E and subpart H of part 1910 meet the criteria

[[Page 61312]]

for critical review set forth in the Presidential initiative. OSHA is 
initiating two separate rulemakings that will revise two of OSHA's most 
complex and out-of-date section 6(a) standards. These specific 
standards address means of egress (exit routes) and spray finishing 
using flammable and combustible liquids. Section 1910.107 (spray 
finishing using flammable and combustible liquids) also contains 
substantive ventilation requirements that duplicate ventilation 
requirements contained in section 1910.94, paragraphs (c) and (d). The 
purpose of these rulemakings is to simplify and clarify these standards 
and to write them in ``plain language,'' as directed by the President's 
report and the June 1998 Executive Memorandum on Plain Language.


Statement of Need:


These two OSHA standards are being revised as part of the President's 
initiative on Federal regulations discussed in the U.S. Department of 
Labor report of June 15, 1995 and in response to the June 1998 
Executive Memorandum.
Exposure to flammable and combustible liquids during spray applications 
creates a variety of safety and health problems, including thermal 
burns, chemical burns, smoke inhalation, respiratory inflammations and 
infections, nausea, dizziness, including respiratory allergies, heart 
disease, lung cancer, decreases in pulmonary function, and other 
serious injuries and illnesses.
In case of an emergency, proper exit routes are needed both to protect 
employees from being trapped in hazardous work areas and to guide 
employees to safety.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


The legal basis for issuing these plain language rules derives from the 
OSH Act and responds to the Executive Memo issued by the President in 
June 1998.


Alternatives:


OSHA has considered two alternatives to rewriting these rules in plain 
language: leaving the rules unchanged and initiating a comprehensive 
revision and updating of these rules. The first alternative has been 
rejected because it would leave these complex and specification-driven 
rules in place, a situation that has led to confusion and 
misinterpretations in the past. Carrying out the second alternative--
conducting comprehensive rulemaking--would take many years, and would, 
again, allow the current situation to continue. The approach OSHA has 
taken--conducting rulemaking for the limited but important purpose of 
rewriting these rules in plain language--is the fastest and least 
resource-intensive approach to the problems presented by these rules.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Because these plain language revisions are not substantively changing 
these rules, no cost impacts will be associated with these revisions.


Risks:


Because these revisions are designed solely to simplify and clarify 
these standards, no assessment of risks is required.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM Exit Routes61 FR 47712Egress)                             09/10/96
Hearing on Exit 62 FR 9402                                     04/29/97
NPRM Spray Finishing                                           11/00/98
Final Action Exit Routes (Means of Egress)                     12/00/98
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Additional Information:


Means of Egress, 29 CFR 1910 subpart E, and Spray Finishing Using 
Flammable and Combustible Materials, 29 CFR 1910.107, are two standards 
selected for revision under a Presidential Initiative to revise 
outdated, duplicative, or obsolete Federal regulations. These standards 
will be rewritten in plain language to make them easier to read. 29 CFR 
1910.94(c) will be combined with 29 CFR 1910.107 to eliminate 
duplicative standards. Flammable and Combustible Liquids, 29 CFR 
1910.106, has been moved to RIN 1218-AB61.


Agency Contact:
John Martinok
Acting Director
Directorate of Safety Standards Programs
Department of Labor
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
200 Constitution Avenue NW.
Room N3605, FP Building
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 219-8061
Fax: 202 219-7477
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 1218-AB55
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--OSHA
81. REQUIREMENT TO PAY FOR PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT
Priority:


Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Legal Authority:


 29 USC 655(b); 29 USC 657; 33 USC 941; 40 USC 333


CFR Citation:


 29 CFR 1910 .132; 29 CFR 1915.152; 29 CFR 1917.96; 29 CFR 1918.106; 29 
CFR 1926.95


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


Generally, OSHA standards require that protective equipment (including 
personal protective equipment (PPE)) be provided and used when 
necessary to protect employees from hazards which can cause them 
injury, illness, or physical harm. In this discussion, OSHA uses the 
abbreviation ``PPE'' to cover both personal protective equipment and 
other protective equipment. The Agency is proposing to revise its PPE 
standards to clarify who is required to pay for required PPE and under 
what circumstances. According to the proposal, employers would be 
required to provide all OSHA-required PPE at no cost to employees, with 
the following exceptions: the employer would not need to pay for 
safety-toe protective footwear or prescription safety eyewear if all 
three of the following conditions are met: (1) the employer permits 
such footwear or eyewear to be worn off the job-site; (2) the footwear 
or eyewear is not used in a manner that renders it unsafe for use off 
the job-site (for example,

[[Page 61313]]

contaminated safety-toe footwear would not be permitted to be worn off 
a job-site); and (3) such footwear or eyewear is not designed for 
special use on the job. Employers are also not required to pay for the 
logging boots required by 29 CFR 1910.266(d)(1)(v).


Statement of Need:


OSHA has been issuing health, safety, and construction standards 
requiring appropriate PPE over a 28-year period. The regulatory 
language used in OSHA standards has generally clearly stated that the 
employer must provide PPE and ensure that employees wear it. However, 
the regulatory language used regarding the employer's obligation to pay 
for the PPE has varied.
OSHA attempted to clarify its position on the issue of payment for 
required PPE in a compliance memorandum to its field staff dated 
October 18, 1994. The memorandum stated that it was the employer's 
obligation to provide and pay for PPE except in limited situations.
Very recently, the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission 
declined to accept this interpretation (Secretary of Labor v. Union 
Tank Car, OSHRC No. 96-0563). The Commission vacated a citation against 
an employer who failed to pay for OSHA-required PPE, finding that the 
Secretary had failed to adequately explain the policy outlined in the 
1994 memorandum in light of several inconsistent earlier letters of 
interpretation from OSHA.
Therefore, the Agency needs to clarify who is to pay for PPE under what 
conditions, to eliminate any confusion and unnecessary litigation.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


The legal basis for this proposed rule is the need to clarify OSHA's 
intent with regard to the payment for protective equipment required by 
OSHA standards promulgated under section 6 of the OSH Act.


Alternatives:


OSHA has considered several alternative approaches to resolving this 
issue, including leaving this as a labor-management issue, issuing 
compliance directives to identify what PPE the employer must pay for, 
or requiring the employer to pay for all PPE. OSHA believes that, in 
this case, revising the standard to clarify who is to pay for the PPE 
is the most appropriate way to proceed. It is the only approach that 
will assure significant public participation in the resolution of this 
issue, and the codification of that resolution.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


At this stage of rulemaking, the Agency has not determined costs or 
benefits, and will not be able to do this until the language of the 
proposal is finalized.


Risks:


Substantive requirements for protective equipment are impacted by other 
standards. This proposed rule is designed solely to clarify OSHA's 
intent as to what protective equipment must be paid for by the 
employer. Accordingly, no assessment of risk is required for this 
proposal.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           12/00/98
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local, Federal


Agency Contact:
John Martinok
Acting Director
Directorate of Safety Standards Programs
Department of Labor
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
200 Constitution Avenue NW.
Room N3605, FP Building
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 219-8061
Fax: 202 219-7477
RIN: 1218-AB77
_______________________________________________________________________
DOL--OSHA

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

82. RECORDING AND REPORTING OCCUPATIONAL INJURIES AND ILLNESSES 
(SIMPLIFIED INJURY/ILLNESS RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS)
Priority:


Other Significant


Reinventing Government:


This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will 
revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline 
requirements.


Legal Authority:


 29 USC 657; 29 USC 673


CFR Citation:


 29 CFR 1904; 29 CFR 1952.4


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


OSHA requires employers to keep records of illness and injuries. These 
records are used by OSHA and the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), 
among others, to develop data on workplace safety and health by 
industry and across industries. Over the years, concerns about the 
reliability and utility of these data have been raised by Congress, the 
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), the 
National Academy of Sciences, the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB), the General Accounting Office, business and labor, as well as 
BLS and OSHA. In the late 1980's, OSHA contracted with the Keystone 
Center to bring together representatives of industry, labor, 
government, and academia in a year-long effort to discuss problems with 
OSHA's injury and illness recordkeeping system. Keystone issued a 
report with specific recommendations on how to improve the system. In 
1995, OSHA held several meetings with stakeholders from business, labor 
and government in order to obtain feedback on a draft OSHA 
recordkeeping proposal and to gather related information.
OSHA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the February 
2, 1996 Federal Register that contained revised recordkeeping 
requirements and recordkeeping forms. The original 90-day public 
comment period was extended another 60 days and ended July 2, 1996. In 
addition, two public meetings were held in Washington, DC (March 26-29 
and April 30-May 1). Over 450 written comments were entered into the 
Docket R-02, along with 1,200 pages of input derived from nearly 60 
presentations given at the public meetings.
OSHA is now planning to issue a final rule that incorporates changes 
based on an analysis of the public comments and testimony.


Statement of Need:


The occupational injury and illness records maintained by employers are 
an important component of OSHA's

[[Page 61314]]

program. The records are used by employers and employees to identify 
and evaluate workplace safety and health hazards, and they provide OSHA 
personnel with necessary information during workplace inspections. The 
records also provide the source data for the Annual Survey of 
Occupational Injuries and Illnesses conducted by the BLS.
All of these uses of the data are affected by the quality of the 
records employers maintain. Higher quality data lead to higher quality 
analyses, which in turn lead to better decisions about occupational 
safety and health matters. To improve the quality of the records and 
enhance the utility of the information for all the entities using the 
data, OSHA needs to provide clearer guidance to employers, simplify the 
recordkeeping forms, and provide employees with access to the 
information.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


The legal basis for issuance of this final rule is Section 8(c)(1) of 
the Act, which requires employers to record and report such records as 
are necessary for the enforcement of the Act and for developing 
information on the cases and prevention of occupational accidents and 
illnesses, as required by regulation, and section 24(a) of the Act, 
which requires OSHA to develop an effective program of occupational 
safety and health statistics to further the purposes of the Act.


Alternatives:


One alternative to publication of a final rule is to take no action and 
continue to administer the injury and illness recordkeeping system 
using the current regulation, forms and guidelines. Another alternative 
is to revise the current rule to expand its coverage and scope (i.e., 
eliminate the current rule's small employer and Standard Industrial 
Classification exemptions).
The first alternative is unacceptable because it does not address the 
problems with the current system identified by participants in the 
Keystone dialogue and other OSHA stakeholders. The second alternative 
is also unacceptable because it would require many employers, 
especially small-business employers, in low hazard industries to keep 
OSHA injury and illness data. This could impose a substantial paperwork 
burden on those employers without commensurate benefit.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The costs and benefits of the final rule have not yet been determined.


Risks:


Benefits of the proposal would include: (a) a system that is more 
compatible with and easier for government and employers to use; (b) 
more reliable and useful records; (c) information for entire 
construction sites; and (d) greater employee involvement.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            61 FR 4030                                     02/02/96
NPRM Comment Period End                                        07/02/96
Final Action                                                   03/00/99
Final Action Effective                                         01/00/00
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Organizations


Government Levels Affected:


None


Sectors Affected:


 All


Agency Contact:
Marthe B. Kent
Acting Deputy Director
Directorate of Policy
Department of Labor
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
200 Constitution Avenue NW.
Room N3641, FP Building
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 219-4690
RIN: 1218-AB24
BILLING CODE 4510-23-F

[[Page 61315]]

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (DOT)
Statement of Regulatory Priorities
The Department of Transportation (DOT) consists of nine operating 
administrations, the Office of the Secretary, and the Bureau of 
Transportation Statistics (BTS), each of which has statutory 
responsibility for a wide range of regulations. For example, DOT 
regulates safety in the aviation, motor carrier, railroad, mass 
transit, motor vehicle, maritime, commercial space, and pipeline 
transportation areas. DOT regulates aviation consumer and economic 
issues and provides financial assistance and writes the necessary 
implementing rules for programs involving highways, airports, mass 
transit, the maritime industry, railroads, and motor vehicle safety. It 
writes regulations carrying out such disparate statutes as the 
Americans with Disabilities Act and the Uniform Time Act. It regulates 
the construction and operation of bridges over navigable waters, the 
prevention of oil pollution, and the security of commercial aviation 
and passenger vessels. Finally, DOT has responsibility for developing 
policies that implement a wide range of regulations that govern 
internal programs such as acquisition and grants, access for the 
disabled, environmental protection, energy conservation, information 
technology, property asset management, seismic safety, security, and 
the use of aircraft and vehicles.
Although it carries this heavy regulatory workload, the Department has 
long been recognized as a leader in Federal efforts to improve and 
streamline the regulatory process and ensure that regulations do not 
impose unnecessary burdens. A comprehensive internal management and 
review process for new and existing regulations is codified in the 
Department's regulatory policies and procedures, which ensure that the 
Secretary and other appropriate appointed officials review and concur 
in all significant DOT rules.
For virtually all DOT rules, the initiating office must prepare an 
analysis that includes a discussion of the problem intended to be 
addressed, the major alternatives, the reasons for choosing one 
alternative over another, and the economic and other consequences of 
the action. The Department has a management process that permits key 
officials to follow closely the development of significant regulatory 
projects. The process is intended to ensure that these rulemakings are 
completed in a timely manner, and it facilitates top management's 
involvement in these actions.
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 effect. The Department 
will consider appropriate alternatives, including nonregulatory 
approaches. It will also make every effort to ensure that legislation 
does not impose unreasonable mandates.
DOT continually seeks ways of improving the way it conducts its 
regulatory work. The creation of an electronic, internet-accessible 
docket for the Department; the use of direct final rulemaking; and the 
increased use of regulatory negotiation are three examples of this.
In responding to other Presidential initiatives, the Department is 
ensuring that compliance efforts reward results and deemphasize red 
tape. It is stressing results, and education and training programs, to 
assist regulators and customers to work together to achieve compliance.
The Department has engaged 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. These 
have included summits with front-line regulators and representatives of 
regulated industries. In addition, the Department's agencies have 
established a number of continuing partnership mechanisms in the form 
of rulemaking advisory committees.
The Department of Transportation was a pioneer in creating the 
regulatory negotiation concept, and it conducted the Federal 
Government's first negotiated rulemaking. Since that time, DOT has 
conducted regulatory negotiations on a variety of subjects, such as the 
Air Carrier Access Act and aspects of the Oil Pollution Act. The 
Department has also used advisory committees to obtain customer input 
on regulatory projects, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act 
rule. Regulatory negotiation projects currently planned, underway, or 
completed concern such subjects as roadway worker safety (FRA), oxygen 
use by airline passengers (OST), certification requirement for 
multistage vehicles (the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 
(NHTSA)), incorporating physical fitness determinations in the 
commercial drivers' license program (FHWA), and qualifications for 
pipeline personnel and hazardous material standards for unloading cargo 
tanks in compressed gas service (RSPA).
Throughout the Department, we are also actively engaged in the review 
of our existing rules to determine whether they need to be revised or 
revoked. These reviews are in accordance with section 610 of the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Department's regulatory policies and 
procedures, Executive Order 12866, and/or the President's directive to 
``consider writing existing regulations in plain language....''
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 Executive Order 12866 and other legal and policy 
requirements affecting rulemaking, including a number of new statutes 
and Executive orders. Although OST's principal role concerns the review 
of the Department's significant rulemakings, this office also plays an 
important role in the substance of projects concerning aviation 
economic rules and those having cross-modal significance.
OST provides guidance for use by regulatory personnel throughout the 
Department on compliance with requirements concerning the regulatory 
process. For example, OST provided guidance concerning implementation 
of the regulatory portions of the Unfunded Mandates Act, the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995, and the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act of 1996 (including congressional review of rules). It also 
provides updated information on such matters as compliance with 
Executive orders, economic analyses, the regulatory agenda and plan, 
and other regulatory

[[Page 61316]]

policy matters. OST provides guidance and training concerning cost-
benefit analyses and risk assessments, as well as offering DOT 
personnel periodic training on regulatory development and process.
OST also leads and coordinates the Department's response to 
Administration and congressional proposals that concern the regulatory 
process. The General Counsel's office works closely with 
representatives of other agencies, the Office of Management and Budget, 
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.
OST is incorporating new technology into its rulemaking process. OST 
initiated the effort to consolidate nine Department rulemaking (and 
adjudicatory) docket facilities into one centrally managed facility. 
OST worked with the other DOT agencies to accomplish the consolidation 
and the phased transition from a paper-based docket system to storage 
of electronic images in unalterable form. This includes all rulemaking 
and support documents, public comments, and other documents included in 
the public docket. This electronic docket is accessible via the 
internet, and we expect to permit electronic filing in the near future.
OST is redesigning its internet home page and the General Counsel's 
office now includes hyperlinks to other useful DOT regulatory websites, 
including the public rulemaking dockets, and contacts for many issues 
of special interest to the public. (http://www.dot.gov/ost/ogc/
regulation/c-50/)
Finally, some OST offices provide commonly requested regulations, 
informational documents, guidance, and updates through fax on-demand 
systems.
United States Coast Guard (USCG)
The United States Coast Guard performs multimission functions which 
include protecting the marine environment, enforcing U.S. laws and 
international treaties, performing search and rescue, and ensuring 
marine safety and security. The Coast Guard maintains over 200 separate 
parts in titles 33 and 46 of the CFR and publishes hundreds of 
regulatory actions in the Federal Register each year. The majority of 
these are routine and frequent regulations, often effective for only a 
limited time, that allow local Coast Guard units to ensure safety 
during marine events, respond to accidents and natural disasters, or 
maintain the operation of the U.S. maritime transportation system.
The Coast Guard issues approximately 30 regulations annually that set 
national requirements or respond to specific statutory mandates. The 
Coast Guard's Marine Safety Council, a group of Coast Guard Admirals, 
approves each of these rulemaking projects, monitors the Coast Guard's 
regulatory program, and advises the Commandant on regulatory matters.
The Coast Guard's regulatory program is aligned with the Department's 
regulatory philosophy. The Coast Guard is an active member of the Vice 
President's Plain English Network and has used plain language, 
including question/answer format and graphical displays, to propose 
changes to existing regulations on fees charged to merchant mariners 
for work credentials and to issue regulations implementing 
international safety requirements. The Coast Guard is issuing all new 
regulations and revisions to whole parts of the CFR in plain language 
to meet the Presidential Memorandum on Plain Language. Early public 
involvement in rulemaking is encouraged through a variety of public 
meetings and the ongoing work of nine advisory committees. In addition, 
recognizing that regulations should be issued only when necessary, the 
Coast Guard has developed a broad Prevention Through People Program, 
which develops and encourages a wide variety of voluntary actions by 
industry and individuals to improve marine safety. To support this 
effort, the Coast Guard has several Quality Partnerships. Finally, to 
insure that all regulations are necessary, each agenda item is 
identified as supporting at least one of the goals in the Coast Guard's 
Strategic Plan.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
Title 49, United States Code, subtitle VII--Aviation Programs, charges 
the Administrator of the FAA with promoting safety of flight of civil 
aircraft in air commerce. The stated FAA mission is to provide a safe, 
secure, and efficient global aviation system. The agency relies on its 
regulatory plan to provide that system.
In response to the mandate of the Vice President's National Performance 
Review to streamline the regulatory process, the FAA currently is 
implementing a reengineered rulemaking process. The Rulemaking Business 
Process Reengineering approach is more efficient, ensures effective 
communication and decisionmaking among all parties, is flexible to 
manage crises, and allows for the effective use of personnel. Other 
related actions include:
 Supporting the FAA's Safety Agenda on Safer Skies. This agenda 
            is based on a comprehensive review of the causes of 
            aviation accidents and is designed to bring about a five-
            fold (80 percent) reduction in fatal accidents. The 
            reengineered rulemaking process supports this agenda by 
            giving rulemaking projects identified the agency's highest 
            priority for resources. Projects related to controlled 
            flight into terrain, loss of control of an aircraft, 
            uncontrolled engine failures, runway incursions, weather, 
            pilot decisionmaking, and cabin safety are some of the 
            focus areas identified that may result in rulemaking, 
            advisory and guidance materials.
 Continuing to involve the aviation community early in the 
            regulatory process to obtain input, both on the rule and 
            the economics, from affected parties prior to publishing a 
            proposed regulation. The Aviation Rulemaking Advisory 
            Committee represents members from all aviation interests 
            and is presently working on the resolution of more than 63 
            issues. To date, the ARAC has accomplished the issuance of 
            more than 35 rulemaking documents.
 Continuing to harmonize the U.S. aviation regulations with 
            those of other countries. The harmonization of the U.S. 
            regulations with the European Joint Aviation Regulations 
            (JAR) is the FAA's most comprehensive long-term rulemaking 
            effort. The differences worldwide in certification 
            standards, practices 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. Harmonization and 
            standardization should help the U.S. aerospace industry 
            remain internationally competitive. While the overall 
            effort to achieve this is global, it will be accomplished 
            by many small, individual, nonsignificant rulemaking 
            projects.
 Implementing the recommendations of the White House Commission 
            on Aviation Safety and Security. FAA rulemaking actions are 
            continuing in the areas of: 1) Revising repair station 
            requirements and 2) an employment history rule which will 
            require an

[[Page 61317]]

            employment background investigation, with trigger 
            mechanisms to initiate a criminal background check for all 
            airport and airline employees and screeners with access to 
            secure areas.
 Continuing to recognize the needs of small businesses by 
            complying with the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
            Fairness Act by addressing small business concerns whenever 
            appropriate in rulemaking documents. In response to the Act 
            the FAA has established a Small Entity Contact, a web site 
            on FAA's home page, a toll free number, and an e-mail 
            address for receipt of inquiries. To date, the FAA has 
            received approximately 7,950 inquiries concerning small 
            businesses.
 Ensuring that the congressional mandates for rulemaking 
            deadlines established by the FAA Reauthorization Act of 
            1996, such as the issuance of a final rule 16 months after 
            the close of comment on the proposed rule, are met.
 Supporting the President's June 1, 1998, memorandum on ``Plain 
            Language in Government Writing.'' The FAA has produced a 
            Plain English Guide (October 31, 1997) and is actively 
            monitoring current documents to ensure that they follow the 
            principles contained in the guide. In a related effort, the 
            FAA has also produced guidance material on performance-
            based regulations to ensure that rules are written in a 
            simplified format that is easily understood and that 
            compliance with the regulation imposes the least burden 
            required for the desired level of safety.
Top regulatory priorities for 1998-1999 include a background criminal 
history check if warranted; a duty limitations and rest requirements 
rule to ensure that pilots are sufficiently rested for duty; a terrain 
awareness and warning system requirement; and an overflight of the 
national parks rulemaking effort to reduce or prevent the negative 
effects of aircraft noise in our national parks.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
The FHWA anticipates that its priority for fiscal year 1999 will be 
implementation of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century 
(TEA-21), which reauthorizes the surface transportation programs 
administered by the FHWA. The FHWA will seek to implement this 
legislation in the least burdensome and restrictive way possible 
consistent with the FHWA's mission. The FHWA will also 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.
Another major area in which the FHWA will initiate or continue 
significant rulemaking actions is the ongoing zero-base review of the 
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. The goals and objectives of 
the zero-base review project are to (a) focus on those areas of 
enforcement and compliance which are most effective in reducing motor 
carrier accidents, (b) reduce compliance costs, (c) encourage 
innovation, (d) clearly and succinctly describe what is required, and 
(e) facilitate enforcement. Through the zero-base review, the FHWA 
intends to develop a unified, performance-based regulatory system that 
will enhance safety on our Nation's highways while minimizing the 
burdens placed on the motor carrier industry. In addition, the FHWA is 
currently redrafting the Rules of Practice for Motor Carrier Safety and 
Hazardous Materials Proceedings. It plans to simplify the current 
process to facilitate responses by the accused motor carriers and 
drivers and to offer alternative means of adjudicating the claims. It 
also intends to promulgate comprehensive rules covering the entire 
enforcement process from initial contact with the motor carrier to the 
final disposition of the claim.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
The statutory responsibilities of the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration (NHTSA) include reducing and mitigating motor vehicle 
crashes and related fatalities and injuries, providing motor vehicle 
information to consumers, and improving automotive fuel efficiency. The 
Agency pursues policies that encourage the development of nonregulatory 
approaches when feasible in meeting its statutory mandate; issues new 
standards and regulations or amendments to existing standards and 
regulations when appropriate; 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; and considers alternatives consistent with 
the Administration's regulatory principles.
In addition to numerous programs that focus on the safety and 
performance of the motor vehicle, the Agency is engaged in a variety of 
programs to improve driver behavior. These programs emphasize the human 
aspects of motor vehicle safety and recognize the important role of the 
States in this common pursuit. This goal is accomplished by a number of 
means, including encouraging initiatives in such areas as safety belt 
usage, motorcycle helmet usage, child safety-seat usage, activities 
aimed at combating drunk driving and driving under the influence of 
other drugs, and consumer information activities.
NHTSA is conducting several program evaluations that are designed to 
review and evaluate the actual benefits, costs, and overall 
effectiveness of existing standards and regulations. For example, the 
Agency will continue evaluating Standard 208's new measures to improve 
the safety performance of air bags, Standard 214's dynamic side-impact 
requirements, and Standard 108's requirement for reflective marking on 
heavy truck trailers to enhance their detectability at night or under 
other conditions of reduced visibility. NHTSA will continue evaluating 
the implementaiton of the American Automobile Labeling Act, which 
requires new passenger cars, pickup trucks, vans, and sport utility 
vechicles to carry labels providing information on their domestic and 
foreign parts content. The agency will begin to evaluate the efficacy 
of child safety seat registration for increasing consumer response to 
recalls of defective seats.
NHTSA's regulatory program includes additional proposals that will be 
undertaken in order to allow design flexibility, promote new 
technology, and encourage market competition and consumer choice.
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)
The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) exercises regulatory 
authority over all areas of railroad safety. The Federal Railroad 
Safety Act of 1970 is the primary source of this authority.
FRA promotes safe, environmentally sound, and successful railroad 
transportation to meet the current and future needs of all its 
customers. It encourages policies and investment in infrastructure and 
technology to enable rail to reach its full potential.
FRA seeks to develop a regulatory program that is based on the 
regulatory principles enunciated in Executive Order 12866 and that 
satisfies the Order's basic criteria for such programs.

[[Page 61318]]

FRA's vision is of a regulatory program that protects the health and 
safety of all persons affected by railroading in America and enhances 
the environment without imposing unreasonable costs on society. FRA 
seeks to create regulations that are as ``effective, consistent, 
sensible, and understandable'' as those envisioned by the President in 
his Order.
While railroad safety has improved substantially over the past decade 
due to the implementation of easy and obvious risk reduction measures, 
significant risk remains due to the nature of rail transportation. 
Fashioning solutions that have favorable benefit-to-cost ratios, and 
that, where feasible, incorporate flexible performance standards, 
requires cooperative action by all affected parties. Interested parties 
have traditionally approached rail safety rulemakings in an adversarial 
manner, however, which greatly inhibited the development of the best 
regulatory approaches to resolve difficult safety issues.
FRA began addressing these concerns when it decided to use negotiated 
rulemaking to create a rule addressing the safety of roadway workers. 
Begun early in 1995, the negotiated rulemaking advisory committee 
reached a consensus agreement about how best to ensure the safety of 
roadway workers.
Building on its success with this collaborative rulemaking experience, 
FRA established the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC) in late 
March 1996. Making collaborative rulemaking a new way of doing business 
at FRA is essential to future improvements in public and railroad 
employee safety. RSAC provides the foundation for accomplishing this 
objective because it represents a rare commitment on the part of labor 
unions, railroads, and private associations to work together, and with 
FRA, on the establishment of regulatory priorities, the gathering and 
analysis of safety data, and the development of standards which are 
necessary to ensure that maximum safety levels are both obtained and 
maintained. As such, it is important to the creation of trust, both 
between the Agency and the industry, as well as among industry members.
The purpose of RSAC is to develop consensus recommendations for 
regulatory action on issues referred to it by FRA. Where consensus is 
achieved, and FRA believes it serves the public interest, the resulting 
rule is very likely to be better understood, more widely accepted, more 
cost-beneficial, and more correctly applied. Where consensus cannot be 
achieved, however, FRA will fulfill its regulatory role without the 
benefit of RSAC's recommendations.
The RSAC has met on a quarterly basis so far and currently has working 
groups addressing the following tasks: (1) The development of 
regulations governing track, motor vehicle, and roadway worker 
equipment; (2) the revision of the regulations governing radio 
standards and procedures; (3) the revision of the regulations governing 
locomotive inspection standards for steam-powered locomotives; (4) the 
review of FRA regulations for their applicability to historic 
railroads; (5) the development of safety standards for locomotive 
crashworthiness; (6) the development of safety standards for locomotive 
working conditions; (7) the development of locomotive event recorder 
accident survivability standards; (8) the development of regulations 
governing the use of positive train control (PTC) systems; and (9) the 
revision of the regulations governing locomotive engineering 
certification. FRA is currently in the process of drafting NPRMs on 
inspection standards for steam locomotives and locomotive engineer 
certification based on RSAC recommendations.
In addition to RSAC, FRA continues to use collaborative rulemaking to 
address passenger safety issues. The Federal Railroad Safety 
Authorization Act of 1994 allows FRA to consult with the National 
Railroad Passenger Corporation (AMTRAK), public authorities, passenger 
organizations, and rail labor organizations without being subject to 
the Federal Advisory Committee Act requirements when establishing 
standards for the safety of cars used by railroad carriers to transport 
passengers. FRA established a working group to develop Passenger 
Equipment Safety Standards and published an NPRM in the first phase of 
this rulemaking initiative in September 1997 based on its 
recommendations. Following a public hearing in November 1997, and 
subsequent working group meetings, FRA expects to issue a final rule 
and also begin work on the second phase of the rule, with a goal of 
publishing an NPRM in 1999. FRA also published a final rule on 
Passenger Train Emergency Preparedness in May 1998 based on the 
recommendations of a working group.
FRA is also involved in extensive outreach to the public in an effort 
to develop regulations regarding the use of train whistles in certain 
areas and plans to publish an NPRM in late 1998 or early 1999.
Finally, in order to assure safety in connection with future mergers, 
consolidations, acquisitions of control and start-up operations, FRA 
and the Surface Transportation Board (STB) are developing a joint 
rulemaking to require railroads to file detailed safety integration 
plans for all major transactions.
 Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) provides financial assistance 
to State and local governments for mass transportation purposes. The 
regulatory activity of FTA focuses on establishing the terms and 
conditions of Federal financial assistance available under the Federal 
transit laws.
FTA's policy regarding regulations is to:
 Implement statutory authorities in ways that provide the 
            maximum net benefits to society;
 Keep paperwork requirements to a minimum;
 Allow for as much local flexibility and discretion as is 
            possible within the law;
 Ensure the most productive use of limited Federal resources;
 Protect the Federal interest in local investments; and
 Incorporate good management principles into the grant 
            management process.
As mass transportation needs have changed over the years, so have the 
requirements for Federal financial assistance under the Federal transit 
laws and related statutes. FTA's regulatory priority for 1998 is to 
begin rulemakings required under the Transportation Equity Act for the 
21st Century (TEA-21). FTA will initiate a rulemaking to implement the 
criteria prescribed by that Act for the evaluation of new starts.
FTA will also initiate a rulemaking to implement the new Clean Fuels 
Formula Grant Program, which requires FTA to issue grants for the 
purchase or lease of clean fuel vehicles and related equipment and 
facilities, the improvement of existing mass transportation facilities 
to accommodate clean fuel vehicles, to repower pre-1993 engines with 
clean fuel technology that meets the current urban bus emission 
standards, or to retrofit or rebuild pre-1993 engines if before their 
half-life.
FTA will amend the Capital Leases and Buy America regulations and, with 
FHWA, amend the Planning and Assistance Standards and the

[[Page 61319]]

Environmental Impact and Related Procedures regulations.
Maritime Administration (MARAD)
MARAD administers Federal laws and programs designed to promote and 
maintain a U.S. merchant marine capable of meeting the Nation's 
shipping needs for both national security and domestic and foreign 
commerce.
MARAD's regulatory objectives and priorities reflect the Agency's 
responsibility for ensuring the availability of adequate and efficient 
water transportation services for American shippers and consumers. To 
advance these objectives, MARAD issues regulations, which are 
principally administrative and interpretive in nature, when 
appropriate, in order to provide a net benefit to the U.S. maritime 
industry.
In 1998, and continuing into 1999, priority will be given to updating 
existing regulations to reduce unnecessary burden on the public. For 
example, MARAD will be updating and streamlining existing regulations 
and administrative practices governing the following areas: 1) The ship 
financing guarantee process; 2) standards for evaluation and approval 
of applications; and 3) the process and documentation for closing of 
commitments to guarantee obligations issued under these regulations.
Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA)
The Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA) has 
responsibility for rulemaking under two programs. Through the Associate 
Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety, RSPA administers 
regulatory programs under Federal hazardous materials transportation 
law and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended by the Oil 
Pollution Act of 1990. Through the Associate Administrator for Pipeline 
Safety, RSPA 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.
In the area of hazardous materials transportation, the regulatory 
priority is to update and consolidate requirements in the hazardous 
materials regulations for the manufacture, maintenance, 
requalification, repair, and use of compressed gas cylinders. In this 
rulemaking, RSPA intends to recognize advances in cylinder 
manufacturing technology and to clarify and simplify regulatory 
requirements. Another priority is to clarify, through rulemaking 
action, the applicability of the regulations to the loading, unloading, 
and storage of hazardous materials incidental to their movement in 
commerce. Clarifying the applicability of the regulations will 
facilitate compliance with them and also clarify when other 
requirements of Federal, State, local, and tribal governments apply.
The regulatory priorities in the pipeline area are to manage the risks 
inherent in pipeline transportation through strategies directed at 
prevention, detection, and mitigation activities. Specific regulatory 
actions to implement these activities include the use of emergency 
flow-restricting devices and other mechanisms to detect and locate 
pipeline ruptures and minimize releases, excavation damage prevention 
programs, mandating participation in one-call notification systems, 
increased inspection requirements using instrumented internal 
inspection devices, and prescribing risk-based approaches to pipeline 
safety regulations.
Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS)
The Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) is responsible for 
compiling, analyzing, and making accessible information on the Nation's 
transportation systems; collecting information on intermodal 
transportation and other areas as needed; and enhancing the quality and 
effectiveness of the statistical program of DOT through research, the 
development of guidelines, and the promotion of improvements in data 
acquisition and use.
One of BTS's regulatory priorities is to completely review its motor 
carriers of property financial data collection program. The data are 
collected under recently revised statutory authority, which requires 
BTS to give consideration to: (1) Safety needs; (2) the need to 
preserve confidential business information and trade secrets and 
prevent competitive harm; (3) private sector, academic, and public use 
of information in the reports; and (4) the public interest. Further, 
the statute calls for BTS to ``streamline and simplify'' reporting 
requirements to the ``maximum extent practicable.'' Among the issues 
BTS plans to address are: Which motor carriers should report, what data 
items should be collected, and how often should data be collected.
BTS's Office of Airline Information (OAI), collects airline passenger, 
cargo, traffic, and financial data. This information gives the 
Government consistent and comprehensive economic and market data on 
individual airline operations and is used, for instance, in supporting 
policy initiatives, negotiating international bilateral aviation 
agreements, awarding international route authorities, and meeting 
international treaty obligations. The aviation, travel, and tourism 
communities value this information for a variety of purposes, such as 
conducting analyses of on-time performance, denied boardings, and 
market trends.
BTS's long-range regulatory priority in the aviation area is to conduct 
a complete review and modernization of the passenger origin and 
destination survey. BTS can make significant improvements by providing 
data for the needs of DOT and other users in a way that takes advantage 
of the information revolution and matches the dramatically changing 
airline industry.
BTS, in conjunction with the Office of the Secretary, also plans to 
perform a zero-base review of the financial and traffic data to 
determine what, if any, revisions can be made to the current data 
collections to ensure that these collections fully support the 
Department's mandated aviation responsibilities. Moreover, the review 
will seek to identify potential savings to the affected air carriers 
and the Government that can be accomplished through the application of 
advanced information technologies to the collection, processing, 
validation, and dissemination of aviation data. BTS's review and 
modernization of the passenger origin and destination survey will be 
incorporated as part of this zero-base review.
Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (SLSDC)
The Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (SLSDC) is a wholly 
owned Government corporation created by Congress in 1954. The primary 
operating service of the SLSDC is the safe transit of commercial and 
noncommercial vessels through the two U.S. locks and the navigation 
channels of the St. Lawrence Seaway System. The SLSDC works jointly 
with its Canadian counterpart to operate and maintain this deep draft 
waterway between the Great Lakes and the Atlantic Ocean.
The SLSDC also works jointly with its Canadian counterpart on all 
matters related to rules and regulations, overall

[[Page 61320]]

operations, vessel inspection, traffic control, navigation aids, 
safety, operating dates, and trade development programs.
The regulatory priority of the SLSDC is to provide its customers with 
the safest, most reliable, and most efficient Seaway System possible.
_______________________________________________________________________
DOT--U.S. Coast Guard (USCG)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

83. +FACILITY RESPONSE PLANS FOR HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES (CGD 94-048)
Priority:


Other Significant


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Legal Authority:


 33 USC 1321(j); PL 101-380


CFR Citation:


 33 CFR 154


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This project would implement provisions of the Oil Pollution Act of 
1990 that require an owner or operator of a marine transportation-
related facility transferring bulk hazardous substances to develop and 
operate in accordance with an approved response plan. The regulations 
would apply to marine transportation-related facilities that, because 
of their location, could cause harm to the environment by discharging a 
hazardous substance into or on the navigable waters or adjoining 
shoreline. A separate rulemaking under RIN 2115-AE88 would address 
hazardous response plan requirements for tank vessels. This project 
supports Coast Guard strategic goals of marine safety and protection of 
the marine environment by reducing the amount of chemicals entering the 
environment, as well as reducing the consequence of pollution 
incidents. This action is considered significant because of substantial 
public and industry interest.


Statement of Need:


This rulemaking is intended to reduce the impact from hazardous 
substance spills from vessels and marine transportation-related 
facilities.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


Section 4202(a) of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90), codified at 
33 U.S.C. 1321(j)(5), mandates that the President issue regulations 
requiring the preparation of oil and hazardous substance discharge 
response plans. Although section 4202(b)(4) of OPA 90 established an 
implementation schedule for these response plans for oil, it did not 
establish a deadline for submission or approval of hazardous substances 
response plans. The Coast Guard has issued separate final rules 
governing response plan requirements for vessels carrying oil in bulk 
as cargo and facilities that handle, store, or transport oil in bulk. 
Under 33 U.S.C. 1321, ``hazardous substances'' are designated by the 
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. The Administrator 
has designated 297 chemicals as hazardous substances under this 
section. The Coast Guard has identified 84 hazardous substances 
currently carried in bulk by vessels, and transferred to or from marine 
transportation-related facilities.


Alternatives:


The Coast Guard intends to determine what types of response strategies 
would be required to address spills of different types of hazardous 
substances. For some substances, containment and recovery may be the 
appropriate response. However, some spilled substances may not be 
recoverable from the water and other actions may be necessary. Plans 
would be required, by statute, to address responses to a ``worst case 
discharge.'' For facilities, a ``worst case discharge'' is ``the 
largest foreseeable discharge in adverse weather conditions.''


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The potential costs of this rulemaking may include the costs of 
developing and implementing a hazardous substance response plan, 
maintaining contracts for response resources, reviewing and updating 
hazardous substance response plans, maintaining any required equipment, 
and training and exercising response personnel. Potential benefits 
include reduced risk of human exposure and enhanced environmental 
quality from improved ability to respond to, contain, and recover 
spilled hazardous substances. The draft analysis indicates that this 
project will not be economically significant. The Coast Guard expects 
this rule's potential monetary cost to the regulated public to total 
less than ten million dollars. The Coast Guard anticipates benefits 
that include increased safety of human life and property on navigable 
waters of the United States.


Risks:


Response plans are required by statute. A response plan will not 
prevent a discharge of a hazardous substance, but it may improve the 
response and help to minimize personal injury and damage to the 
environment. This rule should not affect the economic viability of 
facilities involved in transferring hazardous substances in bulk or 
have a significant impact on the volume of hazardous substances shipped 
by marine transportation-related facilities. Most facilities involved 
in transferring hazardous substances in bulk have developed plans, but 
there have not been requirements for standardization.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM           61 FR 20084                                    05/03/96
Notice of Public61 FR 34775                                    07/03/96
ANPRM Comment Period End                                       09/03/96
NPRM                                                           03/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


Additional Information:


Public hearings regarding this rulemaking were held in Washington, DC 
on July 30, 1996; Houston, TX on August 5, 1996; and in Houston, TX on 
February 26 and 27, 1997.


Agency Contact:
LT Michael Roldan
Project Manager, G-MSR-1
Department of Transportation
U.S. Coast Guard
2100 Second Street SW.
Washington, DC 20593-0001
Phone: 202 267-0756
RIN: 2115-AE87
_______________________________________________________________________
DOT--USCG
84. +TANK VESSEL RESPONSE PLANS FOR HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES (CGD 94-032)
Priority:


Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.

[[Page 61321]]

Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Legal Authority:


 33 USC 1231; 33 USC 1321(j); PL 101-380


CFR Citation:


 33 CFR 155


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This project would implement provisions of the Oil Pollution Act of 
1990 that require an owner or operator of a tank vessel carrying bulk 
hazardous substances to develop and operate in accordance with an 
approved response plan. The regulations would apply to vessels 
operating on the navigable waters or within the Exclusive Economic Zone 
(EEZ) of the U.S. that carry bulk hazardous substances. A separate 
rulemaking under RIN 2115-AE87 would address hazardous substances 
response plan requirements for marine transportation-related 
facilities. This project supports Coast Guard strategic goals by 
reducing the amount of chemicals entering the environment, as well as 
reducing the consequences of pollution incidents. This project is 
considered significant because of substantial public and industry 
interest.


Statement of Need:


This rulemaking is intended to reduce the impact from hazardous 
substance spills from vessels.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


Section 4202(a) of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90), codified at 
33 U.S.C. 1321(j)(5), mandates that the President issue regulations 
requiring the preparation of oil and hazardous substance discharge 
response plans. Although 4202(b)(4) of OPA 90 established an 
implementation schedule for these response plans for oil, it did not 
establish a deadline for submission or approval of hazardous substances 
response plans. The Coast Guard has issued separate final rules 
governing response plan requirements for vessels carrying oil in bulk 
as cargo and facilities that handle, store, or transport oil in bulk. 
Under section 1321, ``hazardous substances'' are designated by the 
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. The Administrator 
has designated 297 chemicals as hazardous substances under this 
section. The Coast Guard has identified 84 hazardous substances 
currently carried in bulk.


Alternatives:


The Coast Guard intends to determine what types of response strategies 
would be required to address spills of different types of hazardous 
substances. For some substances, containment and recovery may be the 
appropriate response. However, some spilled substances may not be 
recoverable from the water and other actions may be necessary. Plans 
would be required, by statute, to address responses to a ``worst case 
discharge.'' For vessels, a ``worst case discharge'' is ``a discharge 
in adverse weather conditions of its entire cargo.''


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The potential costs of this rulemaking may include the costs of 
developing and implementing a hazardous substance response plan, 
maintaining contracts for spill-response resources, reviewing and 
updating hazardous substance response plans, maintaining any required 
equipment, and training and exercising response personnel. Potential 
benefits include reduced risk to human health, enhanced environmental 
quality from improved ability to respond to, contain, and recover 
spilled hazardous substances and a reduction in the severity of the 
impact of accidental hazardous substance discharges. The Coast Guard 
does not yet have sufficient information to estimate the potential 
monetary costs and benefits of this rule. A key element in developing 
effective regulations for hazardous substance response plans will be 
the development of an approach for addressing different types of 
hazardous substances.


Risks:


Response plans are required by statute. A response plan will not 
prevent a discharge of a hazardous substance, but it may improve the 
response and help to minimize personal injury and damage to the 
environment. This rule should not affect the economic viability of 
vessels involved in transferring hazardous substances in bulk, or have 
a significant impact on the volume of hazardous substances shipped by 
vessel. Most vessels carrying hazardous substances in bulk have 
developed response plans, but there have not been requirements for 
standardization.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM           61 FR 20084                                    05/03/96
Notice of Public61 FR 34775                                    07/03/96
ANPRM Comment Period End                                       09/03/96
NPRM                                                           11/00/98
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
LT Michael Roldan
Project Manager, G-MSR-1
Department of Transportation
U.S. Coast Guard
2100 Second Street SW.
Washington, DC 20593-0001
Phone: 202 267-0756
RIN: 2115-AE88
_______________________________________________________________________
DOT--Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

85. +OVERFLIGHTS OF UNITS OF THE NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


 49 USC 106(g); 49 USC 40103; 49 USC 40113; 49 USC 40120; 49 USC 44101; 
49 USC 44701; 49 USC 44702; 49 USC 44705; 49 USC 44709; 49 USC 44711 to 
44713; 49 USC 44715; 49 USC 44716; 49 USC 44717; 49 USC 44722; 49 USC 
46306


CFR Citation:


 14 CFR 91; 14 CFR 93; 14 CFR 121; 15 CFR 135


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The FAA and National Park Service (NPS) have established a joint 
working group which is tasked with developing a notice of proposed 
rulemaking to reduce or prevent adverse effects of aircraft noise over 
our national park system. At the same time, the working group is 
charged with affording those persons who wish to visit our national 
parks from the air the opportunity to

[[Page 61322]]

do so. The working group met from May to November 1997, and developed a 
concept paper that was approved by the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory 
Committee and the NPS Advisory Board in December 1997. The working 
group is now developing a notice of proposed rulemaking with the FAA 
and NPS. This rulemaking is significant because of substantial public 
interest.


Statement of Need:


The need to reduce or prevent the adverse effects of aircraft noise 
over the national parks is apparent for the preservation of a valuable 
national resource. In its Report to Congress, the National Park Service 
identified 98 parks that potentially have an overflight problem. The 
FAA recognizes its role both to provide for the safe and efficient use 
of airspace and to enhance the environment by minimizing the adverse 
effects of aviation in the national parks.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


The FAA has broad authority and responsibility to regulate the 
operation of aircraft and the use of the airspace and to establish 
safety standards for and regulate the certification of airmen, 
aircraft, and air carriers. (49 U.S.C. 40101, et. seq.) The FAA also 
has responsibility to protect persons and property on the ground. The 
President's Memorandum of April 22, 1996, directed the FAA, working 
with the National Park Service, to issue a notice of proposed 
rulemaking for the management of sightseeing aircraft in those national 
parks where it is deemed necessary to reduce or prevent the adverse 
effects of noise from such aircraft.


Alternatives:


During its working sessions, the working group considered a variety of 
criteria for defining an air tour, various triggering events for 
determining which parks are at risk, and various means for the NPS and 
FAA to work together to develop an air tour management plan.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Undetermined.


Risks:


This rulemaking addresses the risk of destruction of valuable national 
resources: the right to enjoy the natural quiet in our national parks. 
At the same time, taking this risk has to be balanced against any 
potential safety problems that restrictions on overflights might 
create. Both the National Park Service and FAA are confident that a 
solution can be reached whereby all visitors to the park may be 
accommodated through an agreed upon park airspace management plan.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM           59 FR 12740                                    03/17/94
ANPRM Correction59 FR 15350                                    04/01/94
ANPRM Comment Period End                                       06/15/94
Extended ANPRM C59 FR 31883od Comment Period End 07/15/94      06/20/94
Notice: Formatio62 FR 28100g Group                             05/22/97
Notice of Public62 FR 31187                                    06/06/97
Notice of Public63 FR 17040                                    04/07/98
NPRM                                                           10/00/98
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


Additional Information:


Refer to 1996 Regulatory Plan entry RIN 2120-AF93, Airspace Management: 
Special Flight Rules in the Vicinity of the Grand Canyon and also RIN 
2120-AG11, Special Flight Rules in the Vicinity of the Rocky Mountain 
National Park. Project Number: ARM-97-318A
ANALYSIS: Regulatory Evaluation, 10/00/98


Agency Contact:
Linda L. Williams
Office of Rulemaking, ARM-100
Department of Transportation
Federal Aviation Administration
800 Independence Avenue SW.
Washington, DC 20591
Phone: 202 267-9685
RIN: 2120-AF46
_______________________________________________________________________
DOT--FAA
86. +FLIGHT CREWMEMBER DUTY PERIOD LIMITATIONS, FLIGHT TIME 
LIMITATIONS, AND REST REQUIREMENTS
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


 49 USC 106(g); 49 USC 40113; 49 USC 40119; 49 USC 44101; 49 USC 44701 
to 44701; 49 USC 44705; 49 USC 44709 to 44711; 49 USC 44712; 49 USC 
44713; 49 USC 44715; 49 USC 44716 to 44717; 49 USC 44722; 49 USC 44901; 
49 USC 44903 to 44904; 49 USC 44912


CFR Citation:


 14 CFR 121; 14 CFR 135


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rulemaking would amend the regulations to establish one set of 
duty period limitations, flight time limitations, and rest requirements 
for flight crewmembers engaged in air transportation. The FAA has 
determined that rulemaking is required as a result of public and 
congressional interest in regulating flight crewmember rest 
requirements, NTSB Safety Recommendations, petitions for rulemaking, 
and scientific data. The FAA has asked the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory 
Committee (ARAC) to accept the task of proposing recommendations for 
pilots on reserve status. At the same time, an internal FAA team will 
be developing a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking. This action 
is considered significant because of substantial public interest.


Statement of Need:


The aviation community requires 24-hour activities to meet operational 
demands. Growths in long-haul, regional, overnight cargo, and short-
haul domestic operations are increasing. Therefore, shift work, night 
work, irregular work schedules, and time zone changes will continue to 
be commonplace.
With this growth, the scientific knowledge about sleep, sleep 
disorders, circadian physiology, fatigue, and performance decrements 
has also grown. Some of the scientific knowledge has indicated that 
aviators experience performance-impairing fatigue from sleep loss 
resulting from current flight and duty practices. A primary purpose is 
to base the rule on scientific knowledge.
In addition, industry and individuals have told the FAA that the 
current regulations are confusing and difficult to enforce. Therefore, 
a second purpose of the rulemaking is to establish consistent and clear 
duty period limitations and rest requirements for all types of 
operations.

[[Page 61323]]




Summary of the Legal Basis:


Section 44701, Title 49 of the United States Code states that the 
Administrator shall promote safety of flight of civil aircraft in air 
commerce by prescribing minimum standards required in the interest of 
safety.


Alternatives:


One obvious alternative would be to continue with the current rules, 
which would be very expensive for the industry. In reviewing the 
comments, the FAA is also considering other reserve alternatives that 
would not penalize certain segments of the industry, such as the air 
ambulance operators. There is no overall alternative to rest and duty 
regulations; however, there may be some alternatives that would lend 
flexibility for operators. To explore these alternatives, the FAA has 
established a Reserve Duty/Rest Requirements Working Group under the 
Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Undetermined.


Risks:


Although there has been only one identifiable accident due to pilot 
fatigue, fatigue is increasingly becoming the focus of possible causes 
following all accidents. Pilot reports of being fatigued to the point 
of incapacity are not uncommon, and intuitively, it is reasonable, 
given the sheer volume of air traffic, to expect fatigue to be a factor 
in future accidents if the regulations are not corrected.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            60 FR 65951                                    12/20/95
NPRM Comment Period End                                        03/19/96
Extended NPRM Co61 FR 11492d End 6/19/96                       03/20/96
SNPRM                                                          04/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


Additional Information:


Project Number: AFS-94-443R
ANALYSIS: Regulatory Evaluation, 12/20/95, 60 FR 65951


Agency Contact:
Larry Youngblut
Air Transportation Division
Department of Transportation
Federal Aviation Administration
800 Independence Avenue SW.
Washington, DC 20591
Phone: 202 267-3755
RIN: 2120-AF63
_______________________________________________________________________
DOT--FAA
87. +TERRAIN AWARENESS AND WARNING SYSTEM (TAWS)
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


 49 USC 106(g); 49 USC 40103; 49 USC 40113; 49 USC 40120; 49 USC 44101; 
49 USC 44111; 49 USC 44701; 49 USC 44709; 49 USC 44712; 49 USC 44715; 
49 USC 44716 to 44718; 49 USC 44722; 49 USC 46306; 49 USC 46315; 49 USC 
46316; ...


CFR Citation:


 14 CFR 91; 14 CFR 121; 14 CFR 135


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rulemaking would issue rules that would prohibit the operation of 
turbine-powered U.S. registered civil airplanes of six or more 
passenger seats, exclusive of pilot and co-pilot seating, unless that 
airplane is equipped with an FAA-approved enhanced ground proximity 
warning system (GPWS). This proposed rule is intended to further reduce 
the risk of controlled flight into terrain (CFIT) accidents. This rule 
is significant because of substantial public interest.


Statement of Need:


As a result of the Gore Commission and NTSB recommendations and a 
number of studies, it was found that CFIT accidents could have been 
avoided if an enhanced warning device was used.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


49 USC 44701 empowers the Administrator to prescribe regulations and 
minimum standards in the interest of safety for aircraft and equipment.


Alternatives:


The FAA considered regulatory options to identify the least intrusive 
and most cost-effective means of achieving the goal of reducing the 
probability of CFIT accidents. The alternatives considered fall under 
two general groupings: 1) require different levels of TAWS or GPWS 
technologies for different subsegments of the regulated population; and 
2) impose different compliance deadlines on different subsegments of 
the regulated population.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The discounted costs of this rule are estimated at $774 million; the 
benefits are estimated at $2.8 billion. The benefit/cost ratio is 3.65 
to 1. This total includes adding the equipment to all in-service 
airplanes and to all newly manufactured airplanes over the next 10 
years.


Risks:


The purpose of this rulemaking is to expand and enhance the safety 
benefits of the current ground proximity warning system. TAWS provides 
an earlier time for verbal warning along with a visual warning 
(situational display) that will allow the flight crew to see 
approaching terrain. The combination of the increased warning times and 
situational awareness of flight crews decreases the risk of controlled 
flight into terrain accidents.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            63 FR 45628                                    08/26/98
NPRM Comment Period End                                        11/24/98
Final Action                                                   01/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Organizations


Government Levels Affected:


None


Additional Information:


Project Number: AIR-96-354R.
ANALYSIS: Regulatory Evaluation, 08/26/98, 63 FR 45628


Agency Contact:
Manny Macedo
Office of Aircraft Certification Service
Department of Transportation
Federal Aviation Administration
800 Independence Avenue SW.
Washington, DC 20591
Phone: 202 267-9566
RIN: 2120-AG46

[[Page 61324]]

_______________________________________________________________________
DOT--Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

88. +HOURS OF SERVICE OF DRIVERS (SECTION 610 REVIEW)
Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Legal Authority:


 PL 104-88


CFR Citation:


 49 CFR 395


Legal Deadline:


Other, Statutory, March 1, 1996, See sections 103 and 408 of PL 104-88.


Abstract:


This action would propose revision of the FHWA's hours of service 
regulations. This action is mandated by the ICC Termination Act of 
1995. The rulemaking also will address NTSB Safety Recommendations, 
petitions for rulemaking, and scientific data. The rulemaking has a 
great deal of public and congressional interest in regulating medium- 
and heavy-duty truck and bus drivers' sleep, off-duty, and working 
periods of time. The FHWA will propose new rules based upon comments 
and scientific data submitted to the advance notice of proposed 
rulemaking docket, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis, a cost-
benefit analysis, an unfunded mandates analysis, and a paperwork 
reduction analysis. This action is considered significant because of 
substantial public and congressional interest.


Statement of Need:


The motor carrier industry requires 24-hour activities to meet the 
operational demands of a healthy U.S. economy. Growth in long-haul, 
regional, overnight, and local operations is increasing with the growth 
of the U.S. economy. Therefore, night work, shift work, and irregular 
work schedules will continue to be commonplace.
With this growth, the scientific knowledge about sleep, sleep 
disorders, circadian physiology, fatigue, and performance decrements 
has also grown. Some of the scientific knowledge has indicated that 
medium- and heavy-duty truck and bus drivers may experience 
performance-impairing fatigue from sleep loss resulting from current 
motor carrier duty and operational practices. A primary purpose of this 
rulemaking is to incorporate as much of the scientific knowledge as 
possible into the applicable regulations.
In addition, industry, safety advocates, and individuals have told the 
FHWA that the current regulations constrain productivity, are 
confusing, and focus enforcement on sloppy recordkeeping practices 
rather than on violations of the underlying hours-of-service rules. 
Therefore, a second purpose of the rulemaking is to establish 
enforceable, consistent, and clear work duty periods and sleep 
requirements for all types of operations.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


Title 49 United States Code, Section 31502 allows the Secretary of 
Transportation to prescribe maximum hours-of-service regulations for 
employees of motor carriers when needed to promote the safety of 
operations.
Section 408 of the ICC Termination Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-88, 
December 29, 1995) requires the Federal Highway Administration to issue 
an advance notice of proposed rulemaking, a notice of proposed 
rulemaking, and a final rule dealing with a variety of fatigue-related 
issues pertaining to commercial motor vehicle safety (including 8 hours 
of continuous sleep after 10 hours of driving, loading and unloading 
operations, automated and tamper-proof recording devices, rest and 
recovery cycles, fatigue and stress in longer combination vehicles, 
fitness for duty, and other appropriate regulatory and enforcement 
countermeasures for reducing fatigue-related incidents and increasing 
driver alertness).


Alternatives:


One alternative is to continue the current rules. Other alternatives 
may include replacing the current daily maximum 15-hour on-duty, 
maximum 10-hour-driving, minimum 8-hour-off-duty periods and weekly 60-
hour-in-seven-day sliding week with an alternative set of rules based 
upon scientific knowledge and submitted comments. The FHWA will 
consider ``one-size-does-not-fit-all'' types of regulations. The FHWA 
will consider different regulations for different types of drivers, 
operations, or classification of vehicles.
Finally, the FHWA will consider modifying the information collection 
burdens upon the motor carrier industry, including the following types 
of record keeping methods. 1) Reducing the required items on the record 
of duty status (log book). 2) Adding automated on-board recording 
devices to commercial motor vehicles. 3) Adding global positioning 
system on-board recording devices to commercial motor vehicles. 4) 
Eliminating all FHWA hours-of-service record keeping requirements while 
relying exclusively on the duplicative hours-of-service record keeping 
system of records required by the U.S. Department of Labor under the 
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Undetermined. A cost-benefit analysis completed in 1981 based upon a 
1978 notice of proposed rulemaking calculated national costs between 
$10.6 and $11.5 billion with possible societal benefits of about $450 
million, a benefit-to-cost ratio under one. (In 1997 dollars, this 
would be national costs between $20.67 and $22.43 billion with possible 
societal benefits of about $878 million.) A new cost-benefit analysis 
is underway and will be conducted and reported in compliance with OMB 
Circular A-94, ``Discount Rates to be Used in Evaluating Time-
Distributed Costs and Benefits.'' The FHWA believes it can develop a 
rule with a benefit-to-cost ratio of more than one for this rulemaking. 
The FHWA is planning to develop a rule that will produce a ``win-win'' 
outcome (increased safety and unchanged or increased productivity).
The FHWA will also attempt to analyze additional costs resulting from 
higher transportation rates and disruptions on ongoing business 
operations, though these costs will be difficult to assess. These might 
include rates and disruptions to just-in-time deliveries, 
manufacturing, warehousing, distribution, wholesale and retail 
deliveries, and individual participants' lives (e.g., increases in 
consumer prices and road congestion).


Risks:


The U.S. Department of Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration's databases show fatigue as a contributing factor in 306 
to 1,163 annual police-reported crashes nationally. Some scientific 
research suggests the number may be closer to 364 to 4,070 of all 
crashes (police-reported and non-police-reported). Fatigue is 
increasingly becoming the focus of possible causes contributing to

[[Page 61325]]

all crashes. Driver reports of being tired and sleepy to the point of 
incapacity are not uncommon, and it is reasonable, given the sheer 
volume of motor carrier traffic, to expect drowsy, unalert drivers to 
be a factor in future crashes.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM           61 FR 57251                                    11/05/96
Notice of Meetin62 FR 6161                                     02/11/97
ANPRM Comment Period End                                       03/31/97
ANPRM Extension 62 FR 15150Period                              03/31/97
NPRM                                                           10/00/98
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, Organizations


Government Levels Affected:


State


Additional Information:


Section 408 mandates that the FHWA issue an ANPRM dealing with a 
variety of fatigue related issues.


Agency Contact:
David Miller
Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
400 Seventh Street SW.
Washington, DC 20590
Phone: 202 366-1790
RIN: 2125-AD93
_______________________________________________________________________
DOT--National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

89. +ROLLOVER PROTECTION
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


 49 USC 30111; 49 USC 30115; 49 USC 30117; 49 USC 30166; 49 USC 322


CFR Citation:


 49 CFR 571


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The agency has initiated research to focus on exploring whether it can 
develop a practicable, repeatable and appropriate dynamic emergency 
handling test that assesses a vehicle's propensity for involvement in 
an on-road, un-tripped rollover crash. The agency also has granted a 
petition for rulemaking on this subject. This action is considered 
significant because of substantial public interest.


Statement of Need:


Rollover crashes account for over 9,000 traffic fatalities annually. A 
portion of all rollover crashes are un-tripped or ``maneuver-induced.'' 
Although past agency efforts have addressed all types of rollovers, the 
agency is focusing its current rollover activities on un-tripped 
rollover crashes. Currently, there is a requirement that most sport 
utility vehicles of under 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight rating 
(GVWR) have a warning label. On April 13, 1998 (63 FR 17974 - RIN 2127-
AG53) in a separate rulemaking, the agency proposed upgrading the label 
with better graphics and stronger wording. However, there is no safety 
standard or rating test for rollovers.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


Section 30111, Title 49 of the United States Code states that the 
Secretary shall prescribe motor vehicle safety standards. section 
30117, title 49 of the United States Code states that the Secretary may 
require each manufacturer of a motor vehicle to provide technical 
information related to performance and safety to purchasers. Authority 
to take these actions has been delegated to the NHTSA Administrator by 
49 CFR 501.2


Alternatives:


In addition to a potential safety standard, the rollover prevention 
effort could result in a consumer information or rating program which 
would involve notices and public comment. Another alternative might be 
long-term research on rollover dynamics. Long-term research would be 
necessary if the current effort indicates that existing test methods 
are inadequate for measuring rollover propensity.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The anticipated costs and benefits of this action have not yet been 
estimated.


Risks:


Crash data (1992-1996 NASS CDS annualized national estimates) indicate 
that, on average, 23 percent of single vehicle crashes involving all 
types of light vehicles are rollovers, or approximately 178,000 
rollover crashes per year. For particular types of light vehicles, the 
percentage of single vehicle crashes that are rollovers varies 
significantly: for passenger cars, it is below average (17%); for vans, 
it is about average (22%); and for both pickups and SUVs, it is above 
average (38% and 49%, respectively). Pickups and SUVs together account 
for 41 percent of the rollovers per year (73,500) even though they 
account for only 24 percent of single vehicle crashes. It is 
anticipated that a new rollover safety standard or consumer rating 
program would bring the pickup and SUV rollover rates down closer to 
the rates for other types of light vehicles.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM           57 FR 242                                      01/03/92
ANPRM Comment Period End                                       04/03/92
NPRM            59 FR 33254                                    06/28/94
Correction      59 FR 38038                                    07/26/94
Comment Period E59 FR 4412110/21/94                            08/26/94
Comment Period R61 FR 2856008/05/96                            06/05/96
NPRM Comment Period End                                        08/05/96
Petition Grant  62 FR 27578                                    05/20/97
Agency Decision                                                12/00/98
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Additional Information:


A notice of availability of a planning document for this rulemaking was 
published 09/29/92 (57 FR 44721). As part of its comprehensive efforts 
to address the problem of light vehicle rollover, the agency proposed a 
new consumer information regulation that would require that passenger 
cars and light multipurpose passenger vehicles and trucks be labeled 
with information about their resistance to rollover. In the NPRM, the 
agency terminated rulemaking to establish a vehicle stability standard. 
The agency denied petitions for reconsideration of this termination on 
06/05/96 (61 FR 28560). The comment period for the NPRM was reopened 
after publication of a related study by the National Academy of 
Sciences (NAS). (This notice was inadvertently published under RIN 
2127-AC54.) At the same time the agency published the grant notice on 
the petition for rulemaking, NHTSA

[[Page 61326]]

published, in a separate notice, its response to the NAS study and 
requested comments by 08/18/97 (05/20/97, 62 FR 27578). See RIN 2127-
AG53 for related information on warning labels for sport utility 
vehicles.
ANALYSIS: Regulatory Evaluation, 06/28/94, 59 FR 33254


Agency Contact:
Mike Pyne
Safety Standards Engineer, Office of Crash Avoidance
Department of Transportation
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
400 Seventh Street SW.
Washington, DC 20590
Phone: 202 366-4171
Fax: 202 366-4329
RIN: 2127-AC64
_______________________________________________________________________
DOT--NHTSA
90. +ADVANCED AIR BAGS
Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Unfunded Mandates:


This action may affect the private sector under PL 104-4.


Legal Authority:


 49 USC 322; 49 USC 30111; 49 USC 30115; 49 USC 30117; 49 USC 30166


CFR Citation:


 49 CFR 571.208


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The agency is proposing to upgrade its occupant protection standard to 
require advanced air bags. The proposal includes performance tests for 
advanced air bags. The proposal would require that advancements be made 
in the ability of air bags to cushion and protect occupants of 
different sizes, belted and unbelted, and would require air bags to be 
designed to minimize risks to infants, children, and other occupants. 
This action is considered significant because of the degree of 
congressional and public interest in this subject and because of 
potential costs.


Statement of Need:


While current air bags have been shown to be highly effective in 
reducing overall fatalities, they sometimes cause fatalities to out-of-
position occupants, especially children. As part of NHTSA's program to 
mitigate adverse effects of current-design air bags, the agency has 
stated that the next step in the evolution of air bags would be systems 
that automatically prevent those effects. As of June 1, 1998, the 
agency was aware of 61 children and 44 adults who had been killed by 
current air bags. The agency has already required more graphic warning 
labels on all new air-bag-equipped vehicles, enhanced manufacturers' 
flexibility to reduce the aggressivity of current-design air bags, 
allowed consumers in certain defined risk groups to install retrofit 
on-off switches for air bags, and participated in public programs to 
increase safety belt and child restraint use, to reduce fatalities. 
This program will pursue the next step: air bags incorporating advanced 
technologies.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


Section 30111, Title 49 of the United States Code, states that the 
Secretary shall prescribe motor vehicle safety standards. Section 7103 
of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Reauthorization 
Act of 1998 requires the Secretary to issue amendments to improve 
occupant protection for occupants of different sizes, belted and 
unbelted, under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, while 
minimizing the risk to infants, children, and other occupants from 
injuries and deaths caused by air bags, by means that include advanced 
air bags. Authority to prescribe such standards is delegated to the 
Administrator by 49 CFR 1.50.


Alternatives:


The agency has been participating with motor vehicle manufacturers, 
equipment suppliers, the insurance industry, and academia through the 
Advanced Air Bag Technology Working Group of NHTSA's Motor Vehicle 
Research Advisory Committee. The agency has been utilizing the 
resources of this partnership in identifying alternatives for this 
proposed rulemaking. Moreover, the agency joined with the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration in a comprehensive state-of-the-
art assessment for near-term air bag technology. As a result of these 
partnerships and due to its own internal research efforts, the agency 
is aware of the various advanced air bag technologies currently being 
seriously considered by the vehicle manufacturers. The proposed rule 
would permit the use of these technologies which include: suppression 
systems that could include weight sensors and/or proximity or 
positioning sensors, low-risk air bags that could include dual or 
multi-stage inflators, added or redesigned crash sensors, and/or 
modified fold patterns.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The agency estimates that the costs of the proposed rule would be up to 
$162 per vehicle, for an estimated total of up to $2.5 billion for 15.5 
million vehicles per year. Property damage savings could exceed $2.4 
billion annually depending on the extent to which manufacturers use air 
bag suppression systems. Several hundred lives could be saved annually, 
as well as a currently unquantified number of serious injuries.


Risks:


Air bags have been shown to substantially reduce fatalities in traffic 
crashes. When fully implemented, NHTSA estimates that air bags will 
save 3,000 lives per year and prevent about 34,000 moderate-to-critical 
injuries. However, current air bags deploy the same way for all 
occupants, regardless of their size or location at the time of 
deployment and regardless of crash severity. As a result of the designs 
of current air bags, there have been adult and child fatalities caused 
by the air bag. Therefore, the development and introduction of advanced 
air bags is being pursued aggressively by both the industry and the 
agency.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            63 FR 49957                                    09/18/98
NPRM Comment Period End                                        12/17/98
Final Action                                                   06/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Additional Information:


A technical workshop was held February 11 and 12, 1997, in Washington, 
DC. The NPRM will respond to the petitions received for reconsideration 
on the final rule published for Depowering of Air Bags, RIN 2127-AG59 
and Passenger-Side Manual Cutoff Switch for Air Bags, RIN 2127-AG60.
ANALYSIS: Regulatory Evaluation, 09/18/98, 63 FR 49937

[[Page 61327]]




Agency Contact:
Clarke Harper
Division Chief, Light Duty Vehicle Division
Department of Transportation
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
400 Seventh Street SW.
Washington, DC 20590
Phone: 202 366-2264
Fax: 202 366-4329
RIN: 2127-AG70
_______________________________________________________________________
DOT--Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

91.  +REGULATIONS ON SAFETY INTEGRATION PLANS GOVERNING 
RAILROAD CONSOLIDATIONS, MERGERS, ACQUISITIONS OF CONTROL AND START-UP 
OPERATIONS
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


 49 USC 20103; 49 USC 20107; 49 USC 21301; 28 USC 2461


CFR Citation:


 49 CFR 244; 49 CFR 1.49


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This proposed rule would require a railroad to file a Safety 
Integration Plan with the Federal Railroad Administration (1) whenever 
a Class I railroad, the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, or a 
railroad providing commuter service proposes to merge, consolidate or 
acquire control of one another; (2) whenever a railroad proposes to 
start operations as a railroad; (3) whenever a Class II railroad 
proposes to consolidate, merge, or acquire control of another Class II 
railroad with which it would directly interchange freight, or (4) 
whenever a railroad merger, consolidation or acquisition of control 
would result in operations that generate revenue in excess of the Class 
I threshold. The proposed rule would prescribe content and subject 
matter areas that must be addressed in each plan before FRA may approve 
of such plan. FRA is working with the Surface Transportation Board to 
conduct coordinated rulemaking actions covering these transactions 
within the framework of each agency's jurisdiction.


Statement of Need:


This rule is necessary to ensure advance planning of operations to 
promote rail safety. Given the safety problems encountered in previous 
transactions and the need for the merging or acquiring railroad to 
integrate and harmonize information systems, training, operational 
practices and safety procedures on a massive scale, the need to require 
detailed plans setting forth the manner in which the parties intend to 
safely implement integration plans became apparent to FRA.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


Because this rule concerns rail safety, FRA is vested with statutory 
authority to issue regulations governing these regulated transactions. 
See 49 USC 20101 et seq.


Alternatives:


The proposed rule would authorize a railroad carrying out a regulated 
transaction to petition for a waiver of compliance. The railroad would 
have to follow the procedures prescribed in 49 CFR 211 in filing such a 
petition. FRA may grant the petition if waiver of compliance is 
consistent with the public interest and railroad safety.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


FRA has not yet determined the anticipated costs and benefits of this 
action.


Risks:


The problems that surfaced after the merger of the Union Pacific and 
the Southern Pacific indicated that safety could be significantly 
compromised in implementing a consolidation unless the parties 
addressed the safety issues specifically, formally and systematically, 
particularly if the merger was large and complex. To address safety-
related problems stemming from a merger, FRA needed a projection into 
the future of the safety consequences of consolidating the systems. To 
accomplish this, in response to the proposed acquisition of Conrail by 
Norfolk Southern and CSX Transportation, FRA suggested, and the STB 
required, that the merger applicants develop and submit well-defined 
Safety Integration Plans (SIPs) as part of the merger application 
process. The proposed rule would require, as a matter of FRA 
regulations, that such Plans be filed by certain railroads in the 
context of proposed mergers and acquisitions and similar circumstances.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           10/00/98
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Jon Kaplan
Trial Attorney
Department of Transportation
Federal Railroad Administration
400 Seventh Street SW.
Washington, DC 20590
Phone: 202 493-6042
RIN: 2130-AB24
_______________________________________________________________________
DOT--FRA

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

92. +PASSENGER EQUIPMENT SAFETY STANDARDS
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


 49 USC 20103; 49 USC 20133; 49 USC 20111 to 20113; 49 USC 20301 to 
21311; PL 103-440, sec 215


CFR Citation:


 49 CFR 238


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, November 2, 1997.


Final, Statutory, November 2, 1999.


Abstract:


This action will establish comprehensive Federal safety standards for 
railroad passenger equipment in a two-phased rulemaking effort, 
pursuant to the Federal Railroad Safety Authorization Act of 1994. This 
action will address inspection, testing, and maintenance of passenger 
equipment; equipment design and performance criteria related to 
passenger and crew survivability in the event of a train accident; and 
the safe operation of passenger train service, supplementing existing 
railroad safety standards. This

[[Page 61328]]

is considered significant due to public interest. A final rule in the 
first phase of the rulemaking is expected to be published this year. 
FRA will then convene a working group to help develop a second Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking for publication in 1999. The second phase of the 
rulemaking will draw on the results of ongoing research and industry-
led passenger safety efforts.


Statement of Need:


Effective Federal safety standards for freight equipment have long been 
in place, but equivalent Federal standards for key aspects of railroad 
passenger equipment do not exist. Further, the rail passenger 
environment is rapidly changing. Worldwide, operating speeds are 
increasing, and several passenger trainsets have been proposed for 
operation at high speeds in the United States. A clear set of Federal 
safety standards for passenger equipment is needed to provide for the 
safety of the nation's rail passenger service.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


This rulemaking is required by section 215 of the Federal Railroad 
Safety Authorization Act of 1994, PL 103-440.


Alternatives:


There was no alternative to initiating this rulemaking, as it is 
required by Federal statute. Nevertheless, FRA considers what specific 
safety standards to prescribe in the context of the rail passenger 
industry's own safety efforts. In particular, FRA expects that its 
consideration of what safety standards to prescribe in the second phase 
of the rulemaking will be significantly influenced by the American 
Public Transit Association's own safety standards for rail passenger 
equipment, currently under development.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The first phase of the rulemaking is not expected to have any 
significant net economic impact on the rail passenger industry. FRA 
expects that costs will be offset by economic savings resulting from 
reducing current regulatory burdens involving the inspection, testing 
and maintenance of power brakes for passenger trains, while still 
ensuring safety. Further, safety benefits will accrue as rail accidents 
are prevented or their effects are mitigated due to the rule's 
requirements, including restrictions on operating passenger equipment 
not having necessary structural or emergency features for the safety of 
passengers and crewmembers.


Risks:


In the last seven years there have been at least six passenger train 
accidents which resulted in more than one train occupant fatality. 
Notably, on February 16, 1996, a Maryland Rail Commuter Service (MARC) 
train collided with an Amtrak train near Silver Spring, Maryland, 
resulting in the deaths of three crewmembers and eight passengers on 
board the MARC train. Further, passenger trains are exposed to risks 
from operating commingled with very heavy and long freight trains, as 
well as from operating over track with frequent grade crossings used by 
heavy highway equipment. However, comprehensive Federal safety 
standards governing the design, maintenance, and safety planning of 
rail passenger equipment do not currently exist.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM           61 FR 30672                                    06/17/96
NPRM            62 FR 49728                                    09/23/97
Notice of Public62 FR 55204                                    10/23/97
NPRM Comment Period End                                        11/24/97
Final Action (first phase)                                     11/00/98
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


Additional Information:


A public hearing on this rulemaking was held on November 21, 1997.


Agency Contact:
Daniel Alpert
Trial Attorney
Department of Transportation
Federal Railroad Administration
400 Seventh Street SW.
Washington, DC 20590
Phone: 202 493-6026
RIN: 2130-AA95
_______________________________________________________________________
DOT--Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

93. +REQUIREMENTS FOR CYLINDERS (SECTION 610 REVIEW)
Priority:


Other Significant


Reinventing Government:


This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will 
revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline 
requirements.


Legal Authority:


 49 USC 5101 to 5127


CFR Citation:


 49 CFR 172; 49 CFR 173; 49 CFR 178


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rulemaking will propose to amend the Hazardous Materials 
Regulations (HMR) to update and consolidate requirements for the 
manufacture, maintenance, requalification, repair, and use of 
compressed gas cylinders. RSPA intends to provide for the manufacture 
of compressed gas cylinders to certain new DOT specifications and to 
revise requirements applicable to the maintenance, requalification, and 
repair of all DOT specification cylinders (including those cylinders 
that may no longer be manufactured). RSPA also proposes to simplify the 
requirements for filling cylinders and consolidate and revise 
requirements applicable to persons who requalify cylinders. This 
rulemaking will recognize advances in cylinder manufacturing technology 
and clarify and simplify regulatory requirements. This rulemaking, 
which will affect persons who manufacture, requalify, repair, refill 
and use compressed gas cylinders, is of significant interest to the 
compressed gas industry. As part of this action, a small entities 
review under 5 USC section 610 will be included.


Statement of Need:


This rulemaking action is the first comprehensive review and revision 
of the cylinder requirements since the first cylinder specification was 
adopted in the early 1900's. Since that time, additional cylinder 
specifications and

[[Page 61329]]

related requirements for cylinder requalification and use have been 
added on a piecemeal basis in response to the development of new 
construction materials, accidents and incidents, shipping experience, 
and the development of industry consensus standards. RSPA seeks to 
improve the integrity of cylinders by adopting manufacturing and 
testing standards based more on performance than detailed design 
requirements. RSPA has received over 25 petitions for rulemaking and 
has issued numerous exemptions relating to requirements for cylinders 
and for the transportation of hazardous materials in cylinders. The 
merits of these petitions and the need to convert provisions of 
exemptions into regulations of general applicability will be considered 
in this rulemaking action.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


Section 5103 of Title 49 U.S.C. specifies that the Secretary shall 
prescribe regulations for the safe transportation of hazardous 
materials in intrastate, interstate, and foreign commerce. These 
regulations apply to persons transporting or causing to transport 
hazardous materials in commerce, and persons manufacturing, 
fabricating, marking, maintaining, repairing or testing packagings that 
are represented, marked, certified, or sold by such persons as 
qualified for use in transporting hazardous materials in commerce.


Alternatives:


The proposed rule is expected to incorporate a variety of alternatives 
to provide greater flexibility to cylinder manufacturers, refillers and 
users. There will be proposals to allow harmonizing of the 
manufacturing practices between the U.S. and other countries, to 
provide greater flexibility in the filling of cylinders based on 
performance criteria, and to simplify the regulations by streamlining 
the commodity sections and by standardizing the new cylinder 
specifications.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


A preliminary regulatory evaluation is being developed. The potential 
costs and benefits of this action have not yet been determined. A major 
industry association has indicated that this rulemaking could result in 
significant cost reductions for the cylinder manufacturing industry.


Risks:


Improving the integrity of cylinders will reduce the risk of leakage in 
overturns and other accidents. In addition, simplifying the regulations 
will reduce misunderstandings and the possibility of processing errors 
that may adversely affect safety.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           10/00/98
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


Additional Information:


Formerly entitled Review: Consolidation of Specifications for High-
Pressure Seamless Cylinders. Docket No. HM-220.


Agency Contact:
Ryan Posten
Transportation Regulations Specialist
Department of Transportation
Research and Special Programs Administration
400 Seventh Street SW.
Washington, DC 20590
Phone: 202 366-8553
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2137-AA92
_______________________________________________________________________
DOT--RSPA
94. +HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: SAFETY STANDARDS FOR UNLOADING CARGO TANK 
MOTOR VEHICLES IN LIQUEFIED COMPRESSED GAS SERVICE
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


 49 USC 5101 to 5127


CFR Citation:


 49 CFR 171; 49 CFR 173; 49 CFR 178; 49 CFR 180


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rulemaking would enhance the safety of cargo tank motor vehicles 
in liquefied compressed gas service by clarifying and revising existing 
hazardous materials regulations and by adding new requirements and 
alternatives regarding emergency discharge control systems, hose 
management, and vehicle attendance requirements. This action will 
affect all operators of cargo tank motor vehicles in liquefied 
compressed gas service and is expected to generate substantial public 
interest; it is therefore a significant rulemaking.


Statement of Need:


This rulemaking action responds to numerous incidents involving the 
release of liquefied compressed gas during the unloading of cargo tank 
motor vehicles and resulting in injuries and deaths. It is based on 
comments received to an advance notice of proposed rulemaking, 
published in the Federal Register, on August 18, 1997, and on a 
Convening Report, by the Mediation Consortium, that recommended RSPA 
use regulatory negotiation to develop alternative safety standards for 
preventing and mitigating unintentional releases of hazardous materials 
during the unloading of cargo tank motor vehicles in liquefied 
compressed gas service. The negotiated rule will reflect the consensus 
of those persons who represent the interests affected by this action, 
such as businesses that transport and deliver propane, anhydrous 
ammonia, and other liquefied compressed gases; manufacturers of DOT 
specification MC 330 and MC 331 cargo tank motor vehicles used to 
transport liquefied compressed gases; Federal safety regulatory 
agencies; and state and local public safety and emergency response 
agencies. Section 5103 of title 49 U.S.C. requires the Secretary to 
prescribe regulations for the safe transportation of hazardous 
materials in intrastate, interstate and foreign commerce. Section 
5102(a) specifies that transportation includes unloading incidental to 
the movement of hazardous materials.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


The negotiated rulemaking process is conducted in accordance with the 
Federal Advisory Committee Act and the Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 
1990.


Alternatives:


The negotiated rule is expected to improve the safe unloading of 
liquefied compressed gases. This rulemaking action is key to proposing 
recommendations that can achieve DOT's safety goal as well as providing 
regulations that recognize industry practices. RSPA has rejected the

[[Page 61330]]

alternative of proceeding to write a proposed regulation itself because 
it believes the negotiated rulemaking process is more likely to result 
in a safety-promoting, practical, cost-beneficial rule. In addition 
this negotiated rulemaking will make it less likely that petitions for 
reconsideration are filed and that the final rule is legally 
challenged.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The negotiated rulemaking committee will develop a preliminary 
regulatory evaluation to assess the potential costs and benefits of the 
negotiated rule.


Risks:


This rulemaking is intended to save lives and prevent injuries, 
property damage, and environmental degradation by reducing the rise of 
accidental release of compressed gases and of fires or explosions that 
can result from such releases.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM           62 FR 44059                                    08/18/97
ANPRM Comment Period End                                       10/17/97
Notice of Intent63 FR 30572sh a Negotiated Rulemaking Committee06/04/98
Notice of Establishment of Advisory Committee for Negotiated Rulemaking 
        and Noti63 FR 38456 Meeting                            07/16/98
Notice of Negoti63 FR 44601king Committee Meetings             08/20/98
NPRM                                                           04/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, Organizations


Government Levels Affected:


None


Additional Information:


Docket No. HM-225A. This rulemaking is related to docket HM-225 (DMS 
Docket No. RSPA 97-2133, RIN 2137-AC97). RSPA is establishing an 
advisory committee to address issues in this rulemaking (negotiated 
rulemaking).


Agency Contact:
Jennifer Karim
Senior Transportation Regulations Specialist
Department of Transportation
Research and Special Programs Administration
400 Seventh Street SW.
Washington, DC 20590
Phone: 202 366-8553
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2137-AD07
BILLING CODE 4910-62-F

[[Page 61331]]

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY (TREAS)
Statement of Regulatory Priorities
The primary missions of the Department of the Treasury are: Protecting 
and collecting the revenue under the Internal Revenue Code and customs 
laws; supervising national banks and thrift institutions; managing the 
fiscal operations of the Federal Government; enforcing laws relating to 
counterfeiting, Federal Government securities, firearms and explosives, 
money laundering, foreign commerce in goods and financial instruments, 
and smuggling and trafficking in contraband; administering the 
Community Development Financial Institutions Program; protecting the 
President, Vice President, and certain foreign diplomatic personnel; 
training Federal, State, and local law enforcement officers; and 
producing coins and currency.
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. Unless 
circumstances require otherwise, it is the policy of the Department to 
issue a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) and carefully consider 
public comments before adopting final regulations. Also, in particular 
cases, the Department invites interested parties to submit views on 
rulemaking projects while the NPRM is being developed and to hold 
public hearings to discuss a proposed rule.
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 Order 12866 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.
During FY 1999, the Department will aggressively implement the 
President's June 1, 1998, memorandum directing agencies to use ``plain 
language'' in new proposed and final rulemaking documents.
Internal Revenue Service
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS), working with the Office of the 
Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy, promulgates regulations that 
interpret and implement the Internal Revenue Code and related tax 
statutes. In developing these regulations, every effort is made 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.
Most IRS regulations interpret tax statutes to resolve ambiguities or 
fill gaps in the tax statutes. This includes interpreting particular 
words, applying rules to broad classes of circumstances, and resolving 
apparent and potential conflicts between various statutory provisions.
On July 22, 1998, the President signed into law the Internal Revenue 
Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998. During fiscal year 1999, 
the IRS will issue several regulations addressing the implementation of 
this law. In addition, the IRS will be addressing a number of other 
priority regulatory projects including the following:
 Stock Transfer Rules Under Section 367. Section 367 of the 
            Internal Revenue Code governs the application of the 
            corporate nonrecognition rules to transactions involving 
            foreign corporations. The IRS published proposed 
            regulations under section 367(a) and (b) of the Code on 
            August 26, 1991. Various portions of these regulations 
            involving transfers of stock by U.S. persons to foreign 
            corporations were finalized on December 30, 1996, and June 
            19, 1998. The IRS expects to finalize the remainder of the 
            proposed regulations in fiscal year 1999.
 Excise Taxes on Excess Benefit Transactions. The Taxpayer Bill 
            of Rights 2 (Public Law 104-168, July 30, 1996) added 
            section 4958 to the Code. Section 4958 provides for excise 
            taxes on excess benefit transactions and is effective for 
            transactions occurring on or after September 14, 1995. 
            Disqualified persons and, in some instances, organization 
            managers are liable for these new taxes. A disqualified 
            person is any person who was, at any time during the 5-year 
            period ending on the date of the excess benefit 
            transaction, in a position to exercise substantial 
            influence over the affairs of the tax-exempt organization 
            involved in the transaction. Only transactions with section 
            501(c)(3) (except private foundations) or section 501(c)(4) 
            organizations are subject to the taxes. An excess benefit 
            transaction is any transaction in which an economic benefit 
            is provided by an applicable organization directly or 
            indirectly to, or for the use of, any disqualified person 
            if the value of the economic benefit provided exceeds the 
            value of the consideration (including the performance of 
            services) received for providing the benefit. The taxable 
            excess benefit amount is the excess of the benefit over the 
            value of the consideration. On July 30, 1998, proposed 
            regulations were issued to clarify certain definitions and 
            rules contained in section 4958 of the Code. The IRS 
            expects to finalize these rules in fiscal year 1999.
 Amortization of Intangible Assets. The Omnibus Budget 
            Reconciliation Act of 1993 (OBRA 1993) added section 197 to 
            the Code, which provides for a 15-year amortization of 
            goodwill and certain other intangible assets. OBRA 1993 
            also amended Code section 167 to provide specified 
            amortization periods for certain computer software and 
            mortgage servicing rights. These provisions are generally 
            effective for intangibles acquired after August 10, 1993. 
            On January 16, 1997, proposed regulations were issued 
            implementing these two Code sections and providing guidance 
            to taxpayers on the meaning and scope of certain provisions 
            of the statute and its anti-churning rules. The IRS expects 
            to finalize these rules early in fiscal year 1999.
 Credit for Increasing Research Activities. Section 41 of the 
            Code provides a tax credit equal to a percentage of the 
            amount by which a taxpayer's qualified research expenses 
            for a taxable year exceeds its base amount for that year. 
            To be qualified research, the research activities must not 
            only satisfy the requirements of section 174 of the Code 
            but must be undertaken for the purpose of discovering 
            information that is technological in nature, the 
            application of which is intended to be useful in the 
            development of a new or improved business component of the 
            taxpayer, and substantially all of the activities of which 
            must constitute a process of experimentation pertaining to 
            the functional aspects, performance, reliability, or 
            quality of a business component. The regulations under 
            section 41 of the Code will explain the term ``qualified 
            research'' and the exclusions from research credit 
            eligibility. The IRS expects to propose these rules early 
            in fiscal year 1999.
 Euro Conversion. On January 1, 1999, 11 members of the 
            European Union

[[Page 61332]]

            will replace their national currencies with the euro. On 
            July 29, 1998, the IRS published proposed and temporary 
            regulations relating to certain of the more significant 
            U.S. Federal income tax consequences that arise for 
            taxpayers operating, investing, or otherwise conducting 
            business in a currency that is converting to the euro. The 
            IRS expects to finalize these rules in fiscal year 1999.
 Software. Section 861 of the Internal Revenue Code provides 
            general rules regarding the determination of whether income 
            is from sources within the United States. In general, 
            different rules apply to income from services, income from 
            tangible property, and income from intangible property. 
            Transactions involving computer software have been 
            difficult to classify because such transactions do not in 
            all cases fit neatly into one box or the other. The IRS 
            published proposed regulations in November 1996 that would 
            establish a comprehensive framework for characterizing 
            computer software transactions for purposes of the 
            international provisions of the Code. The IRS expects to 
            finalize the regulations early in fiscal year 1999.
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) charters, 
regulates, and supervises national banks to ensure a safe, sound, and 
competitive national banking system that supports the citizens, 
communities, and economy of the United States. The substantive content 
of the OCC's regulations reflects four organizing principles that 
support this mission:
 The OCC's regulations help ensure safety and soundness by 
            establishing standards that set the limits of acceptable 
            conduct for national banks.
 The OCC's regulations promote competitiveness by facilitating 
            a national bank's ability to develop new lines of business, 
            subject to any safeguards that are necessary to ensure that 
            the bank has the expertise to manage risk effectively and 
            adapt its business practices to deal responsibly with its 
            customers.
 Regulations can also affect national banks' ability to compete 
            by contributing significantly to their costs. The OCC's 
            goal is to improve efficiency and reduce burden by updating 
            and streamlining its regulations and eliminating those that 
            no longer contribute significantly to the fulfillment of 
            its mission.
 The OCC's regulations help assure fair access to financial 
            services for all Americans by removing unnecessary 
            impediments to the flow of credit to consumers and small 
            businesses, by encouraging national banks' involvement in 
            community development activities, and by implementing 
            Federal laws designed to protect consumers of financial 
            services.
Important final rules that the OCC has published since the preparation 
of the fiscal year 1998 regulatory plan (or expects to publish before 
October 1998) include the following:
 Risk-Based Capital Guidelines (12 CFR part 3):
  Servicing Assets. In 1995, the Federal banking agencies published an 
            interim rule to eliminate the distinctions between 
            originated mortgage servicing rights and purchased mortgage 
            servicing rights and to clarify that both originated and 
            purchased mortgage servicing rights are subject to the 
            deduction requirements for regulatory capital. (A reference 
            in this regulatory plan to the ``Federal banking agencies'' 
            or ``the agencies'' means the OCC, together with the Office 
            of Thrift Supervision (OTS), the Federal Deposit Insurance 
            Corporation (FDIC), and the Board of Governors of the 
            Federal Reserve System.) This interim rule was developed in 
            response to the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) 
            Financial Accounting Statement (FAS) 122, which addressed 
            mortgage servicing rights. Subsequent to the interim rule, 
            FASB published FAS 125, which eliminated the distinction 
            between excess and normal servicing fees relating to 
            servicing rights. Since the last regulatory plan, the 
            agencies issued a proposed rule and final rule on capital 
            treatment of excess servicing fees and mortgage servicing 
            rights.

  Transfers of Small Business Loan Obligations With Recourse. This 
            rule, which implements section 208 of the Riegle Community 
            Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994, Public 
            Law 103-325 (Sept. 23, 1994) (CDRIA), generally permits 
            banks to hold capital against the face amount of recourse 
            obligations (rather than the amount of the asset 
            transferred with recourse) on qualifying small business 
            loans if the bank establishes a reserve equal to the bank's 
            reasonable estimated liability under the recourse 
            obligation.

  Unrealized Holding Gains on Certain Equity Securities. The OCC and 
            the other Federal banking agencies issued a joint notice of 
            proposed rulemaking to amend the risk-based capital 
            guidelines to permit a bank to include up to 45 percent of 
            unrealized revaluation gains on available-for-sale equity 
            securities in Tier 2 capital. This proposed rule is 
            consistent with the International Convergence of Capital 
            Measurement and Capital Standards as adopted by the Basle 
            Committee on Banking Regulations and Supervisory Practices 
            (Basle Accord) and would make the risk-based capital 
            treatment of unrealized revaluation gains uniform among the 
            banking agencies.

  Risk-Based Capital Guidelines Generally. The OCC and the other 
            Federal banking agencies have proposed several amendments 
            to their respective risk-based capital guidelines to 
            eliminate certain interagency differences in capital 
            treatment. The amendments would affect (1) junior and 
            senior liens on one-to-four family residential mortgages, 
            (2) presold one-to-four family construction loans, and (3) 
            mutual funds.
 Expanded Examination Cycle for Certain Institutions (12 CFR 
            part 4). This rule makes eligible for an 18-month exam 
            cycle a national or State bank that (1) has total assets of 
            $250 million or less; (2) is well capitalized; (3) is well 
            managed; (4) received a CAMELS 1 or 2 at its most recent 
            exam; (5) is not subject to a formal enforcement order; and 
            (6) has not had a change in control during the previous 12-
            month period. A separate interim rule allows the OCC to 
            examine Federal branches and agencies of foreign banks 
            every 18 months if the branches and agencies meet criteria 
            that are comparable to those applicable to national banks.
 Assessment of Fees (12 CFR part 8). The OCC has adopted two 
            final rules since the last regulatory plan was prepared. 
            The first imposed a surcharge on banks that receive a 
            rating of 3, 4, or 5 under the Uniform Financial 
            Institutions Rating System. The second adopted as final the 
            changes made in (1) an interim rule published in 1994 
            governing trust fees and (2) an interim rule published in 
            1996 governing assessment reductions for non-lead national 
            banks.
 Prohibition Against Deposit Production Offices (12 CFR part 
            25). This rule implemented section 109 of the Riegle-Neal 
            Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994, 
            which is intended to prevent banks from using their new 
            interstate

[[Page 61333]]

            branching authority to extract deposits from communities in 
            which they are not reasonably helping to meet credit needs. 
            Under that law, a bank with branches in a State other than 
            its home State must meet either a ``level of lending'' test 
            in the State where the branch is located (whereby its loans 
            to customers in the host State relative to deposits from 
            customers in the host State is at least half the loan-to-
            deposit ratio for all banks based in that State) or a 
            ``credit needs'' test (whereby the appropriate Federal 
            banking agency determines if a bank is meeting the credit 
            needs of the communities served by the branch in question).
 International Banking Activities (12 CFR part 28). This rule 
            removed the lengthy discussion of the accounting treatment 
            for fees earned on international loans found in the 
            previous rule and inserted in its place a brief provision 
            stating that the accounting should conform to generally 
            accepted accounting principles (GAAP).
 Lending Limits (12 CFR part 32). In a final rule published in 
            April of 1998, the OCC made several technical amendments to 
            the lending limits rule intended to clarify, for instance, 
            the effective date for newly calculated lending limits.
The OCC's regulatory priorities for fiscal year 1999 include the 
continuation of the OCC's work with the other Federal banking agencies 
to update the risk-based capital standards, maintain and, where 
necessary, improve consistency in the agencies' rules. Regulatory 
projects in this area include the following amendments to 12 CFR part 
3:
 Risk-Based Capital Treatment of Recourse and Direct Credit 
            Substitutes. The Federal banking agencies published a 
            proposal to amend the risk-based capital guidelines to 
            provide consistency between the capital treatment for 
            recourse arrangements and for direct credit substitutes. 
            The proposal described several approaches that would enable 
            banks to match the risk-based capital assessment more 
            closely to an institution's relative risk of loss in asset 
            securitization.
 Market Risk. This rule would eliminate the 50 percent floor 
            for specific risk under the market risk capital 
            requirements. An interim rule was published in December of 
            1997.
 Collateralized Transactions. The rule would conform the rules 
            of the other banking agencies to the OCC's rule regarding 
            the risk-based capital treatment of loans collateralized in 
            cash or OECD government securities. Consistent with 
            existing law, the rule would assign a zero risk weight for 
            the portion of claims collateralized by cash on deposit in 
            a bank or securities issued or guaranteed by the U.S. 
            Government or its agencies or the central government of an 
            OECD country, provided that certain conditions are met.
 Claims on Securities Firms. This rule would reduce the risk 
            weighting for claims on securities firms from 100 to 20 
            percent.
In addition, the OCC's regulatory priorities for fiscal year 1999 
include projects in the following areas:
 Know Your Customer. The proposal, which is being prepared with 
            the other Federal banking agencies and with the 
            participation of Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement 
            Network (FinCEN), would require each regulated institution 
            to develop a program designed to identify its customers; 
            determine its customers' source of funds; determine its 
            customers' normal and expected transactions; monitor 
            customers' transactions to determine if such transactions 
            are consistent with their normal and expected transactions; 
            and report any transactions of its customers that are 
            determined to be unusual or suspicious, in accordance with 
            the agencies' existing suspicious activity reporting 
            regulations.
 Codification of the Interagency Statement on Retail Sales of 
            Nondeposit Investment Products (``Interagency Statement''). 
            This rulemaking would codify part or all of the Interagency 
            Statement that was adopted February 15, 1994.
 Interpretive Rulings (12 CFR part 7). This rulemaking would 
            codify recent OCC interpretations concerning the following: 
            The definition of ``interest''; messenger services; 
            ownership of stock by a director; the oaths of directors; 
            acquisition and retention by a bank of its shares; bank 
            holidays; the power to guaranty liabilities for foreign 
            activities; insurance agency activities by national banks; 
            the ability of national banks to have ATMs without being 
            subject to geographic restrictions; and annuity sales.
 Year 2000. The OCC expects to publish two rules affecting 
            banks' efforts to address computer problems associated with 
            the year 2000 (Y2K). The first, amending 12 CFR part 4, 
            would allow the OCC to disclose, without a request, non-
            public OCC information to supervised entities and other 
            persons as necessary to carry out the OCC's statutory 
            responsibilities. The second would add an appendix to 12 
            CFR part 30 to provide interagency guidelines establishing 
            Y2K safety and soundness standards.
 Management Official Interlocks (12 CFR part 26). This joint 
            proposed rule would amend each agency's regulation to 
            conform to recent changes to the Depository Institutions 
            Management Interlocks Act (``DIMIA''). The Economic Growth 
            and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act of 1996 (``EGRPRA'') 
            amended DIMIA to permit the agencies to grant exemptions to 
            the interlocks prohibition for any interlock that would not 
            result in a monopoly or substantial lessening of 
            competition. EGRPRA also amended DIMIA to raise the asset 
            thresholds for the ``major assets'' prohibition to apply 
            only to interlocks involving a depository institution 
            having assets of at least $2.5 billion and an unaffiliated 
            depository institution having assets of at least $1.5 
            billion.
Office of Thrift Supervision
As the primary Federal regulator of the thrift industry, the Office of 
Thrift Supervision (OTS) has established regulatory objectives and 
priorities to effectively and efficiently supervise thrift 
institutions. These objectives include maintaining and enhancing the 
safety and soundness of the thrift industry; a flexible, responsive 
regulatory structure that enables savings associations to provide 
credit and other financial services to their communities, particularly 
housing credit; and a risk-focused, proactive approach to supervision. 
The objectives and priorities of OTS are consistent with those 
established by the President.
Under the auspices of the Federal Financial Institutions Examination 
Council (FFIEC), OTS continues to implement, with the other Federal 
banking agencies, section 303(a)(2) of the Riegle Community Development 
and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994 (CDRIA), which requires the 
Federal banking agencies to make uniform all regulations and guidelines 
implementing common statutory provisions or supervisory policies.
Interagency capital-related projects underway include amendments 
concerning:
 The leverage capital standard and the risk-based capital 
            standards for certain loans involving residential

[[Page 61334]]

            properties and investments in mutual funds.
 Capital standards for servicing assets.
 Risk-based capital standards for collateralized transactions.
 Risk-based capital standards for unrealized gains on equity 
            securities.
 Risk-based capital standards for recourse obligations and 
            direct credit substitutes that expose institutions to 
            credit risk.
 Risk-weight of claims on securities firms.
It is anticipated that final rules will be issued regarding the first 
four capital-related issues outlined above by early FY 1999. A proposed 
or interim rule regarding the risk-weight of claims on securities firms 
is expected to be issued by the first quarter of fiscal year 1999. The 
agencies continue to consider risk-based capital requirements for 
recourse obligations and direct credit substitutes. A resolution of 
these issues is likely to be issued in fiscal year 2000.
The FFIEC member agencies are also preparing enforceable safety and 
soundness standards that will provide Year 2000 guidelines to insured 
depository institutions under section 39 of the Federal Deposit 
Insurance Act.
Other interagency projects are also underway on two proposed rules. The 
Management Official Interlocks project would implement recent statutory 
changes, modernize the existing rules, and reduce burden. The ``Know 
Your Customer'' rule would require institutions to develop programs 
designed to reduce the likelihood that they will become unwitting 
participants in the illicit activities of their customers. The agencies 
should publish a proposed rule on ``Know Your Customer'' and a final 
rule on Management Official Interlocks by the first quarter of fiscal 
year 1999. The OTS is also working on a final rule on Agency 
Disapproval of Officers and Directors, which would conform OTS rules to 
the rules of the other banking agencies implementing recent statutory 
changes, clarify the existing OTS rules, and reduce burden. A rule 
should be finalized by the first quarter of fiscal 1999.
Several regulatory projects issued in proposed form during fiscal year 
1998 are likely to be issued in final form during fiscal year 1999. The 
Electronic Operations rule, published in October 1997, addresses the 
appropriate use of electronic banking technology. OTS would like to 
ensure that its rules are sufficiently flexible to accommodate 
technological changes in the marketplace and ensure that the regulated 
industry uses technology within the boundaries of safety and soundness 
standards. OTS expects to continue the rulemaking process in this area 
by issuing a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking during the 
fourth quarter of fiscal year 1998 and a final rule during fiscal year 
1999.
Other rules issued as proposals in fiscal year 1998 and likely to be 
issued in final form during fiscal year 1999 include a capital 
distributions rule updating and streamlining OTS regulations to reflect 
the implementation of prompt corrective action; a rule clarifying the 
treatment of reverse repurchase agreements under the transactions with 
affiliates prohibitions in section 11 of the Home Owners Loan Act 
(HOLA); a charter and bylaws rule expanding the range of votes that a 
Federal mutual savings association may allow a member to cast; and a 
financial management policies rule comprehensively revising outdated 
regulations on financial derivatives.
During fiscal year 1999, OTS intends to publish a number of proposed 
rules as part of its ongoing effort to review and streamline its 
regulations. These projects include revisions to OTS regulations 
concerning types of offices, securities brokerage, nondiscrimination, 
officers and directors, guarantees and letters of credit, and 
assessments.
A project to revise OTS regulations on types of offices would evaluate 
current definitions of the terms ``home office,'' ``branch office,'' 
``agency,'' and OTS rules on relocations and redesignations. The 
project is designed to ensure that OTS rules reflect how modern thrifts 
conduct their operations. The securities brokerage rule would revise 
and update OTS regulations on the sale of non-deposit investment 
products. The rule concerning directors and officers would streamline 
OTS regulations on indemnification, savings association boards of 
directors, compensation, employment contracts, extensions of credit to 
insiders, conflicts of interest, and corporate opportunity. A project 
updating rules on guarantees and letters of credit would clarify that a 
Federal savings association may act as guarantor or surety, issue 
letters of credit, and act as escrow agent.
OTS currently has underway a project to amend its method of calculating 
its assessments of savings associations. The rule would more closely 
tailor assessments with supervisory costs than the current regulation 
allows. Other assessment and fee matters would be clarified, and the 
entire regulation would be put into the ``plain language'' format.
The OTS also plans to revise its conversion regulations (12 CFR 563b) 
and to undertake a regulatory project on exempt multiple holding 
companies claiming unitary status based on acquisitions.
United States Customs Service
The United States Customs Service is responsible, among other things, 
for administering laws concerning the importation of goods into the 
United States. This includes inspecting imports, collecting applicable 
duties, overseeing the activities of persons and businesses engaged in 
importing, and enforcing the laws concerning smuggling and trafficking 
in contraband. The regulatory priorities of Customs for fiscal year 
1999 are to continue to facilitate procedures for legitimate commercial 
transactions and to provide further obstacles to the flow of narcotics 
and other contraband into the United States.
During fiscal year 1998, one of Customs' priorities was to continue the 
reinvention of its regulatory procedures begun under the authority 
granted by the Customs Modernization provisions of the North American 
Free Trade Implementation Act (``Customs Mod Act''). Customs 
reinvention efforts, in accordance with the principles of E.O. 12866, 
have involved and will continue to involve much input from the 
importing public. Two key regulatory packages that are integral to 
implementation of the Customs Mod Act, after consultations with the 
public and proposed rulemakings, were published as final rules during 
the past fiscal year. These packages were a revision of the Customs 
regulations regarding drawback and a revision of the Customs 
regulations regarding the recordkeeping responsibilities of those 
involved with Customs transactions.
During fiscal year 1999, Customs will continue to move forward with 
amendments implementing the Customs Mod Act. Priority will be accorded 
to revising the procedures by which Customs will issue administrative 
rulings answering requests of prospective importers as to how Customs 
will treat their transactions and to revising the regulations 
pertaining to customs brokers.
During the fiscal year 1999, Customs also plans to undertake several 
other regulatory actions that will affect the traveling and importing 
public, customs brokers, carriers, and commercial importers. Customs 
will accord priority

[[Page 61335]]

to several regulatory actions focusing on the development of a more 
automated environment to expedite the entry, processing, and release of 
imported commercial merchandise and the clearance of merchandise for 
export. These regulations will benefit the importing and exporting 
public by streamlining the work of Customs officers and the trade 
community. Among the actions that Customs will pursue in this regard, 
which will improve the efficiency of Customs operations, reduce 
paperwork, and administrative costs are:
 Liquidations. Customs will propose regulations allowing 
            paperless procedures for extension and suspension of 
            liquidation notices, improving and clarifying the 
            administrative process and simplifying the regulations 
            pertaining to liquidations and extensions and suspensions 
            of liquidation.
 Entry Reconciliation. Customs will propose regulations 
            allowing a ``reconciliation'' process that will allow 
            elements of an entry (other than those relating to the 
            admissibility of merchandise) that are undetermined at the 
            time an entry summary or an import activity summary 
            statement is required to be submitted, to be provided to 
            Customs at a later date. A ``reconciliation'' will permit 
            importers to submit information not available at the time 
            of entry that is necessary for the importer and Customs to 
            determine the correct amount of duty on a shipment. The 
            procedure will allow Customs to finalize the duty 
            assessment process by liquidating the underlying entry as 
            to all merchandise covered by the entry, except the 
            merchandise identified by the importers as requiring the 
            submission of additional information.
 Commercial Laboratories. Customs will finalize regulations to 
            provide standards and procedures for accrediting commercial 
            laboratories that will permit them to analyze a wide range 
            of commercial products for Customs purposes. This change 
            will facilitate the release of merchandise because it will 
            enable importers to receive laboratory results earlier.
 Remote Location Filing. Customs will propose regulations 
            allowing electronic filing of entries with Customs from 
            locations in the United States other than the port of 
            arrival of the merchandise or the place at which the 
            merchandise is examined. Remote location filing will 
            provide entry filers (such as brokers and couriers) with 
            greater flexibility and will allow Customs to make more 
            efficient use of its resources.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) issues regulations to 
enforce the Federal laws relating to the manufacture and commerce of 
alcohol products, tobacco products, firearms and explosives.
ATF's regulations carry out these missions and are designed to:
 Curb illegal traffic in, and criminal use of, firearms and to 
            assist State, local, and other Federal law enforcement 
            agencies in reducing crime and violence;
 Facilitate investigations of violations of Federal explosives 
            laws and arson-for-profit schemes;
 Regulate the alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and explosives 
            industries, including the issuance of licenses and permits;
 Assure the collection of all alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and 
            ammunition taxes and obtain a high level of voluntary 
            compliance with all laws governing those industries;
 Suppress commercial bribery, consumer deception, and other 
            prohibited practices in the alcoholic beverage industry;
 Suppress the illicit manufacture, sale, or diversion of 
            alcoholic beverages and tobacco products for which Federal 
            tax has not been paid; and
 Assist the States in their efforts to eliminate interstate 
            trafficking in, and the sale and distribution of, 
            cigarettes in avoidance of State taxes.
ATF has accomplished the majority of its goals under the President's 
regulatory reform initiative. In addition, ATF has reduced the 
administrative burden associated with the current basic permit 
application process for producers, wholesalers, and importers of 
alcohol beverages. A reduced and simplified basic permit application 
form is now in use.
ATF will continue as a top priority during fiscal year 1999 the multi-
faceted regulatory project governing various modifications to its 
regulations governing commerce in explosives. ATF published a general 
notice soliciting public comments on January 10, 1997, and subsequently 
issued an expanded notice of proposed rulemaking that addressed 
additional explosives issues. Analysis of the comments received in 
response to both documents resulted in a final rule that clarified 
explosives terminology, eliminated duplication in licensing, relaxed 
the licensing requirements for on-site manufacturers, and updated the 
hotline number for reporting the theft or loss of explosives. ATF is 
further analyzing its regulations governing storage requirements for 
explosives, including fireworks explosive materials, and plans to issue 
a notice of proposed rulemaking as described in detail in part II of 
this regulatory plan.
Financial Management Service
The Financial Management Service (FMS) issues regulations to improve 
the quality of Government financial management and to administer its 
payment, collections, debt collection, and Governmentwide accounting 
programs. FMS' regulatory priority for fiscal year 1999 is to further 
implement the provisions of the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 
(DCIA). A key provision of the DCIA requires that, effective January 2, 
1999, all Federal payments (other than payments under the Internal 
Revenue Code) must be made using electronic funds transfer (EFT 99). 
Other important provisions of the DCIA pertain to the Federal 
Government's debt collection efforts.
In fiscal year 1999, FMS will assist Federal program agencies in 
implementing the final rule that promulgates the DCIA's EFT 99 
provisions. This rule establishes categories of waivers, provides for a 
low-cost Treasury-designated account to be made available to certain 
recipients, establishes requirements for accounts to which Federal 
payments may be sent by EFT, and sets forth responsibilities of Federal 
agencies and recipients with respect to the EFT mandate.
FMS also will promulgate regulations to implement the DCIA's debt 
collection tools, including the administrative offset of Federal 
payments for the collection of debts owed to Federal agencies and 
States and the collection of past-due child support. FMS' goal for 
fiscal year 1999 is to publish as final rules many of the proposed and 
interim debt collection rules that were published in fiscal year 1998. 
These rules concern, among other issues, the offset of Federal 
payments, including benefit payments and salary payments; the transfer 
of debts to Treasury for collection; and barring delinquent debtors 
from obtaining direct and indirect Federal loan assistance. 
Additionally, FMS, in conjunction with the Department of Justice, will 
finalize the rule concerning the Federal Claims Collection Standards 
that sets forth Governmentwide debt collection standards.

[[Page 61336]]

FMS also plans to publish a final revision to its rule governing the 
Federal Government's participation in the Automated Clearing House 
(ACH), the dominant electronic funds transfer system used by Federal 
agencies. These revisions will provide the basis for broader use of the 
ACH system to meet future payment and collection needs.
The DCIA also provided the Department of the Treasury with new program 
authority concerning claims brought by and against the Federal 
Government in connection with Treasury checks and established a 
permanent and indefinite appropriation for the Check Forgery Insurance 
Fund. FMS plans to revise its rule that governs the processing of 
claims on Treasury checks that are lost or stolen and then paid over 
forged or unauthorized endorsements.
Finally, FMS plans to issue a revised final rule to implement the DCIA 
provisions governing the Treasury Check Offset program, which 
authorizes collection by offset of amounts owed by financial 
institutions to the Federal Government.
Bureau of the Public Debt
The Bureau of the Public Debt (BPD) administers regulations governing 
transactions in Government securities by Government securities brokers 
and dealers and regulations that implement Treasury's borrowing 
authority, including rules governing the sale and issue of marketable 
Treasury securities. In December 1997, BPD assumed responsibility for 
administering the regulatory provisions governing the types and 
valuations of collateral that are acceptable to secure deposits of 
public monies and other financial interests of the Federal Government.
The Government Securities Act of 1986 (GSA) authorizes the Secretary of 
the Treasury to prescribe rules governing financial responsibility, the 
protection of customer funds and securities, recordkeeping, reporting, 
audit, and large position reporting for all Government securities 
brokers and dealers, including financial institutions. These rules 
fulfill the Treasury's statutory responsibility to safeguard the 
efficient functioning of the Government securities market and are 
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices and 
to protect the integrity, efficiency, and liquidity of the market. The 
Department and BPD are committed to implementing rules that make sense 
from both a regulatory and market efficiency perspective. Accordingly, 
the Department and BPD seek to balance the benefits of regulation with 
the compliance costs imposed on the Government securities market and 
its participants.
The rules setting out the terms and conditions for the sale and issue 
by the Department to the public of marketable book-entry Treasury 
bills, notes, and bonds are also known as the uniform offering 
circular. These rules apply to securities held in accounts in the book-
entry system established by the Department and operated by the Federal 
Reserve Banks, known as the Treasury/Reserve Automated Debt Entry 
System, as well as to securities held in accounts directly with 
Treasury in the TREASURY DIRECT system. The uniform offering circular 
describes the types of securities offered for sale, the auction methods 
by which they are sold, the process by which bidders submit bids, the 
process for awarding securities to successful bidders, and the 
authorized payment methods.
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network
The regulations of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) 
constitute the core of Treasury's anti-money laundering initiative and 
an essential component of Treasury's anti-narcotics effort. The Bank 
Secrecy Act (BSA) authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to issue 
regulations requiring financial institutions to keep records and file 
reports that are determined to have a high degree of usefulness in 
criminal, tax, or regulatory proceedings and to implement counter-money 
laundering programs and compliance procedures.
Since mid-1994, FinCEN has been engaged in a thorough review of its 
regulatory policies and has been building a partnership between 
Government and the financial sector to fight money laundering. The 
keystone of that partnership is the recognition that only a cooperative 
relationship between Government and industry can provide a way to 
implement a three-pronged strategy of prevention, detection, and 
enforcement against those who seek to use the financial system to 
promote or further illegal activity. FinCEN recognizes that BSA 
compliance imposes costs on the financial community and that 
recordkeeping and reporting should be required only when the benefits 
to law enforcement efforts are clear.
During fiscal year 1999, FinCEN will continue to review and revise its 
existing regulations. FinCEN will continue to work with the financial 
community to reduce administrative burdens associated with complying 
with the law while enhancing the usefulness of BSA information for law 
enforcement, financial regulators, and policymakers. FinCEN is 
continuing a general revision and simplification of all of its 
regulations and will accord priority to the following projects:
 Money Services Businesses. FinCEN will issue final rules based 
            on three notices of proposed rulemaking issued in May 1997. 
            The first proposed rule, responding to a specific statutory 
            directive, set forth the terms and conditions under which 
            certain non-bank financial institutions--or money services 
            businesses--must register with the Treasury Department. The 
            second would require suspicious transactions reporting by 
            certain money services businesses, and the third would 
            require money transmitters and their agents to report and 
            retain records (and verify customer identity) for currency 
            transactions in amounts between $750 and $10,000 in 
            connection with a transmission or other transfer of funds 
            to a person outside the United States.
 Suspicious Transaction Reports. In addition to the proposed 
            rule noted above, FinCEN will issue a final rule based on a 
            1998 notice of proposed rulemaking requiring the reporting 
            of suspicious transactions by casinos and card clubs, and 
            it will issue a notice of proposed rulemaking requiring the 
            reporting of suspicious transactions by brokers and dealers 
            in securities.
 Special Currency Transaction Reporting. FinCEN will finalize a 
            May 1997 proposed rule to require money transmitters and 
            their agents to report and retain records of currency 
            transactions in amounts between $750 and $10,000 in 
            connection with a transmission or other transfer of funds 
            to a person outside the United States and to verify the 
            identity of the senders of such transmissions or transfers.
 Exemptions from Cash Transaction Reporting (CTR) Requirements. 
            As required by legislation enacted in 1994, FinCEN is 
            seeking to reduce by 30 percent the number of CTRs required 
            to be filed. In September 1997 FinCEN finalized an interim 
            rule that exempts many transactions from the CTR filing 
            requirement and issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to 
            exempt additional transactions. FinCEN will finalize this 
            proposal.
 Foreign Bank Drafts. FinCEN expects to finalize its rulemaking 
            to expand the definition of ``monetary

[[Page 61337]]

            instrument'' to include certain foreign bank drafts for 
            purposes of the reporting of cross-border transportation. 
            This expansion will implement only as much of the broad 
            authority granted by a 1994 amendment to the BSA as FinCEN 
            believes is required to address the issue of the sale of 
            these foreign bank drafts.
 ``Know Your Customer'' and Other Anti-Money Laundering 
            Programs. FinCEN plans to issue proposed regulations to 
            require banks and other financial institutions to implement 
            certain ``Know Your Customer'' and other anti-money 
            laundering programs. These programs are closely related to 
            the requirement to report suspicious transactions.
Community Development Financial Institutions Fund
The Community Development Financial Institutions Fund (Fund) was 
established by the Community Development Banking and Financial 
Institutions Act of 1994 (12 U.S.C. 4701 et seq.). The primary purpose 
of the Fund is to promote economic revitalization and community 
development through investments in and assistance to community 
development financial institutions (CDFIs), principally through the 
CDFI Program. The Fund administers the Bank Enterprise Award (BEA) 
Program, which encourages insured depository institutions to engage in 
certain eligible development activities and to make equity investments 
in CDFIs. The Fund also administers the Presidential Awards for 
Excellence in Microenterprise Development, which recognize outstanding 
microenterprise development and support programs in an effort to 
advance an understanding of ``best practices'' in the field of domestic 
microenterprise development.
The Fund's regulatory priority for fiscal year 1999 is to continue to 
streamline the application and review process for the CDFI and BEA 
programs.
_______________________________________________________________________
TREAS--Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

95. REVISION OF BREWERY REGULATIONS AND ISSUANCE OF REGULATIONS FOR 
TAVERNS ON BREWERY PREMISES (BREWPUBS)
Priority:


Other Significant


Reinventing Government:


This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will 
revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline 
requirements.


Legal Authority:


 26 USC 5051 to 5056; 26 USC 5401 to 5417; 27 USC 205


CFR Citation:


 27 CFR 7; 27 CFR 25


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


ATF intends to streamline regulations applying to breweries. ATF will 
eliminate obsolete regulatory provisions. A formula system for 
manufactured beer products will replace statements of process attached 
to the brewers notice. The annual notice for small brewers to pay 
reduced rate of tax will be eliminated. Separate regulations for 
brewpubs will be added to part 25. A section will be added to part 25 
to authorize and regulate the alternating use of brewery premises by 
different brewers. Regulations authorizing the operation of brew-on-
premises facilities will be added to part 25.


Statement of Need:


ATF intends to streamline its regulations applying to the brewing 
industry. These changes will simplify brewery reports and operations 
and eliminate obsolete regulatory provisions. Specific changes would 
include the implementation of a formula system for the breweries to 
replace the statement of process; the establishment of a separate 
subpart containing simplified regulations for brewpubs; authorizing 
alternating brewery premises among different proprietors; eliminating 
the annual notice to pay reduced rate of tax for most breweries; 
authorizing brewers to file the Brewer's Report of Operations on a 
quarterly basis; and authorizing many brewers to take inventories 
quarterly rather than monthly. The rule will also propose minimum 
production standards for beer thereby reducing formula filings and a 
revised statement of net contents requirement for certain container 
sizes.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


ATF has undertaken this review of brewery regulations as part of the 
President's Regulatory Initiative. These regulations are issued under 
the general authority of the Secretary of the Treasury to promulgate 
regulations to implement the Internal Revenue Code and the Federal 
Alcohol Administration Act.


Alternatives:


Not applicable. ATF believes that industry will support these 
regulatory changes because they will streamline regulatory requirements 
applying to the brewing industry.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The proposed regulations will benefit the brewing industry by reducing 
required inventories, notices, and other submissions to ATF.


Risks:


Not applicable.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           12/00/98
Interim Final Rule                                             12/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Charles N. Bacon
Coordinator
Department of the Treasury
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
650 Massachusetts Avenue NW.
Washington, DC 20226
Phone: 202 927-8230
Fax: 202 927-8602
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 1512-AB37

[[Page 61338]]

_______________________________________________________________________
TREAS--BATF
96. COMMERCE IN EXPLOSIVES (INCLUDING EXPLOSIVES IN THE FIREWORKS 
INDUSTRY)
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


 5 USC 552(a); 18 USC 847; 18 USC 921 to 930; 18 USC 1261; 19 USC 1612 
to 1613; 19 USC 1618; 26 USC 7101; 26 USC 7322 to 7326; 31 USC 9301; 31 
USC 9303 to 9304; 40 USC 304(k)


CFR Citation:


 27 CFR 55


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


Pursuant to section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, ATF 
published a notice on January 10, 1997 seeking public comments on 
whether it should revise its regulations codified at 27 CFR part 55, 
governing Commerce in Explosives (Including Explosives in the Fireworks 
Industry). Based on comments received, ATF plans to initiate a 
rulemaking to revise these regulations in 1998.


Statement of Need:


This notice of proposed rulemaking will address many of the issues in 
part 55 - Commerce in Explosives, especially the issues in requirements 
for explosives, including fireworks explosive materials. Pursuant to 
the periodic review requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 
U.S.C. 610), ATF published on January 10, 1997 a General Notice 
initiating the review of a final rule published in 1990 concerning the 
storage of fireworks explosives materials. The 1990 rule, which was 
issued as a result of the number and severity of explosions occurring 
on the premises of special fireworks plants, amended certain 
regulations codified at 27 CFR part 55, generally concerning the 
recordkeeping and storage of fireworks explosive materials. The 
regulations also codified two fireworks related rulings issued in 1979 
and 1985, and the provisions of Pub. L. 99-308 relating to black 
powder. As a result of the public comments received in response to the 
General Notice and further study of this issue, ATF will issue a notice 
of proposed rulemaking covering this and related commerce and storage 
of explosives issues.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


Section 847 of title 18, United States Code, grants the Secretary of 
the Treasury broad discretion to promulgate regulations necessary for 
the importation, manufacture, distribution and safe storage of 
explosives materials. Section 846 of title 18, United States Code, 
authorizes the Secretary to prescribe precautionary measures to prevent 
the recurrence of accidental explosions in which explosive materials 
were involved. The General Notice and upcoming notice of proposed 
rulemaking are also being issued pursuant to section 610 of the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 610), which requires an agency to 
review within ten years of publication rules for which an agency 
prepared a final regulatory flexibility analysis addressing the impact 
of the rule on small businesses or other small entities.


Alternatives:


Alternatives will be examined in the context of public comments to the 
notice of proposed rulemaking.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Unknown at this time.


Risks:


Not applicable.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
General Notice o62 FR 1386ry Review                            01/10/97
NPRM                                                           12/00/98
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
James Ficaretta
Specialist
Department of the Treasury
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
650 Massachusetts Avenue NW.
Washington, DC 20226
Phone: 202 927-8310
Fax: 202 927-7488
RIN: 1512-AB48
BILLING CODE 4810-25-F

[[Page 61339]]

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS (VA)
Statement of Regulatory Priorities
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is the custodian and 
administrator of important public obligations to those who served this 
Nation. The VA's regulatory responsibility is almost solely confined to 
carrying out the mandates of the laws enacted by Congress relating to 
programs for veterans and their beneficiaries. The VA's major 
regulatory objective is to implement these laws with fairness, justice, 
and efficiency.
Most of the regulations issued by the VA involve three VA components: 
The Veterans Benefits Administration, the Veterans Health 
Administration, and the National Cemetery System. The basic goal of the 
Veterans Benefits Administration is to provide high-quality and timely 
nonmedical benefits to eligible veterans and their beneficiaries. The 
principal goal 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 National Cemetery 
System's primary mission is to bury eligible veterans, members of the 
Reserve components, and their dependents in VA National Cemeteries and 
to maintain those cemeteries as national shrines in perpetuity as a 
final tribute of a grateful Nation to honor the memory and service of 
those who served in the Armed Forces.
BILLING CODE 8320-01-F

[[Page 61340]]

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA)
Statement of Regulatory Priorities
An Era of Opportunity
During the past 28 years, the Nation made great headway in cleaning up 
the air, water, and land. But as the next century approaches, we are 
finding that many problems remaining are more complex than those of the 
past, and they require more sophisticated, tailor-made remedies. EPA 
has begun a wholesale effort to rethink its current public health and 
environmental strategies to better meet the challenges of today and the 
future. And because this effort comes at the same time the President 
and Vice President are calling for a Government that works better and 
costs less, EPA has had an unprecedented opportunity to develop tough, 
new protections that not only solve today's difficult problems but do 
so in cheaper and smarter ways.
Building a Better System
EPA's efforts to develop a system that works better and costs less are 
focused on five areas: Greater public access to information; more 
regulatory flexibility to obtain better results; stronger partnerships 
with States and industries; more compliance assistance; and less 
paperwork and red tape. We are pursuing this through every possible 
venue, internally and externally, and we can already see results.
Internally, EPA has streamlined its management, restructured programs, 
and given EPA employees broader responsibilities. For example, 
enforcers are emphasizing compliance assistance, permitters are paying 
more attention to pollution prevention and market mechanisms, and rule 
writers are developing public health and environmental protections that 
include alternatives proposed by regulated entities. These are 
innovative alternatives that are less costly but which still meet 
environmental and public health protection goals.
Externally, EPA is bringing together stakeholders from businesses, 
State and local governments, tribal governments, and labor and public 
interest groups so that all interested parties can participate in the 
design of innovative, less costly approaches to environmental and 
public health protection. This stakeholder involvement increases 
flexibility, promotes local stewardship, and helps establish and 
strengthen partnerships between the public and private sectors--all 
without sacrificing environmental or public health protection. And as 
compliance with today's environmental laws comes to be regarded as a 
``floor to maintain'' rather than a ``ceiling to be reached,'' EPA is 
offering flexibility that encourages facilities to go beyond the 
minimum baseline requirements and continuously improve environmental 
performance.
As EPA develops this new regulatory system, it will increase its focus 
on protecting the health of children, taking into account their unique 
characteristics and vulnerabilities. EPA has developed Agency guidance 
for carrying out President Clinton's Executive Order 13045 ``Protection 
of Children from Environmental Health and Safety Risks.'' This guidance 
will result in an evaluation of children's environmental health for 
economically significant regulations. Further, following an inclusive 
public process, the Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee 
(established under the Federal Advisory Committee Act), EPA has 
recommended to the Administrator five existing regulations for 
reevaluation to ensure that they sufficiently protect children's 
health.
Providing Greater Public Access to Information
With more than a million hits every business day on our Internet site, 
EPA has seen public demand for environmental information expand 
exponentially. In response, the Agency has used rulemaking as well as 
nonregulatory approaches to develop new information programs and tools. 
Through rulemaking, EPA has expanded the Toxic Release Inventory to 
include information on seven additional industry sectors--as a result, 
this year, 6,400 more facilities are reporting on toxic chemical 
releases in their communities. Another recent EPA rule requires 
realtors and landlords to give home buyers and renters information on 
lead hazards before they move into a home. The Agency has also proposed 
a rule that will require water suppliers to provide specific 
information--consumer confidence reports--to their customers at least 
once a year on the quality of their drinking water, thereby empowering 
consumers to make important health decisions for themselves and their 
families.
This past spring, Vice President Gore announced the Chemical Right-to-
Know Initiative in response to the finding that most commercial 
chemicals have very little, if any, toxicity information on which 
governments and the public can make sound judgments about potential 
risks. This Initiative will rely on a combination of partnership 
programs and rule-writing to accomplish its goals.
In early August, EPA publicly launched its new online Center for 
Environmental Information and Statistics (CEIS), which gives users a 
single, convenient source of reliable, comprehensive information on 
environmental quality, status, and trends in their community. For the 
first time ever, users can request environmental profiles on air 
quality, drinking water systems, surface water quality, hazardous 
waste, and reported toxic releases--just by typing in a zip code or 
clicking on a State or county. These profiles are based on data from 
national reports EPA prepares under Federal environmental laws.
In 1996, President Clinton directed EPA to create a new program to 
bring up-to-date environmental information to people in ways they could 
understand and use every day. Through an EPA program called 
Environmental Monitoring for Public Access and Community Tracking--
EMPACT--Americans will be able to get ``real-time'' answers to 
questions about environmental quality in 86 large metropolitan areas. 
EPA has already launched a number of EMPACT pilots, including AIRNOW 
and BEACH Watch Internet sites, which provide real-time information; 
EMPACT will be fully operative by the year 2001.
More Regulatory Flexibility
In an effort to obtain better results, EPA is also giving businesses 
and communities more flexibility with how they fulfill their public 
health and environmental protection responsibilities. For example, a 
new rule for the pulp and paper industry--the Agency's first-ever 
integrated, multi-media rulemaking--allows companies to delay 
compliance with new water-pollution control requirements if they commit 
to going beyond compliance and installing more advanced technologies. 
In a similar vein, EPA will offer increased regulatory flexibility to 
the synthetic organic chemical industry through a proposed rule, 
forthcoming late this summer, that will consolidate and simplify 16 
existing rules.
Through an experimental program called Project XL, EPA encourages 
companies to receive flexibility to use alternative regulatory 
strategies if they agree to go beyond compliance--and involve 
stakeholders along the way.

[[Page 61341]]

Stronger Partnerships with States and Industry
EPA recognizes that a new and improved system of environmental 
protection must include stronger partnerships between the public and 
private sectors and between the States and the Federal Government. It 
would also include a greater role for citizens in local, community-
based decisionmaking. The Agency has taken several steps to improve 
these relationships and involve citizens. For example, the Agency 
offers Brownfields grants and Sustainable Development Challenge grants 
that give communities the resources necessary to clean up 
contamination, especially from abandoned industrial sites, and to 
restore environmental quality and provide environmentally sound 
economic opportunities. In addition, by providing better public access 
to environmental data, as discussed above, EPA is working to empower 
citizens so that they can be informed participants in environmental 
decisionmaking processes at national, State, or local levels.
EPA and the States are reinventing their working relationship to 
strengthen management of the Nation's environmental programs. Under the 
National Environmental Performance Partnership System (NEPPS), EPA has 
negotiated agreements with 32 States. NEPPS is designed to give States 
greater flexibility to direct resources where they are needed most, 
based on environmental conditions and program needs, and to tailor 
EPA's oversight and technical assistance to each State's particular 
situation. As part of the partnership effort, EPA and States are 
collaborating in the development of core performance measures that 
should strengthen EPA's ability to measure environmental progress over 
the long term. The core measures include a mix of activity and 
environmental measures and will be refined over time, particularly to 
increase the focus on environmental results as environmental indicators 
become more available. In another move to strengthen State/EPA 
partnerships, in March 1998, EPA and the States approved a formal 
agreement on how to manage testing of innovative environmental 
management strategies within the current regulatory framework.
To strengthen the relationship between the private and public sectors, 
EPA now is consulting with regulated industries earlier in its rule 
development processes. EPA sometimes employs formal consensus-based 
rulemaking, such as regulatory negotiations. More frequently, however, 
the Agency depends on informal outreach to potentially affected 
parties. The Agency has paid particular attention to its relationship 
with small businesses and, in fact, EPA has long been prominent among 
Federal agencies in its outreach to these small entities. The Agency 
not only rigorously carries out the Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA) and the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (RFA), but it also uses its Small Business Ombudsman 
and its Office of State and Local Relationships to reach out to small 
entities.
More Compliance Assistance
Once EPA establishes public health and environmental protection rules, 
the Agency must ensure that businesses and others can understand and 
comply with them. This is particularly important for small businesses 
and communities that have limited staff and resources. To help these 
small entities, EPA is taking several steps. First, the Agency is 
establishing compliance assistance centers to serve as direct, readily 
available sources of information on the latest regulatory requirements 
for small businesses. EPA has established five centers for five 
sectors: Printed wiring board manufacturing, auto service and repair, 
printing, agriculture, and metal finishing. Before the year is over, 
centers for another four sectors will have opened: Transportation, 
local government, chemical manufacturing, and paints and coatings.
EPA is also offering to reduce or eliminate penalties for violations if 
small businesses establish programs to detect, publicly disclose, and 
fix problems--if the violation does not involve criminal activity or a 
serious risk to public health or the environment. Besides making life 
easier for businesses and other regulated facilities, these steps can 
help prevent pollution and lessen the burden and expense of cleanup. As 
of June 1998, 247 companies had voluntarily disclosed violations at 
more than 760 facilities.
Streamlining Regulatory and Paperwork Burdens
The Agency continues to examine existing environmental regulations and 
paperwork to simplify and streamline compliance for the regulated 
community. This is consistent with the President's announcement in 
February l995 that all Federal agencies must conduct line-by-line 
reviews of their regulations and eliminate those that are obsolete or 
redundant. EPA has already made changes to more than 70 percent of its 
regulations and eliminated approximately 1,400 pages of obsolete rules 
from the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), some 10 percent of EPA's 
total CFR regulations. In March 1995, EPA set a goal of reducing by 25 
percent paperwork burden associated with requirements in effect on 
January 1, 1995. By September 30, 1995, EPA had achieved six million 
hours in reductions from this baseline. Following reauthorization of 
the Paperwork Reduction Act starting in October 1995, EPA revised its 
goal while reaffirming its commitment to the reduction of paperwork 
burdens. In the Information Streamlining Plan of April 1997, EPA 
projected an additional 26 million hours of reductions during the 3-
year period from October 1, 1995, through September 30, 1998, and EPA 
is on target to meet this goal. Reductions during this period will be 
offset by the addition of approximately 30 million burden hours from 
new regulations and upward revisions of previous burden estimates. More 
than two-thirds of this offset is due to strengthening of the community 
right-to-know initiative.
EPA is creating several opportunities for regulatory and paperwork 
streamlining. For example, under the umbrella of its Reinventing 
Environmental Information (REI) initiative, the Agency is working in 
partnership with the States to develop a ``one-stop'' environmental 
reporting system that will allow facilities to submit required 
environmental permitting and compliance data on-line. This can save 
businesses and other regulated facilities time and money, help bring 
about quicker decisions on permitting and compliance actions, improve 
data accuracy, and create better access to information for the public.
In the area of clean water regulation, an innovative streamlining 
policy allows facilities to significantly cut routine water quality 
monitoring and reporting, as long as they achieve and maintain strong 
compliance records. In pesticide regulation, a new self-certification 
procedure allows pesticide registrants to make limited changes to their 
product registration with a simple notification to the Agency rather 
than filing an application for a formal amendment to registration.
Highlights of EPA's Regulatory Plan for 1998
EPA's regulatory plan for 1998 reflects the Agency's continuing 
commitment to create new environmental protection strategies that 
better protect public

[[Page 61342]]

health and the environment at lower cost. Here are some of the 
highlights from each program office:
Office of Air and Radiation Highlights
EPA is committed to taking advantage of the flexibility granted by the 
Clean Air Act that enables companies, States, and communities to meet 
clean air goals with innovative, low-cost approaches. The Office of Air 
and Radiation continues to reinvent major existing rules and 
regulations and is drafting future rules to reflect the common-sense 
principles of the reinvention effort. Here are a few examples:
 EPA recently established more stringent air quality standards 
            for ozone and particulate matter based on new scientific 
            and technical information. While the new standards offer 
            increased protection for public health and the environment, 
            EPA is also pursuing an implementation strategy that gives 
            States and industry flexibility with which they can meet 
            these air quality goals. The implementation strategy:

- Respects agreements already reached by communities and businesses and 
does not disrupt current progress toward improving air quality;

- Recognizes the need to adopt regional approaches toward addressing air 
pollution and finds that the most cost-effective mechanism for doing so is 
an emissions trading plan for utilities;

- Gives areas that adopt these regional control measures a ``transitional'' 
status and allows EPA to devise an approach that eliminates unnecessarily 
burdensome planning and pollution reduction requirements;

- Provides ample time for developing cost-effective control plans and for 
compliance.

 EPA, building on successful State programs, has been working 
            with stakeholders to develop a more streamlined way for 
            facilities to get operating permit updates from State or 
            local agencies. Depending on the environmental significance 
            of the change, States would have greater flexibility to 
            decide the appropriate amount of EPA and public review for 
            most permit revisions. An example of this new approach is 
            the issuance this July of a final rule significantly 
            reducing emissions of air toxics from the pharmaceutical 
            production industry. In this industry, companies frequently 
            change their operations as their products change. In order 
            to avoid costly, time-consuming revision of air pollution 
            permits every time a plant changes its production process, 
            the facility will be allowed to choose from a menu of 
            permit options already pre-approved by the permitting 
            authority and reviewed by EPA and the public.
 EPA will continue its program to reduce emissions of nitrogen 
            oxides, hydrocarbons, and particulate matter from engines 
            that power both highway and ``off-highway vehicles'' 
            (called ``nonroad'' engines). A landmark rule on highway 
            engines was issued in final form last November, and a 
            related final rule covering nonroad engines will be 
            released this fall. The Agency brought together potentially 
            affected industries, States, regional air management 
            organizations, and public health and environmental interest 
            groups to participate in the development of these rules. 
            This outreach effort included the conducting of a small-
            business panel review of the nonroad proposal under the 
            Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
            (SBREFA), which yielded a number of recommendations for 
            burden relief, which EPA accepted and incorporated into the 
            proposal.
 The Agency has proposed changes to simplify and streamline the 
            New Source Review Program, which requires newly built 
            facilities or those undergoing major modification to obtain 
            a permit to ensure that emissions will not cause or 
            contribute to air pollution problems.
 From discussions with affected industries, EPA has learned 
            that many companies find it difficult to know what we 
            expect of them given the growing complexity of the 
            regulatory system during the last 25 years. In many cases, 
            regulations may be duplicative, overlapping, or 
            inconsistent, especially in the areas of monitoring, 
            recordkeeping, and reporting. In response to these 
            problems, EPA will propose a rule intended to consolidate 
            and synchronize all Federal air regulations that apply to 
            the synthetic organic chemical manufacturing industry. If 
            this pilot program proves successful, we will expand it to 
            cover other industries.
Office of Water Highlights
 In February 1998, a team of nine Federal agencies released the 
            Clean Water Action Plan in response to direction from the 
            President and Vice President to revitalize the work that 
            had started in 1972 with the passage of the original Clean 
            Water Act. The Clean Water Action Plan was conceived as an 
            innovative way to focus many existing Federal programs on 
            the most important remaining problems affecting our water 
            resources. The main theme behind the Plan is to coordinate 
            the activities of nine key Federal agencies to better 
            support; provide technical, educational, and financial 
            assistance; and participate in locally led watershed 
            restoration and protection efforts. The plan contains more 
            than 100 action items that focus efforts on:

- Assessing the health of all watersheds and establishing restoration 
priorities,

- Reducing public health threats from fish and shellfish, beaches, and 
drinking water sources,

- Improving private and public stewardship of natural resources,

- Strengthening polluted runoff controls,

- Restoring and protecting wetlands and coastal waters, and

- Making water quality information more accessible to the public.

In addition, the Plan seeks to better coordinate our watershed 
restoration and preservation efforts with our efforts to provide safe 
drinking water to all Americans.
 On August 6, 1996, President Clinton signed the Safe Drinking 
            Water Act Amendments of 1996. The amendments are bringing 
            substantial changes to the national drinking water program 
            for EPA, States, and water utilities and will provide 
            greater protection and information for the 240 million 
            Americans served by public water systems. To carry out the 
            1996 amendments EPA is: Working with stakeholders to 
            develop a new program to protect water sources; helping the 
            States implement a billion-dollar drinking water State 
            revolving fund; and developing regulations that will 
            protect human health by ensuring the chemical integrity of 
            drinking water and notifying the public when that integrity 
            may be compromised. Below are several regulatory actions 
            required by the 1996 amendments:

- Disinfectant/Disinfection By-Products Rule and the Interim Enhanced 
Surface Water Treatment Rule together address the tradeoffs between 
pathogens and disinfection byproducts.

- The Ground Water Rule will establish a framework to identify public water 
systems that use only ground water sources and are vulnerable to microbial 
contamination. This rule will also

[[Page 61343]]

develop risk control strategies for these water systems that will include 
but not be limited to disinfection.

- The National Primary Drinking Water Rule for Radon will reduce the risk 
of radon to public health, both from ingestion via drinking water and 
inhalation of radon discharged through normal household water use, such as 
showering. This rule will also address additional requirements of the 1996 
Amendments that require EPA to withdraw our 1991 proposal and to include 
work with the National Academy of Sciences to do an assessment of risk and 
an assessment of health risk reduction benefits associated with various 
mitigation methods of reducing radon in indoor air. It would also require 
EPA to develop an alternative maximum contaminant level (MCL) in certain 
cases.

- Revisions to the Public Water System Public Notification Regulation will 
tailor the frequency and content of public notices about lapses in drinking 
water integrity to the relative risks to public health. This will teach 
consumers, at their option, to make timely choices about the risk to them 
from drinking water.

 To provide more regulatory flexibility, EPA is streamlining 
            two of its water-related programs: National Pollutant 
            Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits and the 
            pretreatment program. The following are highlights of 
            efforts underway.

- In the NPDES permits program (part 122), EPA is removing outdated 
requirements; streamlining permit application, modification, and appeal 
procedures; and reducing monitoring and reporting requirements. For 
example, EPA continues to consolidate and revise industrial and municipal 
permit application forms and streamline the application process.

- Through proposed changes to the existing regulations (proposal planned 
for fall 1998), EPA will streamline various provisions of the General 
Pretreatment Regulations for Existing and New Sources of Pollution codified 
at 40 CFR part 403 to improve the regulatory programs' effectiveness while 
maintaining or improving the programs' focus on protection of public health 
and the environment. The goal of this initiative is to provide greater 
flexibility, reduce burden, and achieve greater environmental results at 
less cost. To this end, EPA is committed to streamlining the National 
Pretreatment Program to reduce the burden of technical and administrative 
requirements that affect industrial users and Publicly Owned Treatment Work 
(POTW) and State Control Authorities. In addition to this streamlining 
effort, EPA recently published a Federal Register notice (June 23, 1998; 63 
FR 34170) requesting proposals from POTWs interested in implementing 
alternative local pretreatment programs. EPA is not proposing a change to 
the regulations at this time. Instead, in response to the findings of 
stakeholder studies regarding measures of performance, EPA is requesting 
POTWs interested in carrying out environmental performance-based programs 
to submit Project XL proposals explaining how they would change their 
pretreatment program.

Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances Highlights
 EPA will continue to improve the public's right to know about 
            toxic chemicals in their community through the Toxic 
            Release Inventory (TRI) program of the Emergency Planning 
            and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA). The TRI is a data 
            base that gives communities information on releases to air, 
            water, and land for approximately 600 toxic chemicals and 
            on other waste management activities for these chemicals, 
            such as treatment and recycling. Armed with this 
            information, communities can better understand the nature 
            of toxic releases at the local level, assess risk, and 
            decide local priorities. The Chemical Right-to-Know 
            Initiative has three key components, each of which EPA is 
            implementing rapidly. These are: Baseline toxicity testing 
            for 3,000 widely used commercial chemicals; additional 
            health effects testing for chemicals to which children are 
            disproportionately exposed; and the listing and lowering of 
            reporting thresholds for persistent, bioaccumulative, toxic 
            chemicals reported to TRI.
 For chemicals that are highly toxic at very low dose levels, 
            persist for extended periods in the environment, and/or 
            bioaccumulate through the food chain, EPA is evaluating 
            under TRI whether to lower the reporting threshold amount--
            the amount of a chemical a facility uses, manufactures, or 
            processes before it must report releases. In addition, EPA 
            is working with stakeholders to simplify the chemical 
            reporting forms to make them less burdensome for regulated 
            entities. The Agency is also simplifying its annual reports 
            to make them easier to understand.
 The Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA), signed into law on 
            August 3, 1996, overhauls U.S. pesticide laws to regulate 
            pesticides on foods and better protect children. EPA is 
            engaged in an intensive implementation effort, including 
            developing new regulations, guidance, and programs. One 
            such effort is the Endocrine Disruptor Screening and 
            Testing Program. EPA established an advisory committee to 
            consider human health and ecological effects; estrogenic, 
            androgenic, anti-estrogenic, anti-androgenic, and thyroid 
            effects of pesticides, industrial chemicals, and drinking 
            water contaminants. Another is the Pesticide Tolerance 
            Reassessment Program that looks at aggregate and cumulative 
            exposures to pesticides and emphasizes the protection of 
            infants and children.
 Childhood lead poisoning is a pervasive problem, with almost a 
            million young children with more than 10 ug/dl of lead, 
            which is the Center for Disease Control's level of concern, 
            in their blood. Elevated blood-lead levels can lead to 
            reduced intelligence and neuro-behavioral problems in young 
            children, and can cause other health problems in children 
            and adults. EPA is working on a final regulation to replace 
            the existing interim guidance that identifies lead-based 
            paint, lead-contaminated dust, and lead-contaminated soil 
            hazards. We are also working on rules to address lead risks 
            from renovation and remodeling activities and to address 
            the disposal of lead-based paint debris.
 Currently, we require chemical manufacturers to report the 
            names of the chemicals they produce, the quantity produced, 
            and the locations of manufacturing facilities. EPA plans to 
            propose expanding the TSCA Inventory to include information 
            on public exposure to the chemicals and how the chemicals 
            are used (e.g., in manufacturing processes). This allows 
            EPA and others to identify chemicals of highest concern so 
            that the Agency can set goals for chemical assessment, risk 
            management, and prevention programs. The action will also 
            encourage pollution prevention by identifying safer 
            chemical substitutes.

[[Page 61344]]

 EPA is working on proposals to clarify and reduce the burden 
            of the Asbestos-Containing Materials Rules and to harmonize 
            them with the Occupational Safety and Health 
            Administration's asbestos rules.
 Because certain pesticides have high groundwater contamination 
            potential, EPA is considering a requirement for EPA-
            approved Pesticide Management Plans (PMP) for these 
            pesticides. A PMP is a State's or Tribe's commitment to EPA 
            and the public to manage the use of a certain pesticide in 
            a way that avoids unreasonable risks to groundwater that 
            would otherwise warrant cancellation of the use.
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Highlights
The Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) is planning to 
propose a number of actions to streamline and simplify compliance under 
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Federal law 
governing hazardous waste management. As part of its effort to refocus 
hazardous waste regulation on high-risk wastes, EPA is undertaking a 
number of actions to tailor standards to the nature or degree of risk 
posed by particular wastes. One example of this is the development of 
management standards for cement kiln dust. The proposed standards for 
this large volume waste will be tailored to protect public health and 
the environment while imposing minimal burden on the regulated 
community.
 EPA is streamlining the regulation of listed hazardous waste. 
            Certain regulations are overly broad in that they apply 
            regardless of the concentrations of the listed wastes or 
            the mobility of the toxicant in the waste. As a result, 
            they regulate certain low-risk wastes (in particular, 
            treatment residuals) as if they posed high risk. EPA's 
            common-sense approach would exempt these low-risk wastes 
            from the full management requirements designed for high-
            risk hazardous wastes.
 EPA also plans to establish new emissions standards for 
            hazardous waste combustors under joint Clean Air Act and 
            RCRA authority. These revised standards will avoid 
            duplicative Agency effort and piecemeal regulation of the 
            hazardous waste management industry while protecting public 
            health and the environment from chlorinated dioxins, 
            mercury, and other hazardous air pollutants.
 The Agency is revising the RCRA Hazardous Waste Manifest 
            system because of how much paperwork burden is associated 
            with the manifest. Reduction in paperwork burden is part of 
            the Administration's Regulatory Reinvention goal of cutting 
            Government ``red tape.'' The Agency wants to standardize 
            the manifest program across the States by introducing a 
            truly uniform manifest tracking form. The chief goal of the 
            manifest system is to facilitate the safe transportation of 
            offsite shipments of hazardous waste to appropriate RCRA 
            management facilities.
 EPA is considering regulatory changes to the RCRA hazardous 
            waste storage and disposal requirements for low-level mixed 
            waste (LLMW). EPA will determine whether the disposal of 
            LLMW in facilities designed to address radiological 
            hazards, which are licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory 
            Commission (NRC) (but are not self-regulated), will provide 
            adequate protection of human health and the environment 
            with respect to chemical hazards.
 Over the past 2 years, the Agency has worked with stakeholders 
            from State agencies, industry, and the environmental 
            community to develop recommendations to improve the 
            Agency's permitting programs. These stakeholders concluded 
            that permitting activities should be commensurate with the 
            complexity of the activity and that permit programs should 
            be flexible enough to allow streamlined procedures for 
            routine permitting activities. The stakeholders recommended 
            that regulations be developed to allow ``standardized 
            permits'' for on-site storage and non-thermal treatment of 
            hazardous waste in tanks, containers, and containment 
            buildings. As a result of this recommendation, the Agency 
            is proposing to revise the RCRA regulations to allow this 
            type of permit.
Office of Administration and Resources Management Highlights
 In 1995, EPA and States agreed to develop and carry out the 
            National Environmental Performance Partnership System 
            (NEPPS) to: Promote joint planning and priority setting by 
            EPA and the States; give States greater flexibility to 
            direct resources where they need them most; foster use of 
            integrated and innovative strategies for solving water, 
            air, and waste problems; achieve a better balance in the 
            use of environmental indicators and traditional activity 
            measures for managing programs; and improve public 
            understanding of environmental conditions and the 
            strategies being used to address them.
 The Agency is working to change our grant rules to promote 
            State-EPA collaboration, provide opportunities for 
            innovation and reduce paperwork while ensuring sound fiscal 
            management and accountability for environmental performance 
            consistent with NEPPS. These changes will help build more 
            effective State-EPA partnerships and improve environmental 
            conditions by giving States increased flexibility to direct 
            resources where they need them most to address 
            environmental and public health needs.
 We are also developing a Performance Partnership Grant Rule 
            for Indian Tribes. This program would provide more 
            flexibility to Tribes to spend their resources on their top 
            priorities and to achieve administrative savings. It would 
            accomplish this by letting Tribes apply for and administer 
            one environmental program grant instead of many separate 
            grants.
Summary
In developing all of these actions, EPA is committed to flexible, cost-
effective regulatory programs that offer increased protections for 
public health and the environment. EPA welcomes suggestions from the 
public to help the Agency in this effort.
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA

                              -----------

                             PRERULE STAGE

                              -----------

97. HAZARDOUS WASTE STORAGE AND DISPOSAL REGULATION RELATED TO LOW 
LEVEL MIXED WASTE; PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS
Priority:


Other Significant


Reinventing Government:


This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will 
revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline 
requirements.


Legal Authority:


 42 USC 6905; 42 USC 6912(a); 42 USC 6921; 42 USC 6922; 42 USC 6924; 42 
USC 6926


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 261.4; 40 CFR 262.34

[[Page 61345]]

Legal Deadline:


NPRM, Judicial, October 31, 1999.


Abstract:


EPA is considering a regulatory exemption from the RCRA hazardous waste 
disposal requirements for low level mixed waste (LLMW). EPA will 
determine whether the disposal of LLMW in facilities designed to 
address radiological hazards which are licensed by the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission (NRC) will provide adequate protection of human 
health and the environment with respect to chemical hazards. If the 
Agency decides that such disposal is protective, EPA will propose that 
for the purposes of disposal these wastes be conditionally exempted 
from the RCRA subtitle C disposal requirements. EPA is formulating the 
scope and form of the exemption, and will propose the action in the 
regulatory proposal.
Commercial LLMW is regulated under multiple authorities: by RCRA, as 
implemented by EPA or authorized States for chemically hazardous 
constituents, and by the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) for radiological 
constituents of mixed waste, as implemented by either NRC or its 
agreement States. Commercial mixed waste generators, particularly 
nuclear power plants, have raised the concern that AEA and RCRA 
requirements for mixed waste overlap, and are potentially inconsistent, 
costly, and unnecessary. Nuclear power plants contend that NRC 
regulations covering design, licensing and operation of low level 
radioactive waste disposal facilities offer human health and 
environmental protection similar to that required by EPA requirements 
governing chemical hazards under RCRA regulations. Furthermore, there 
is a serious shortage of disposal capacity for LLMW. The waste 
acceptance criteria of the very few facilities having both a RCRA 
permit and an NRC license severely limit the activity levels of 
radionuclides they can dispose. EPA is also considering alternatives to 
current EPA regulations applicable to mixed waste storage. NRC 
regulations also apply to storage of commercial mixed waste. Current 
RCRA regulation prohibits indefinite storage of waste containing 
hazardous constituents, despite the lack of treatment technology or 
disposal capacity for some mixed wastes. Through this rulemaking 
action, EPA seeks to explore regulatory alternatives that could provide 
regulatory relief for LLMW from hazardous waste storage requirements 
while waste is subject to NRC regulations and licensing conditions.


Statement of Need:


An Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) is needed to gather 
both preliminary comments to EPA's approach for regulatory relief using 
contingent management, and also voluntary data to be used in the 
regulatory impact assessment. The Proposed Rulemaking is needed due to: 
the lack of mixed waste treatment and disposal facilities nationwide; 
industry concerns regarding the potential for duplication under EPA and 
NRC regulatory requirements; and follow through on comments relating to 
mixed waste management received from industry on the Hazardous Waste 
Identification Rule proposal of December 1995, and the mixed waste 
storage guidance of August 1995.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


The Proposed Rulemaking is required by the settlement agreement reached 
with the Edison Electric Institute, and other litigants and 
intervenors, in April 1997.


Alternatives:


EPA is considering a number of alternatives including 1) use of 
Hazardous Waste Identification Rule (HWIR) health based exit levels for 
chemical constituents in conjunction with NRC disposal requirements; 2) 
applicability of HWIR exit concentration levels and associated 
requirements for chemical constituents; 3) conditional exemption for 
stored mixed waste subject to NRC regulatory requirements; and 4) 
allowing storage-for-decay as provided by NRC for some mixed wastes to 
limit worker exposure to radionuclides.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Cost-benefit information is not available; it will be developed as part 
of the economic analysis for the proposed rulemaking.


Risks:


This rule would maintain current levels of risk protection for 
alternatives 1 through 3. For alternative 4, there would be a reduction 
in risk due to reduced exposure of workers to radionuclides mixed with 
hazardous wastes.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM                                                          11/00/98
NPRM                                                           10/00/99
Final                                                          04/00/01
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


State, Federal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 4017


Agency Contact:
Rajani Joglekar
Environmental Protection Agency
Solid Waste and Emergency Response
5304W
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 703 308-8806
Fax: 703 308-7903
Email: [email protected]
  
Nancy Hunt
Environmental Protection Agency
Solid Waste and Emergency Response
5303W
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 703 308-8762
Fax: 703 308-8638
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2050-AE45
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

98. REVISION TO 40 CFR 35 SUBPART A AND PROMULGATION OF PERFORMANCE 
PARTNERSHIP (STATE) GRANT REGULATION
Priority:


Other Significant


Reinventing Government:


This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will 
revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline 
requirements.


Legal Authority:


 PL 104-134; PL 105-65


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 35


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This proposed regulation: (1) updates, clarifies, and streamlines 
requirements governing environmental program grants; (2) establishes 
requirements for the new Performance Partnership Grant (PPG) program; 
and (3) establishes

[[Page 61346]]

requirements for grant programs that began after the original rule was 
published. (A regulation governing environmental program grants to 
Indian tribes and tribal consortia is published elsewhere in this issue 
of the Federal Register.)


Statement of Need:


Since EPA was formed in 1970, State capacity and responsibility for 
implementing environmental and public health protection programs has 
grown steadily. Until 1996, State and interstate agencies could receive 
EPA assistance in carrying out their environmental programs only 
through a variety of categorical environmental grants, such as grants 
for water pollution control, air pollution control, and hazardous 
substance control. Meanwhile, environmental problems and their 
solutions have grown more complex and solutions to these complex 
problems often crossed EPA program lines. In light of this complexity, 
State and EPA leaders recognized that continued environmental progress 
could be best achieved if EPA and States worked together more 
effectively as partners and environmental programs were made more 
flexible in terms of their coverage.
In response, EPA asked Congress for new authority that would provide 
that needed flexibility. In 1996, Congress authorized the award of 
Performance Partnership Grants (PPGs), in which State and interstate 
agencies can choose to combine two or more environmental program 
grants.
This proposed rule will implement the PPG program which promotes State-
EPA collaboration; provides opportunities for innovation; and reduces 
paperwork. EPA expects the rule will foster joint planning and 
priority-setting by explicitly requiring that State priorities and 
needs be considered, along with national and Regional guidance, in 
negotiating grant work plans, consistent with the National 
Environmental Performance Partnership System (NEPPS). Under this rule, 
a State can choose to organize its grant work plans in accord with 
environmental goals and objectives or in other new ways rather than 
using categories pre-defined by EPA. The length of a grant budget 
period will be negotiable. These opportunities afforded by the PPG 
program and this rule are available to all States.
This rule accommodates all potential variations in how EPA and 
individual States work to build partnerships. The rule also minimizes 
duplicative effort by allowing for multiple uses of information or 
processes wherever appropriate. The regulation advances ongoing efforts 
to build more effective State-EPA partnerships and to improve 
environmental conditions by providing States with increased flexibility 
to direct resources where they are needed most to address environmental 
and public health needs.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


Not required by law or court order.


Alternatives:


EPA can continue to award PPGs under guidance prepared by the agency 
and announced in the Federal Register.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The rule does not result in any new costs. It is expected to allow cost 
and administrative savings for States by reducing the amount of grant 
paperwork and by simplifying accounting requirements that do not 
require recipients to account for expenditures in accordance with their 
original funding sources. With PPGs, recipients can negotiate work 
plans with EPA that direct Federal funds where the recipients need them 
most to address environmental and public health problems. Recipients 
can also try new multi-media approaches and initiatives, such as 
children's health protection programs, multi-media inspections, 
compliance assistance programs, and ecosystem management, that were 
difficult to fund under traditional categorical grants.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           01/00/99
Final Rule                                                     04/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


Governmental Jurisdictions, Organizations


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local, Federal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 3736


Agency Contact:
Scott McMoran
Environmental Protection Agency
Administration and Resources Management
3903R
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 564-5376
RIN: 2030-AA55
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
99. REVISION TO 40 CFR 35 SUBPART A AND PROMULGATION OF PERFORMANCE 
PARTNERSHIP (TRIBAL) GRANT RULE
Priority:


Other Significant


Reinventing Government:


This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will 
revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline 
requirements.


Legal Authority:


 PL 104-134; PL 105-65


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 35


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This proposed regulation will: (1) update, clarify, and streamline 
requirements governing environmental program grants; (2) establish 
requirements for the new Performance Partnership Grant (PPG) program; 
and (3) establish requirements for grant programs that were developed 
after the original rule was published. (EPA is also issuing a 
regulation governing environmental program grants to State and 
Interstate agencies.)


Statement of Need:


This regulation provides a tribal-specific subpart which is intended to 
be easy to use; optimizes the administration of tribal assistance 
programs through increased flexibility; and removes procedural 
impediments to effective environmental programs for Indian tribes.
Since EPA was formed in 1970, tribal capacity and responsibility for 
implementing environmental and public health protection programs has 
grown steadily. Until 1996, tribes and Intertribal Consortia could 
receive EPA assistance in carrying out their environmental programs 
only through a

[[Page 61347]]

variety of categorical environmental grants, such as grants for water 
pollution control, air pollution control, and safe drinking water. 
During that time, environmental problems and their solutions grew more 
complex and solutions to those complex problems often crossed EPA 
program lines. In light of this complexity, tribal and EPA leaders 
recognized that continued environmental progress could be best achieved 
if EPA and the tribes worked together more effectively as partners and 
environmental programs were made more flexible in terms of their 
coverage.
In response, EPA asked Congress for new authority that would provide 
that needed flexibility. In 1996, Congress authorized the award of 
Performance Partnership Grants (PPGs), in which tribes and Intertribal 
Consortia can choose to combine two or more environmental program 
grants.
This proposed rule will implement the PPG program which promotes 
tribal-EPA collaboration; provides opportunities for innovation; and 
reduces paperwork. EPA expects the rule will foster joint planning and 
priority-setting by explicitly requiring that tribal priorities and 
needs be considered, along with national and regional guidance, in 
negotiating grant work plans, consistent with the National 
Environmental Performance Partnership System (NEPPS). Under this rule, 
a tribe can choose to organize its grant work plans in accord with 
environmental goals and objectives or in other new ways rather than 
using categories pre-defined by EPA. The length of a grant budget 
period will be negotiable. These opportunities afforded by the PPG 
program and this rule are available to all tribes which receive grants 
under more than one EPA environmental program.
This rule accommodates all potential variations in how EPA and 
individual tribes work to build partnerships. The rule is also 
minimizes duplicative effort by allowing for multiple uses of 
information or processes wherever appropriate. The regulation advances 
ongoing efforts to build more effective tribal-EPA partnerships and to 
improve environmental conditions by providing tribes with increased 
flexibility to direct resources where they are needed most to address 
environmental and public health needs.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


Not required by law or court order.


Alternatives:


EPA can continue to award PPGs under guidance prepared by the agency 
and announced in the Federal Register.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The rule does not result in any new costs. It is expected to achieve 
cost and administrative savings for tribes by reducing the amount of 
grant paperwork and by simplifying accounting requirements that do not 
require recipients to account for expenditures in accordance with their 
original funding sources. With PPGs, recipients can negotiate work 
plans with EPA that direct Federal funds where the recipients need them 
most to address environmental and public health problems. Recipients 
can also try new multi-media approaches and initiatives, such as 
children's health protection programs, multi-media inspections, 
compliance assistance programs, and ecosystem management, that were 
difficult to fund under traditional categorical grants.


Risks:


There are no known risks.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           01/00/99
Final Rule                                                     04/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


Governmental Jurisdictions, Organizations


Government Levels Affected:


Tribal, Federal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 4128


Agency Contact:
Maureen Ross
Environmental Protection Agency
Administration and Resources Management
3903R
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 564-5356
RIN: 2030-AA56
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
100. IMPLEMENTATION OF OZONE AND PARTICULATE MATTER (PM) NATIONAL 
AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS (NAAQS) AND REGIONAL HAZE REGULATIONS
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


 PL 95-95; PL 101-549


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 51; 40 CFR 81


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


EPA recently issued new, updated air quality standards for ozone (62 FR 
38856) and particulate matter (PM) (62 FR 38652). Pursuant to President 
Clinton's implementation strategy as outlined in a memorandum to EPA 
Administrator Carol Browner, EPA is developing guidance and rules for 
sensibly and cost-effectively meeting the new standards. To help 
develop the guidance and rules, EPA, between September 1995 and 
December 1997, sought significant stakeholder involvement through a 
committee established under the Federal Advisory Committee Act. 
Consistent with the schedule outlined in a memorandum from President 
Clinton dated July 16, 1997, EPA will publish guidance and rules by the 
end of 1998 designed to give States, local governments, and businesses 
the flexibility they'll need to meet protective public health standards 
in a reasonable, cost-effective manner.
For ozone, the implementation plan will emphasize a regional, State-
sponsored approach that addresses the long-distance transport of ozone. 
On October 10, 1997, EPA issued a proposal (sometimes referred to as 
the OTAG SIP Call) to require broad regional emissions reductions of 
nitrogen oxides (NOx) gases which contribute to the formation of ozone 
(62 FR 60318, November 7, 1997). EPA will work with the affected States 
to develop a regional NOx emissions cap-and-trade program modeled after 
the program used to achieve sulfur dioxide reductions in the acid rain 
program.
In order to help areas covered by EPA's regional plan avoid burdensome 
measures associated with noncompliance, EPA will create a new 
transitional classification. Areas that attain the 1-hour standard but 
not the new 8-hour standard as of the time EPA

[[Page 61348]]

promulgates designations for the 8-hour standard could obtain this new 
classification if they participate in a regional strategy and/or opt to 
submit early plans addressing the new 8-hour standard. Because many 
areas will need little or no additional new local emission reductions 
to reach attainment, beyond the reductions that will be achieved 
through the regional control strategy, and will come into attainment 
earlier than otherwise required, EPA will exercise its discretion under 
the law to eliminate unnecessary local planning requirements for such 
areas. EPA will revise its rules for new source review (NSR) and 
conformity so that States will be able to comply with only minor 
revisions to their existing programs in areas classified as 
transitional. (cont)


Statement of Need:


Development of programs for ozone and PM are necessary to implement any 
revised NAAQS under title 1 of the Clean Air Act.


Alternatives:


This entry comprises the set of actions the Agency plans to take to 
implement the new ozone and fine particulate standards. The major 
alternative facing the Agency was whether to implement the standards 
strictly on a state-by-state basis, as has been the norm in the past, 
or to take Federal action to address the fact that emissions from one 
State affect the ability of other States to achieve the standards. The 
Agency chose the latter course, embodied in the NOx Regional Strategy 
described above. The other major set of alternatives involved various 
possible strategies for infrastructure design, such as the designations 
of nonattainment areas and the requirements that will apply to them. 
The major issues in this area were settled by the July 1997 issuance of 
a Presidential Directive setting out a flexible implementation policy, 
the elements of which are summarized in the abstract above.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


EPA is in the process of preparing a regulatory impact analysis (RIA) 
for implementing new ozone and PM NAAQS, as well as a regional haze 
reduction program. The RIA will be available at the time the 
implementation strategy is proposed in the Federal Register. The 
current schedule calls for publication of the notice of proposed 
rulemaking on Phase I of the implementation strategy in mid-1997.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM           61 FR 65764                                    12/13/96
Notice Proposed 61 FR 65752                                    12/13/96
NPRM Regional Ha62 FR 41138                                    07/31/97
Notice Review Sc62 FR 55201PM2.5 Standard                      10/23/97
NPRM NOx Regiona62 FR 60318SIP Call                            11/07/97
Final Rule Areas63 FR 31013hour Ozone Standard                 06/05/98
Final Rule Addit63 FR 39432 Meeting 1-hour Ozone Standard      07/22/98
NPRM NSR for Transitional Areas                                10/00/98
NPRM 172e Antibacksliding for PM10                             10/00/98
Final Rule NOx Regional Strategy SIP Call                      10/00/98
Final Rule Regional Haze                                       10/00/98
Initial Guidance Implementation Planning                       10/00/98
Final Guidance Implementation Planning                         12/00/98
Final Rule 172e Antibacksliding for PM10                       12/00/98
Final Rule NSR for Transitional Areas                          05/00/99
Final Rule Conformity for Transitional Areas                   06/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


State


Additional Information:


SAN No. 3553
ABSTRACT CONT: In a final rule promulgated on June 5, 1998, EPA 
identified areas that have air quality meeting the 1-hour air ozone 
standard and revoked that standard for those areas (63 FR 31013, June 
5, 1998). A subsequent final rule for additional ozone areas attaining 
the 1-hour standard was promulgated on July 22, 1998 (63 FR 39432).
For PM10, EPA revised the set of standards that had existed since 1987. 
Given that health effects from coarse particles are still of concern, 
the overall goal during this transition period is to ensure that PM10 
control measures remain in place to maintain the progress that has been 
achieved toward attainment of the PM10 NAAQS (progress which also 
provides benefits for PM2.5) and protection of public health. To ensure 
that this goal is met, the pre-existing PM10 NAAQS will continue to 
apply until certain critical actions by EPA and by States and local 
agencies have been taken to sustain the progress already made. For 
areas not attaining the existing PM10 NAAQS when the revised standards 
go into effect, those existing standards remain in effect until EPA has 
completed a section 172(e) rulemaking to prevent backsliding. EPA will 
propose this rulemaking in the spring of 1998. For areas attaining the 
pre-existing PM10 NAAQS, EPA will retain that standard until the State 
submits and EPA approves the section 110 SIP which States are required 
to submit within 3 years of a NAAQS revision. Once those areas have an 
approved SIP, EPA will take action so that the pre-existing PM10 
standard no longer applies. In addition, EPA will take action within 3 
years to designate areas for the revised PM10 standards.
EPA's approach to addressing regional haze was proposed concurrently 
with the promulgation of the final ozone and PM NAAQS. The public 
comment period on this proposal closed on December 5, 1997. EPA plans 
to promulgate the regional haze rulemaking in the fall of 1998.


Agency Contact:
Denise Gerth
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
MD-15
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Phone: 919 541-5550
RIN: 2060-AF34
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
101. ENVIRONMENTAL RADIATION PROTECTION STANDARDS FOR YUCCA MOUNTAIN, 
NEVADA
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


 Energy Policy Act sec 801


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 197


Legal Deadline:


NPRM, Statutory, August 1, 1996.

[[Page 61349]]

Abstract:


This rulemaking is in response to section 801 of the Energy Policy Act 
of 1992 which directs the Administrator to promulgate public health and 
safety standards for protection of the public from releases from 
radioactive materials stored or disposed of in the repository at the 
Yucca Mountain site. The only regulated entity is the U.S. Department 
of Energy.


Statement of Need:


In 1985, the Agency issued generic standards for the management and 
disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. The 
Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1987 mandated the study of Yucca 
Mountain, Nevada to determine its suitability to be a repository for 
spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. The Waste 
Isolation Pilot Plant Land Withdrawal Act of 1992 exempted Yucca 
Mountain from coverage under the 1985 generic standards. Concurrently, 
the Energy Policy Act of 1992 gave EPA the responsibility of setting 
site-specific, radiation-protection standards for Yucca Mountain.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


The legal authority is derived from the Energy Policy Act of 1992.


Alternatives:


Since this action is legally mandated, there are no alternatives.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Since the potential cost is dependent upon several factors whose 
determination has not yet been made, a precise assessment of the 
economic impact of the rulemaking is not possible at this time. 
Likewise, the benefits, i.e., the adverse effects averted (which are 
required to complete a cost-benefit analysis), cannot be determined in 
a meaningful manner at this time since the effect of these standards is 
to avert potential adverse health effects that may occur during very 
long periods into the future and are, therefore, quantifiable only with 
a high degree of uncertainty.


Risks:


The potential risks which would be allowed under these standards is 
dependent upon the level of protection and the regulatory time frame 
which is selected. Since the standards have not yet been proposed, it 
is not possible to estimate the potential risks.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           10/00/98
Final Rule                                                     03/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Federal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 3568


Agency Contact:
Ray Clark
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
6602J
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 564-9198
Fax: 202 565-9500
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2060-AG14
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
102. CONSOLIDATED FEDERAL AIR RULE FOR THE SYNTHETIC ORGANIC CHEMICAL 
MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY
Priority:


Other Significant


Reinventing Government:


This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will 
revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline 
requirements.


Legal Authority:


 42 USC 7401 et seq


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 60; 40 CFR 61; 40 CFR 63


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


Over the past 25 years, EPA has issued a series of national air 
regulations, many of which affect the same facility. Some facilities 
are now subject to five or six national rules, sometimes affecting the 
same emission points. Each rule has emission control requirements as 
well as monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.
These requirements may be duplicative, overlapping, difficult to 
understand, or inconsistent. It is often difficult for plant managers 
to determine compliance strategies to satisfy all requirements and for 
State and local permitting agencies to determine the applicability of 
different requirements for permitting purposes. Resources are often 
wasted by both industry and States and localities in sorting out and 
complying with the panoply of multiple requirements.
All existing Federal air rules applicable to an industry sector will be 
reviewed to determine whether their provisions can be consolidated into 
a single new rule. Affected industries, State agencies, and other 
stakeholders will be consulted to identify duplicative and conflicting 
provisions and to provide assistance in drafting the single rule. The 
chemical industry and State representatives have agreed to work on a 
pilot project with EPA's air programs to explore this approach. If the 
approach is successful with the chemical industry, it may be expanded 
to air rules for other industry sectors.


Statement of Need:


Both industry and regulatory agencies have expressed a great desire to 
streamline and simplify rules. This rule streamlines and simplifies by 
consolidating and collapsing the numerous Federal rules that apply to 
the chemical industry, with resulting improved compliances.


Alternatives:


The main alternative is to do nothing and let the many rules with their 
many provisions remain the only compliance mechanism.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


This rule will result in considerable savings to the affected industry. 
There is significant burden reduction associated with recordkeeping and 
reporting. The rule will be easier to follow and understand. There will 
be no change in applicability of the rules being consolidated.


Risks:


This rulemaking deals with consolidated reporting to simplify existing 
rules. The risks addressed by each of these existing rules were 
addressed in those individual rulemakings.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           10/00/98
Final Rule                                                     05/00/99

[[Page 61350]]

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


State, Federal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 3748


Agency Contact:
Rick Colyer
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
MD-13
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Phone: 919 541-5262
Fax: 919 541-3470
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2060-AG28
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
103.  TIER II LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLE, LIGHT-DUTY TRUCK, AND HEAVY-
DUTY GASOLINE VEHICLE EMISSION STANDARDS AND GASOLINE SULFUR STANDARDS
Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


 42 USC 7521


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 86 (revision)


Legal Deadline:


Other, Statutory, December 31, 1999, Determine need - tech. feasibility 
and cost effectiveness of more stringent standards.


Abstract:


EPA is mandated by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 to study 
whether or not further reductions in emissions from light-duty vehicles 
and light-duty trucks should be required through lowering tailpipe 
emissions standards. EPA submitted a report to Congress on July 31, 
1998. The report determined that there was a need for further 
reductions in emissions and that cost-effective technology is available 
to meet more stringent standards. This rulemaking will propose the next 
generation of emission standards for light-duty vehicles, light-duty 
trucks, and gasoline heavy-duty vehicles. The primary focus of this 
action will be reducing emissions of nitrogen oxides and non-methane 
hydrocarbons, pollutants which contribute to ozone pollution. Highway 
vehicles are significant contributors to ozone pollution, though 
tighter standards will also have additional air quality benefits. The 
light-duty vehicle and light-duty truck standards cannot go into effect 
before the 2004 model year, as per Clean Air Act requirements. EPA is 
also planning on addressing more stringent standards for heavy-duty 
gasoline engines, effective no earlier than model year 2007, in this 
rulemaking since many of the technologies used to achieve better 
emissions performance of light-duty trucks could also be used to reduce 
emissions from heavy-duty gasoline engines. The rulemaking will also 
propose limitations on the sulfur content of gasoline available 
nationwide. Sulfur has a detrimental impact on catalyst performance and 
could be a limiting factor in the introduction of advanced technologies 
on motor vehicles.


Statement of Need:


Ozone pollution poses a serious threat to the health and well-being of 
millions of Americans and a large burden to the U.S. economy. This 
rulemaking will address additional national control measures to reduce 
emissions, including emissions of nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons, 
from new motor vehicles, heavy-duty gasoline-powered trucks, and sulfur 
levels in gasoline in order to protect the public health and welfare. 
There are also additional benefits associated with new controls on 
these emission sources.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


New motor vehicle controls, effective no earlier than model year 2004, 
are authorized under section 202 of the Clean Air Act. Controls on 
heavy-duty engines and gasoline sulfur levels are also done under the 
authority of the Clean Air Act.


Alternatives:


Various control programs will be analyzed.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The costs and benefits associated with this rule will be evaluated.


Risks:


The risks have not been determined at this time.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           01/00/99
Final Action                                                   12/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local, Tribal, Federal


Sectors Affected:


 32411 Petroleum Refineries; 336111 Automobile Manufacturing; 33612 
Heavy Duty Truck Manufacturing; 4227 Petroleum and Petroleum Products 
Wholesalers


Additional Information:


SAN No. 4211


Agency Contact:
Tad Wysor
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
Ann Arbor, MI 48105
Phone: 734 214-4332
Fax: 734 214-4816
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2060-AI23
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
104. NAAQS: SULFUR DIOXIDE (REVIEW AND IMPLEMENTATION)
Priority:


Economically Significant


Legal Authority:


 42 USC 7409; Clean Air Act sec 109


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 50.4; 40 CFR 50.5


Legal Deadline:


NPRM, Judicial, November 1, 1994.


Final, Judicial, April 22, 1996.


Abstract:


On November 15, 1994, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 
proposed not to revise the existing 24-hour and annual primary 
standards. The EPA sought public comment on the need to adopt 
additional regulatory measures to address the health risk to asthmatic 
individuals posed by short-term peak sulfur dioxide exposure.
On March 7, 1995, EPA proposed implementation strategies for reducing 
short-term high concentrations of sulfur dioxide emissions in the 
ambient air.
On May 22, 1996, EPA published its final decision not to revise the 
primary

[[Page 61351]]

sulfur dioxide NAAQS. The notice stated that EPA would shortly propose 
a new implementation strategy to assist States in addressing short-term 
peaks of sulfur dioxide. The new implementation strategy - the 
Intervention Level Program - was proposed on January 2, 1997. In July 
1996, the American Lung Association and the Environmental Defense Fund 
petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit for a 
judicial review of EPA's decision not to establish a new 5-minute 
NAAQS. On January 30, 1998, the court found that EPA did not adequately 
explain its decision and remanded the case so EPA could explain its 
rationale more fully. EPA published a schedule for responding to the 
remand in the May 5, 1998 Federal Register. The schedule calls for a 
final response to the remand by December 2000. Any final action on the 
intervention level program would occur no sooner than December 2000.


Statement of Need:


Brief exposures to elevated concentrations of sulfur dioxide cause 
bronchoconstriction, sometimes accompanied by symptoms (coughing, 
wheezing, and shortness of breath), in mild to moderate asthmatic 
individuals. The existing sulfur dioxide National Ambient Air Quality 
Standard (NAAQS) provides substantial protection against short-term 
peak sulfur dioxide levels. At issue is whether additional measures are 
needed to further reduce the health risk to asthmatic individuals.


Alternatives:


The March 7, 1995, proposal notice sought public comment on three 
alternatives to further reduce the public health risk to asthmatic 
individuals posed by short-term peak sulfur dioxide exposures. These 
included: (a) a new 5-minute NAAQS; (b) a new program under section 303 
of the Act; and (c) a targeted monitoring program to ensure sources 
likely to cause or contribute to high 5-minute peaks are in attainment 
with the existing standard. The January 2, 1997, notice proposed an 
alternative program under section 303 of the Act that will assist 
States in addressing high 5-minute peaks.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


A draft regulatory impact analysis was completed and made available for 
public comment at the time of the January 2, 1997 proposal.


Risks:


Exposure analyses indicate from the national perspective that the 
likelihood of exposure to high 5-minute sulfur dioxide concentrations 
is very low. Asthmatic individuals in the vicinity of certain sources 
or source categories, however, may be at higher risk of exposure than 
the population as a whole.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM NAAQS Revie59 FR 58958                                    11/15/94
NPRM NAAQS Imple60 FR 12492part 51)                            03/07/95
Final Rule NAAQS61 FR 25566                                    05/22/96
NPRM Revised NAA62 FR 210entation (part 51)                    01/02/97
Notice Schedule 63 FR 24782e to NAAQS Remand                   05/05/98
NPRM Response to NAAQS Remand                                  10/00/98
Final Response to NAAQS Remand                                 12/00/00
Final Rule NAAQS Implementation (Part 51)                      01/00/01
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local, Federal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 1002


Agency Contact:
Susan Stone (Review)
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
MD-15
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Phone: 919 541-1146
  
Eric Crump (Implementation)
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
MD-15
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Phone: 919 541-4719
RIN: 2060-AA61
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
105.  PESTICIDE TOLERANCE REASSESSMENT PROGRAM
Priority:


Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.


Legal Authority:


 21 USC 346a(q)


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 180; 40 CFR 185; 40 CFR 186


Legal Deadline:


Other, Statutory, August 3, 1999, See additional information.


Abstract:


EPA will reassess pesticide tolerances and exemptions for raw and 
processed foods established prior to August 3, 1996, to determine 
whether they meet the ``reasonable certainty of no harm'' standard of 
the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). FFDCA sec. 408(q), as 
amended by the Food Quality Protection Act, requires that EPA conduct 
this reassessment on a phased 10-year schedule. Based on its 
reassessment, EPA will take a series of regulatory actions to modify or 
revoke tolerances that do not meet the reasonable certainty of no harm 
standard.


Statement of Need:


The Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as amended by the Food 
Quality Protection Act of 1996, requires EPA to reassess all pesticide 
tolerances and exemptions established before August 3, 1996. EPA is to 
reassess tolerances to determine whether they meet the statutory 
``reasonable certainty of no harm'' standard of FFDCA sec 408(b). That 
standard requires that a pesticide tolerance may be established or 
remain in effect only if the tolerance is ``safe''. ``Safe'' means that 
there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate 
exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, based upon all anticipated 
dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable 
information. The statute emphasizes the protection of infants and 
children in determining the safety of a pesticide tolerance, and 
requires that EPA evaluate the cumulative risks of all pesticides 
having a common mode of action.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


The tolerance reassessment program is mandated by FFDCA sec. 408(q).

[[Page 61352]]

Alternatives:


EPA is required to take action to ensure that all existing tolerances 
meet the safety standard. If tolerances must be modified or revoked, 
EPA will consider a variety of factors in determining which tolerances 
should be modified or revoked. These factors are yet to be determined, 
but could include public health considerations, minor use 
considerations, lack of available alternatives, or level of risks to 
infants and children, to workers, or to the environment.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Analysis of costs will be conducted as part of an economic analysis of 
the revocation/modification actions proposed. The FFDCA allows EPA to 
consider benefits only in a very limited manner in determining whether 
to retain or modify a pesticide tolerance.


Risks:


Actions taken as a result of the tolerance reassessment program will 
ensure that dietary exposures to pesticides, taking into account 
aggregate exposure from food, water and non-occupational sources, and 
considering the cumulative effects of substances having a common mode 
of toxicity, will be safe. A series of regulatory actions will be 
issued over 10 years.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Notice (Outline/Schedule of Policies)                          10/00/98
Proposed Policies                                              11/00/98
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


Federal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 4175
EPA is required to complete reassessments on a phased schedule of: 33% 
by August 3, 1999, 66% by August 3, 2002, and 100% by August 3, 2006.


Agency Contact:
Lois Rossi
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
7508W
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 703 308-8000
  
Joseph Nevola
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
7508W
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 703 308-8037
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2070-AD24
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
106.  ENDOCRINE DISRUPTOR SCREENING AND TESTING PROGRAM
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


 21 USC 346A (P) FQPA; 7 USC 136 FIFRA; 15 USC 2603 TSCA; 42 USC 300J-
17 SDWA


CFR Citation:


 Not yet determined


Legal Deadline:


NPRM, Statutory, August 3, 1998.


Other, Statutory, August 3, 1998, See additional information.


Abstract:


The Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) requires EPA to screen 
pesticides for estrogenic effects on human health. The Safe Drinking 
Water Act authorizes EPA to screen chemicals found in drinking water 
sources in similar manner. The FQPA mandates that EPA propose the 
screening program by August 1998, implement it by August 1999 and 
report to Congress in August 2000. EPA established the Endocrine 
Disrupter Screening and Testing Advisory Committee (EDSTAC) in October 
1996, to provide advice and counsel to the agency in implementing the 
screening and testing program. EDSTAC was comprised of 43 members 
representing industry, government, environmental and public health 
groups, labor, academia, and other interested stakeholders. EPA was 
represented on EDSTAC by OPPTS, ORD and ODW. EDSTAC has held its final 
meeting in June 1998. The Committee considered human health and 
ecological effects; estrogenic, androgenic, anti-estrogenic, anti-
androgenic and thyroid effects in its deliberations and extended its 
scope to include industrial chemicals, drinking water contaminants and 
important mixtures as well as pesticides. EDSTAC will submit its final 
report to EPA in August 1998. EPA will propose its screening and 
testing strategy in August 1998 and will propose a more detailed 
implementation plan for public comment in fall of 1998.


Statement of Need:


The Endocrine Disruptor Screening and Testing Program fulfills the 
statutory mandate to screen pesticides and drinking water contaminants 
for their potential to disrupt the endocrine system and adversely 
affect human health. This program is also needed to identify commercial 
chemicals that may affect human health and wildlife via disruption of 
their endocrine systems.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


The mandate to screen pesticides for estrogenic effects that may affect 
human health is in the Food Quality Protection Act (21 U.S.C. 346a(p)). 
Discretionary authority to test drinking water contaminants is in the 
Safe Drinking Water Act as amended in 1996 (42 U.S.C. 300j-17). General 
authority to test chemicals and pesticides is in TSCA (15 U.S.C. 2603) 
and FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 136) respectively.


Alternatives:


There is no alternative to leadership of the Federal government on this 
issue to ensure that pesticides, commercial chemicals and contaminants 
are screened and tested for endocrine disruption potential. A limited 
amount of testing may be conducted voluntarily, but this will fall far 
short of the systematic screening which is necessary to protect public 
health and the environment and ensure the public that all important 
substances have been adequately evaluated.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


It is too early to project the costs and benefits of this program 
accurately. However, as a rough estimate, the screening battery is 
estimated to cost $200,000 per chemical. It is too early to determine 
how many chemicals will be screened in Tier 1 much less tested in Tier 
2. It is also too early to tell the benefits on how many chemicals will 
be identified that are endocrine disruptors and their exposure reduced 
either by formal risks management or by voluntary exposure reduction or 
product substitution.

[[Page 61353]]

Risks:


Evidence is continuing to mount that wildlife and humans may be at risk 
from exposure to chemicals operating through a endocrine mediated 
pathway. Preliminary studies show decreases on IQ tests and increases 
in aggression and hyperactivity in children. Severe malformations of 
the genitals of boys has increased steadily over the last two decades. 
Although increases in cancers of endocrine sensitive tissues have been 
reported, no link has been made to show that chemicals are the cause. 
Wildlife effects have been more thoroughly documented. Abnormalities in 
birds, marine mammals, fish and shellfish have been documented in the 
U.S., Europe, Japan, Canada, and Australia which have been linked to 
specific chemical exposures. Evidence is sufficient for the U.S. to 
proceed on a two track strategy: research on the basic science 
regarding endocrine disruption and screening to identify which 
chemicals are capable of interacting with the endocrine system. The 
combination of research and test data developed by this program will 
enable EPA to take action to reduce chemical risks.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Notice (Outline 63 FR 42852g Program)                          08/11/98
Notice (Proposed Screening Strategy)                           12/00/98
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Federal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 4143
Deadlines continued: Proposed Screening Program 08/03/98, Implement 
Screening Program 08/03/99, Report to Congress 08/03/00.


Agency Contact:
Gary Timm
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
7405
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 260-1859
Email: [email protected]
  
Anthony Maciorowski
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
7405
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 260-3048
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2070-AD26
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
107.  CHEMICAL RIGHT-TO-KNOW INITIATIVE
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


 15 USC 4 TSCA; 15 USC 5 TSCA; 15 USC 8 TSCA; 7 USC 136 FIFRA; 42 USC 
313 EPCRA


CFR Citation:


 Not yet determined


Legal Deadline:


Other, Judicial, December 31, 1999, Final Actions must be completed by 
12/31/99.


Abstract:


The Chemical RTK Initiative was announced by Vice President Gore on 
EPA's Earth Day 1998 in response to the finding that most commercial 
chemicals have very little, if any, toxicity information on which to 
make sound judgments about potential risks. There are three key 
components to this initiative, each of which is being rapidly 
implemented by EPA. These are: baseline toxicity testing for 3,000 
widely used commercial chemicals; additional health effects testing for 
chemicals to which children are disproportionately exposed; and the 
listing and lowering thresholds for persistent, bioaccumulative, toxic 
chemicals reported to TRI. This Initiative will involve several 
separate activities, with any regulatory related actions included as 
separate entries in the Regulatory Agenda. This entry will not appear 
in the Agenda, but the Agenda items are listed below.


Statement of Need:


The Chemical Right to Know Initiative grew out of the finding of an EPA 
study that there is very little reliable information on the health and 
environmental effects of even the most widely used commercial 
chemicals. Less than 7 percent of the 3,000 high production volume 
chemicals have a full set of baseline testing information, while almost 
50 percent have no information whatsoever. The Chemical Right to Know 
Initiative is designed to close these information gaps, and to make new 
information available to the public. This initiative was requested by 
Vice President Gore.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


To the extent that rulemaking is required to implement the chemical 
Right-to-Know Initiative, EPA will utilize the testing authorities 
available under TSCA and the chemical reporting authorities of EPCRA 
section 313 (the Toxics Release Inventory).


Alternatives:


The Chemical Right-to-Know Initiative will rely on a combination of 
partnership programs and rule-writing to accomplish its goals. For 
instance, an HPV Challenge Program will ask industry to voluntarily 
conduct testing on high production volume chemicals, while an HPV test 
rule would act as a backstop to require testing of those chemicals for 
which no company stepped forward to volunteer.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The benefits of the Chemical Right-to-Know Initiative are substantial, 
as no one in the environmental community -- whether in industry, 
government, or the public -- can make reasoned risk management 
decisions in the absence of reliable health and environmental 
information. The cost of the baseline testing is well-established, and 
runs about $200,000 per chemical for a full set of tests. More detailed 
testing, as envisioned for the Children's Health testing portion of 
this initiative, is more expensive, but has not yet been costed out.


Risks:


None


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           01/00/99
Final Action - Presidential Deadline for Final Actions         12/00/99

[[Page 61354]]

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Additional Information:


SAN No. 4176
This Initiative includes the following Regulatory Agenda activities: 
TRI's Reporting Threshold Rule (SAN 3880; RIN 2070-AD09); Test Rule; 
Multi-Chemicals Test Rule for High Production Volume Chemicals (SAN 
3990; RIN 2070-AD16); Multi-Chemicals Test Rule for Developmental and 
Reproductive Toxicity (SAN 2865; RIN 2070-AC27).


Agency Contact:
Dave Sarokin
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
7408
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 260-3810
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2070-AD25
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
108. TSCA INVENTORY UPDATE RULE AMENDMENTS
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


 15 USC 2607(a)


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 710


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This action would amend the current Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) 
Inventory Update Rule (IUR) to require chemical manufacturers to report 
to EPA data on exposure-related information and the industrial and 
consumer end uses of chemicals they produce or import. Currently, EPA 
requires chemical manufacturers to report the names of the chemicals 
they produce, as well as the locations of manufacturing facilities and 
the quantities produced. About 3,000 facilities reported data on about 
9,000 unique chemicals during the last reporting cycle under the IUR. 
Data obtained would be used by EPA and others to: better understand the 
potential for chemical exposures; screen the chemicals now in commerce 
and identify those of highest concern; establish priorities and goals 
for their chemical assessment, risk management and prevention programs, 
and monitor the programs' progress; encourage pollution prevention by 
identifying potentially safer substitute chemicals for uses of 
potential concern; and enhance the effectiveness of chemical risk 
communication efforts. EPA has held meetings with representatives of 
the chemical industry, environmental groups, environmental justice 
leaders, labor groups, State governments and other Federal agencies to 
ensure public involvement in the TSCA Inventory Update Rule Amendments 
Project.


Statement of Need:


There are more than 75,000 chemicals in commerce listed on the TSCA 
Inventory. EPA faces the challenge of sorting through these chemicals 
to identify the ones of most concern, then taking the appropriate steps 
to mitigate unreasonable risks of those chemicals. The current IUR 
collects some key data, such as production volume, used to identify the 
chemicals of most concern. However, other exposure-related information 
is essential to more accurately identify the chemicals with the greater 
risk potential. Information on how a chemical is manufactured, 
processed, and used is needed to determine possible exposure routes and 
scenarios of these chemicals. This action will propose to modify the 
inventory update process to collect the exposure-related data necessary 
for an effective TSCA Inventory Screening program; the information will 
be collected in a format that makes the information easy to use to 
screen thousands of chemicals.
In addition to the addition of exposure-related information, EPA will 
consider other amendments to the IUR. These include removing the 
inorganic chemical exemption; providing the information to better 
assess and manage risks of inorganic chemicals; improving the linkage 
of IUR data to other data sources to enhance the data's usefulness; and 
altering confidential business information (CBI) claim procedures to 
reduce the frequency of CBI claims, allowing the public greater access 
to relevant data on toxic chemicals.
A national report will make data collected via the amended IUR publicly 
available. This report will not contain any information claimed to be 
confidential.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).


Alternatives:


Although data on the use of specific chemicals can be found in varying 
sources, there is no national, comprehensive, current searchable 
database providing consistent information on a wide variety of 
chemicals. EPA has examined alternate sources of the information 
including State information, Federal databases and privately collected 
information. EPA can find no information comparable to the data 
anticipated to be collected through amendments to the IUR.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


EPA anticipates costs of this action to be well under $100 million for 
the first year of reporting. Total costs of this action depend on the 
amendments to IUR that are contained in a proposed rule. The amended 
IUR will assist EPA in screening chemicals in commerce and identifying 
those of highest concern; establishing priorities and goals for its 
chemical assessment, risk management and prevention programs and 
monitoring their progress; identifying potentially safer substitute 
chemicals for uses of potential concern; and enhancing the 
effectiveness of chemical risk communication efforts.


Risks:


This action will secure data on describing how chemicals in commerce 
are used; this data is essential to determine possible exposure routes 
and scenarios. Using these exposure estimates, EPA's toxics program 
will be able to better focus on chemical risks of most concern.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           02/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


Federal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 3301

[[Page 61355]]

Agency Contact:
Susan Krueger
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
7406
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 260-1713
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2070-AC61
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
109. LEAD; RULEMAKINGS UNDER TSCA SECTION 402, LEAD-BASED PAINT 
ACTIVITIES
Priority:


Economically Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.


Legal Authority:


 15 USC 2683


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 745


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, April 28, 1994, (Sections 402(a) - 404).


Other, Statutory, October 28, 1996, Section 402(c)(3)).


Abstract:


The Residential Lead-Based Hazard Reduction Act of 1992 (title X) 
amended TSCA by adding a new Title IV. TSCA section 402, Lead-Based 
Paint Activities Training and Certification directs EPA to promulgate a 
number of regulations intended to address the nation's need for a 
qualified and properly trained workforce to assist in the prevention, 
detection, and elimination of hazards associated with lead-based paint. 
EPA is required to promulgate (a) regulations governing lead-based 
paint activities to ensure that individuals engaged in such activities 
are properly trained, that training programs are accredited, and that 
contractors engaged in such activities are certified (section 402(a); 
(b) a Model State program which may be adopted by any State which seeks 
to administer and enforce a State Program for the requirements 
established under TSCA section 402 (section 404); (c) a rule addressing 
lead risks from renovation and remodeling activities or state why no 
regulation is necessary (section 402(c)(3)); and (d) a rule 
establishing a fee schedule for the lead-based paint training, 
certification, and accreditation activities addressed in the rules 
developed under TSCA section 402 (section 402(a)(3)). Additionally, in 
response to other Federal agencies and several States and advocacy 
groups who were concerned that the high costs of disposing of lead-
based paint debris as a RCRA hazardous waste were discouraging 
residential lead abatements, EPA is using its authority under TSCA 
section 402(a) to address the disposal of lead-based paint debris that 
will result from the lead-based paint activities regulated under TSCA 
section 402. To minimize duplication of waste management requirements, 
EPA is developing a companion RCRA rule to suspend temporarily 
hazardous waste management regulations (i.e., Toxicity Characteristic 
Rule) applicable to lead-based paint debris which will be subject to 
the new TSCA standards. These rules are listed separately in the 
Regulatory Agenda.


Statement of Need:


Childhood lead poisoning is a pervasive problem in the United States, 
with almost a million young children having more than 10 ug/dl of lead 
in their blood, Center for Disease Control's level of concern. Although 
there have been dramatic declines in blood-lead levels due to 
reductions of lead in paint, gasoline, and food sources, remaining 
paint in older houses continues to be a significant source of childhood 
lead poisoning. These rules will help ensure that individuals and firms 
conducting lead-based paint activities will do so in a way that 
safeguards the environment and protects the health of building 
occupants, especially children under 6 years old.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


These regulations are mandated by TSCA section 402.


Alternatives:


Alternatives to each of the mandated activities will be analyzed.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


For the section 402(a)/404 (Residential) rule, the costs have been 
provided in the final economic impact analysis that was prepared in 
conjunction with the final rule. For the remainder of the section 402 
rules, costs will be estimated in the draft economic impact analyses 
that will be prepared for the proposed rules. Since benefits depend on 
private sector implementation of certain lead hazard abatement 
activities which are not mandated by any of these rules, benefits will 
be difficult to quantify.


Risks:


These rules are aimed at reducing the prevalence and severity of lead 
poisoning, particularly in children.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM Sections 4059 FR 458724 (Residential)                     09/02/94
Final Rule Secti61 FR 45778and 404 (Residential)               08/29/96
NPRM Section 40263 FR 46734                                    09/02/98
Direct Final Rul63 FR 46668                                    09/02/98
Withdraw Direct 63 FR 55547                                    10/16/98
NPRM Section 404(h)                                            10/00/98
NPRM Section 402(a) (Debris)                                   11/00/98
Final Rule Sections 402(a)(3)/404(h)                           08/00/99
NPRM Section 402(a) (Buildings & Structures)                   09/00/99
NPRM Section 402(c) (Remodeling & Renovation)                  09/00/99
Final Rule Section 402(a) (Debris)                             11/00/00
Final Rule Section 402(a) (Buildings & Structures)             09/00/01
Final Rule Section 402(c) (Remodeling & Renovation)            09/00/01
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, Organizations


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local, Tribal, Federal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 3243
Lead-Based Paint Activities Rules: Training, Accreditation and 
Certification Rule and Model State Plan Rule (sections 402 and 404)(SAN 
3244; RIN 2070-AC64); Lead-Based Paint Activities, Training, and 
Certification: Renovation and Remodeling (section 402(c)(3))(SAN 3557; 
RIN 2070-AC83); Lead Fee Rule for Lead-Based Paint Activities Training 
and Certification (section 402(a)(3)) (SAN 3881; RIN 2070-AD11); Lead-
Based Paint: Notification of Commencement of Abatement Activities 
(section 404(h)) (SAN 4172; RIN 2070-AD31); Lead: TSCA Requirements for 
the Disposal of Lead-Based Paint Debris (section 402(a)) and Temporary 
Suspension of

[[Page 61356]]

Toxicity Characteristic Rule for Specified Lead-Based Paint Debris 
(RCRA sections 1006(b)(1) and 2002)(SAN 3508; RIN 2070-AC72).


Agency Contact:
Ellie Clark
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
7404
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 260-3402
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2070-AD06
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
110. ASBESTOS; AMENDMENTS TO THE ASBESTOS-CONTAINING MATERIALS IN 
SCHOOLS RULE, MODEL ACCREDITATION PLAN, AND WORKER PROTECTION RULE
Priority:


Other Significant


Reinventing Government:


This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will 
revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline 
requirements.


Legal Authority:


 15 USC 2605 TSCA sec 6; 15 USC 2607 TSCA sec 8; 15 USC 2647 TSCA sec 7


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 763


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


EPA is proposing to amend the Asbestos-Containing Materials in Schools 
Rule in order to improve harmony with the Occupational Safety and 
Health Administration's regulations and to provide clarifications 
regarding several definitions, air clearance monitoring techniques, and 
response actions. As a part of this effort, the Agency is also 
developing proposals to amend the Asbestos Model Accreditation Plan 
(RIN 2070-AC51) and the Asbestos Worker Protection Rule (RIN: 2070-
AC66). These activities are already included in the Regulatory Agenda 
as separate items, but have been combined for the purposes of 
highlighting this reinvention activity in the Regulatory Plan for FY 
1999.


Statement of Need:


EPA has become aware of several inconsistencies between the TSCA 
asbestos regulations and the OSHA Construction Standard for Asbestos. 
This rulemaking will resolve most of the inconsistencies while 
improving the clarity of the existing regulation and reducing burdens.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


TSCA section 203 requires EPA to promulgate regulations on the proper 
management of asbestos-containing materials in school buildings. TSCA 
section 206 requires EPA to establish a model accreditation plan for 
professionals who wish to conduct asbestos inspection and abatement 
activities in schools or public or commercial buildings. TSCA section 6 
permits EPA to regulate activities which pose an unreasonable risk of 
injury to human health or the environment.


Alternatives:


EPA will be proposing several alternatives for the protection of state 
and local government workers who disturb asbestos-containing material. 
EPA will also be providing state program administrators with additional 
flexibility in designing and implementing appropriate state asbestos 
programs.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


EPA believes that the costs imposed by increased stringency in worker 
protection requirements will be insignificant, while upgrading 
protection to levels comparable to that offered the private sector by 
the existing OSHA regulations. In addition, EPA will be reducing the 
recordkeeping requirements on schools, which should result in some cost 
savings.


Risks:


This rulemaking will further reduce risks to state and local government 
workers who disturb asbestos. The health risks for general building 
occupants, including school children, will not change as a direct 
result of this rulemaking.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           06/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local, Tribal, Federal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 3047
Please also see Regulatory Agenda entries for the Asbestos Model 
Accreditation Plan Revisions (SAN 3148; RIN 2070-AC51) and the Asbestos 
Worker Protection Rule Amendments (SAN 2249; RIN 2070-AC66).


Agency Contact:
Cindy Fraleigh
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
7404
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 260-3933
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2070-AC62
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
111.  PCBS; POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYL; USE AUTHORIZATIONS
Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Reinventing Government:


This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will 
revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline 
requirements.


Legal Authority:


 15 USC 2605(e) TSCA sec 6(e)


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 761


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The notice of proposed rulemaking that published on December 6, 1994, 
covered the manufacture (including import), processing, distribution in 
commerce, export use, disposal, and marking of PCBs. On June 29, 1998, 
EPA issued a final rule involving the disposal related provisions. The 
other provisions, regarding use authorizations and imports, will be 
addressed in separate actions.


Statement of Need:


This rulemaking is the result of the first comprehensive review of the 
PCB regulations in the 19-year history of the program. The Agency has 
become aware of a number of instances where

[[Page 61357]]

the existing regulations do not allow for activities which do not pose 
an unreasonable risk of injury to health and the environment or where 
they require unreasonable, unrealistic, or non-cost-effective solutions 
to PCB problems.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


TSCA section 6(e) bans the manufacture, processing, distribution in 
commerce and use (except in a totally enclosed manner) of PCBs. It also 
directs EPA to establish standards for disposal and marking of PCBs. 
However, section 6(e) allows the EPA to modify these bans, through 
rulemaking, where it finds no unreasonable risk of injury to health and 
the environment.


Alternatives:


On December 6, 1994, EPA proposed a number of alternatives to the 
existing statutory bans in section 6(e). The proposal also included new 
options and standards for disposal (including remediation) of PCBs.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The EPA projects significant cost savings from authorizations for 
existing uses and the disposal of large-volume wastes such as PCB-
contaminated environmental media. In addition, the relaxation of 
certain administrative requirements should increase the speed of 
remediation of contaminated sites and accelerate the removal from use 
of PCBs. EPA projects minimal implementation costs and is reviewing 
comments which highlight areas for additional cost savings over the 
proposal.


Risks:


The EPA estimates that millions of tons of PCB-contaminated 
environmental media will be remediated under this rule, thus preventing 
large quantities of this long-lived, bioaccumulating chemical from 
entering the food chain.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM           56 FR 26738                                    06/10/91
NPRM            59 FR 62788                                    12/06/94
Final 1 PCB Disp63 FR 35384ions                                06/29/98
Supplemental NPRM Use Authorizations - Data Availability       02/00/99
Final 2 Use Authorizations                                     08/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local, Tribal, Federal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 4179


Agency Contact:
Tony Baney
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
7404
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 260-3933
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2070-AD27
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
112. TRI; POLLUTION PREVENTION ACT INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS
Priority:


Other Significant


Reinventing Government:


This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will 
revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline 
requirements.


Legal Authority:


 42 USC 11013 Pollution Prevention Act


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 372


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


Section 6607(b) of the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 (PPA) (Pub. L. 
101-508) requires the addition of several data elements to the Toxic 
Chemical Release Inventory (TRI) reporting requirements as promulgated 
under section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know 
Act of 1986 (EPCRA) (Pub. L. 99-499). Section 313 of EPCRA requires 
owners or operators of certain facilities that manufacture, process, or 
otherwise use listed toxic chemicals to annually report their releases 
of these chemicals to each environmental medium. The PPA mandates that 
section 313 covered facilities also report on source reduction and 
recycling activities relating to the toxic chemicals beginning with the 
1991 reporting year. Since 1991 covered facilities have been providing 
this information to EPA in section 8A, Source Reduction and Recycling 
Activities, of EPA Form R. On September 25, 1991 (56 FR 48475), EPA 
proposed regulations which would provide definitions and instructions 
for reporting the PPA data elements on the EPA Form R. In this action, 
EPA will amend certain aspects of the September 25, 1991, proposed 
rule.


Statement of Need:


TRI is the most complete and accessible source of information for the 
public on toxic chemical releases in communities across the United 
States. The intention of Congress was for TRI, and indeed all of EPCRA, 
to provide information to local communities. Communities need this 
information to better understand the nature of the releases at the 
local level. The intent of TRI has been to share information on toxic 
chemical releases with local communities to help in their assessments 
of the potential risks associated with such releases. This basic local 
empowerment is the cornerstone of the right-to-know program. Beginning 
with the 1991 reporting year, the PPA has mandated the collection of 
source reduction and recycling information on the Form R. Without 
complete instructions and definitions for the terms used, facilities 
across the nation have been reporting this information inconsistently. 
These inconsistencies severely compromise the data quality of the 
information reported. This action will improve the understanding, 
awareness, and decision-making related to the collection, provision, 
and distribution of these required data elements.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


Section 6607(b) of the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 (PPA) (Pub. L. 
101-508) requires the addition of several data elements to the Toxic 
Chemical Release Inventory (TRI) reporting requirements as promulgated 
under section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know 
Act of 1986 (EPCRA) (Pub. L. 99-499).


Alternatives:


EPA recognizes the reporting burden inherent in TRI and the PPA, and is 
continuing to take every reasonable opportunity to minimize related 
burdens, while ensuring the public's right-to-know. Providing guidance 
to facilities on how to properly report the PPA data will reduce their 
overall reporting burden.

[[Page 61358]]

Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


EPA estimates that industry currently incurs a cost of $61.3 million 
annually to report PPA data on the Form R. This estimate does not 
include the costs related to the seven industries newly subject to 
EPCRA 313. The cost to EPA to process source reduction and waste 
management data equals $2.7 million each year. This action is not 
expected to add to these existing costs, and may actually result in a 
reduction to the overall industry burden and costs.


Risks:


Because of the inconsistencies in the PPA data currently reported on 
the Form R, communities are unable to accurately compare the risks 
related to release and recycling activities between different 
facilities. By providing covered facilities with clear guidance for 
reporting this information, the public will be better equipped to 
determine and compare the risks associated with toxic chemicals being 
released and managed in their community.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            56 FR 48475                                    09/25/91
Supplemental NPRM                                              03/00/99
Final Action                                                   06/00/00
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions


Government Levels Affected:


State, Federal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 2847
Affected Sectors Include: Manufacturing industries in SIC codes 20-39 
plus the following industries and SIC codes: Metal Mining (SIC code 10 
except SIC codes 1011, 1081, and 1094); Coal Mining (SIC code 12 except 
SIC code 1241); Electric Utilities (SIC codes 4911, 4931, 4939); 
Commercial Hazardous Waste Treatment (SIC code 4953); Chemicals and 
Allied Products-Wholesale (SIC code 5169); Petroleum Bulk Terminals and 
Plants (SIC code 5171); and, Solvent Recovery Services (SIC code 7389).


Agency Contact:
Maria Doa
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
7408
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 260-9592
Fax: 202 401-8142
Email: [email protected]
  
Sara Hisel McCoy
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
7408
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 260-7937
Fax: 202 401-8142
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2070-AC24
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
113. TRI; CHEMICAL EXPANSION; FINALIZATION OF DEFERRED CHEMICALS
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


 42 USC 11013; 42 USC 11023; 42 USC 11048; 42 USC 11076; EPCRA 313


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 372


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


On November 30, 1994, EPA added 286 chemicals and chemical categories 
to EPCRA section 313 list, including 39 chemicals as part of two 
delineated categories. Each chemical and chemical category was found to 
meet the statutory criteria described in EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(A)-
(C). At this time, EPA deferred final action on 40 chemicals and one 
chemical category until a later date. These were deferred because the 
comments received on them raised difficult technical or policy issues 
which required additional time to address. EPA chose not to delay final 
action on the 286 chemicals and chemical categories because of the 
additional time needed to address the issues surrounding the smaller 
group of 40 chemicals and one chemical category; rather, EPA believed 
it to be in the spirit of community right-to-know to proceed with the 
final rulemaking of the additional chemicals and chemical categories.


Statement of Need:


The original Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) chemical list consisted of 
320 chemicals and chemical categories. In an effort to provide the 
public with a broader picture of chemicals in their communities, EPA, 
in accordance with EPCRA section 313(d), is expanding the original 
toxic chemical list. By providing the public with information on these 
chemicals, they can participate in informed environmental 
decisionmaking to reduce risks to human health and the environment. On 
January 12, 1994 (59 FR 1788), EPA published a proposed rule to add 313 
chemicals and chemical categories to the TRI chemical list. Of the 313 
chemicals and chemical categories proposed, there are approximately 160 
pesticide active ingredients. The chemicals being proposed were 
selected from numerous other regulatory lists and meet the criteria for 
human health and environmental toxicity in EPCRA section 313(d)(2). In 
addition, the chemicals passed a production volume screen to ensure 
that reports would be received if they are added to the TRI list. Part 
of this activity included the review of 17 chemicals, previously 
described in RIN 2070-AC40/SAN 3007. Sixteen of these chemicals are 
from a list of hazardous air pollutants subject to requirements of the 
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, and one was considered for addition 
due to its extreme aquatic toxicity. Of these 17 chemicals nine were 
included in the proposed rule.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


EPCRA section 313(d) authorizes EPA to add or delete chemicals from the 
TRI list and sets forth the criteria for these actions.


Alternatives:


EPA recognizes the reporting burden inherent in TRI, and is continuing 
to take every reasonable opportunity to minimize this burden while 
ensuring the public's right-to-know. As such, all alternatives will be 
identified and evaluated.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The final total costs are not yet known, since the final listing 
decisions have not yet been made. However, estimates of the potential 
costs were provided as part of the economic analysis that was prepared 
for the proposed action. Undoubtedly, the addition of any of these 
chemicals or the chemical category will result in additional costs to 
the reporting community. The additional information reported in TRI

[[Page 61359]]

increases the public's knowledge regarding the levels of pollutants 
released to the environment and pathways of exposure, improving 
scientific understanding of the health and environmental risks of toxic 
chemicals. It allows the public to make informed decisions on where to 
work and live; enhances the ability of corporate lenders and purchasers 
to more accurately gauge a facility's potential liabilities; and 
assists Federal, State, and local authorities in making better 
decisions on acceptable levels of toxics in communities.


Risks:


With more information, communities will be empowered to determine 
whether they need to take action to reduce risks potentially associated 
with the chemicals being released in their communities. Without such 
information, local communities would not be aware of potential risks to 
the environment and human health that may result from the chemical 
releases of local facilities. The public can also use this data to 
evaluate potential risks from these chemicals and to determine how to 
avoid these risks.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            59 FR 1788                                     01/12/94
Final - Finalize59 FR 61432f 286 Chemicals and Chemical Categor11/30/94
Supplemental NPRM Deferred Chemicals                           06/00/99
Final Action Deferred Chemicals                                12/00/00
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions


Government Levels Affected:


State, Federal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 3007
Includes SIC codes: Manufacturing industries in SIC codes 20-39 plus 
the following industries and SIC codes: Metal Mining (SIC code 10 
except SIC codes 1011, 1081, and 1094); Coal Mining (SIC code 12 except 
SIC code 1241); Electric Utilities (SIC codes 4911, 4931, 4939); 
Commercial Hazardous Waste Treatment (SIC code 4953); Chemicals and 
Allied Products-Wholesale (SIC code 5169); Petroleum Bulk Terminals and 
Plants (SIC code 5171); and, Solvent Recovery Services (SIC code 7389).


Agency Contact:
Maria J. Doa
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
7408
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 260-9592
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2070-AC47
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
114. TRI; REPORTING THRESHOLD AMENDMENT; TOXIC CHEMICALS RELEASE 
REPORTING; COMMUNITY RIGHT-TO-KNOW
Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


 EPCRA 313; 42 USC 11013; 42 USC 11023; 42 USC 11048; 42 USC 11076


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 372


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) currently requires reporting from 
facilities which manufacture or process at least 25,000 pounds of a 
listed chemical, or otherwise use 10,000 lbs of a listed chemical. 
These thresholds were initially established under the Emergency 
Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) section 313(f)(1). 
Section 313(f)(2) of EPCRA gives the Administrator the power to 
establish a threshold amount for a toxic chemical different from the 
amount established by paragraph (1) and that such altered thresholds 
may be based on classes of chemicals. EPA is considering lowering the 
thresholds for those chemicals which it determines to be highly toxic 
at very low dose levels and/or have physical, chemical, or biological 
properties that make the chemicals persist for extended periods in the 
environment, and/or bioaccumulate through the food chain. Persistent 
bioaccumulative toxic chemicals are of particular concern in ecosystems 
such as the Great Lakes Basin due to the long retention time of the 
individual lakes and the cycling of the chemicals from one component of 
the ecosystem to another. EPA is currently conducting an analysis to 
determine which chemicals present the specific problems described 
above, and to determine what the altered threshold value(s) should be.


Statement of Need:


TRI is the most complete and accessible source of information for the 
public on toxic chemical releases in communities across the United 
States. The intention of Congress was for TRI, and indeed all of EPCRA, 
to provide information to local communities. Communities need this 
information to better understand the nature of the releases at the 
local level. The intent of TRI has been to share information on 
releases with local communities to help in their assessments of the 
risks. This basic local empowerment is the cornerstone of the right-to-
know program.
Yet because of the current reporting thresholds, TRI does not collect 
release and transfer data on small quantities of chemicals that may 
persist and bioaccumulate in the environment. Even small releases of 
such chemicals can have significant impacts on human health and the 
environment. Congress gave EPA the authority to adjust reporting 
thresholds, because it recognized that this might be necessary in order 
to address the American public's right to know what is happening to the 
environment near their homes, schools, and businesses.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


42 USC 11013; 42 USC 11023; 42 USC 11048; 42 USC 11076; EPCRA S313


Alternatives:


EPA recognizes the reporting burden inherent in TRI, and is continuing 
to take every reasonable opportunity to minimize this burden while 
ensuring the public's right-to-know. As such, all available 
alternatives will be identified and evaluated.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The anticipated costs related to this action are unknown at present. At 
this point the Agency is still unsure how low to set reporting 
thresholds or for what specific list of chemicals the lower reporting 
thresholds should apply. The information reported in TRI increases the 
knowledge levels of pollutants released to the environment and pathways 
to exposure, improving scientific understanding of the health and 
environmental risks of toxic chemicals; allows the public to make 
informed decisions on where to work and live; enhances the ability of

[[Page 61360]]

corporate lenders and purchasers to more accurately gauge a facility's 
potential liability; and assists Federal, State, and local authorities 
in making better decisions on acceptable levels of toxics in 
communities.


Risks:


Currently communities do not have access to TRI data on chemicals that, 
although released in relatively small quantities, pose a potential risk 
to human health and the environment because they persist and 
bioaccumulate. By lowering the reporting thresholds for such chemicals, 
the public will be able to determine if such chemicals are being 
released into their communities and whether any action should be taken 
to reduce potential risks.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           11/00/98
Final Action                                                   09/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions


Government Levels Affected:


State, Federal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 3880
OTHER DEADLINE: Presidential Initiative with Final Rule in place and 
effective by 12/31/99. AFFECTED SECTORS: Manufacturing industries in 
SIC codes 20-39 plus the following industries and SIC codes: Metal 
Mining (SIC code 10 except SIC codes 1011, 1081, and 1094); Coal Mining 
(SIC code 12 except SIC code 1241); Electric Utilities (SIC codes 4911, 
4931, 4939); Commercial Hazardous Waste Treatment (SIC code 4953); 
Chemicals and Allied Products-Wholesale (SIC code 5169); Petroleum Bulk 
Terminals and Plants (SIC code 5171); and, Solvent Recovery Services 
(SIC code 7389).


Agency Contact:
Maria Doa
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
7408
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 260-9592
Fax: 202 401-8142
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2070-AD09
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
115. TRI; REVIEW OF CHEMICALS ON THE ORIGINAL TRI LIST
Priority:


Other Significant


Reinventing Government:


This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will 
revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline 
requirements.


Legal Authority:


 42 USC 1101 et seq


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 372


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


When TRI was established by Congress in 1986, the statutory language 
placed 309 chemicals and 20 categories of chemicals on the TRI list; 
that is referred to as the original TRI list. The chemicals on the 
original list were taken from two existing lists of toxic substances: 
the Maryland Chemical Inventory Report List of Toxic or Hazardous 
Substances, and the New Jersey Environmental Hazardous Substances list. 
This action constitutes the first systematic review of toxicology and 
environmental data for all the chemicals on the original TRI list to 
determine whether data for those chemicals conform with the statutory 
criteria for listing of chemicals on TRI. Chemicals for which data do 
not meet the statutory criteria will be delisted.


Statement of Need:


When chemicals on the original TRI list have been subjects of petitions 
for delisting, thorough reviews have been carried out of toxicity and 
environmental data for the chemicals to determine whether the chemicals 
should be retained on TRI or should be delisted. Although petitions for 
delisting have resulted in reviews of a substantial number of chemicals 
on the original TRI list, this action is the first systematic review of 
toxicity and environmental data for all the chemicals on the original 
list. This action is needed to ensure that TRI lists chemicals for 
which data on toxicity and environmental harm meet the statutory 
criteria, therefore justifying the burden placed on entities required 
to report for the TRI program.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


Section 313(d) of EPCRA authorizes EPA to add or delete chemicals from 
the TRI list, and sets forth criteria for these actions.


Alternatives:


EPA recognizes the reporting burden inherent in compliance with TRI, 
and takes all reasonable opportunities to minimize the burden while 
ensuring that the public receives information necessary for protection 
of health and the environment. Reporting burdens would be reduced if 
chemicals are taken off the TRI list as a result of the data review. 
The possibility that chemicals will be delisted as a result of the data 
review is an alternative to retaining chemicals on the TRI list.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The anticipated costs to industry related to this action are unknown at 
present. Costs to industry would be reduced if chemicals are removed 
from the TRI list. Benefits would result from any reduction in 
reporting burden as a result of the delisting of a chemical.


Risks:


TRI provides information to industry, governments and the public on 
chemicals that can cause harm to health or the environment. The review 
of toxicology and environmental data for all chemicals on the original 
TRI list will ensure that the list focuses only on those chemicals that 
pose meaningful possibilities of risks to human health or the 
environment, increasing the effectiveness of the TRI.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           07/00/99
Final Rule                                                     12/00/00
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions


Government Levels Affected:


State, Federal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 4015
AFFECTED SECTORS: Manufacturing industries in SIC codes 20-39 plus the 
following industries and SIC codes: Metal Mining (SIC code 10 except 
SIC codes 1011, 1081, and 1094); Coal Mining (SIC code 12 except SIC 
code 1241); Electric Utilities (SIC codes 4911, 4931, 4939).

[[Page 61361]]




Agency Contact:
Daniel R. Bushman
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
7408
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 260-3882
Fax: 202 401-8142
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2070-AD18
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
116. TRI; ADDITION OF OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION TO THE 
TOXIC RELEASE INVENTORY
Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


 42 USC 11013 EPCRA 313; 42 USC 11023; 42 USC 1108; 42 USC 11076


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 372


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The original Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) required reporting from 
facilities in Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes 20-39. 
These SIC codes cover facilities whose primary economic activity was 
classified as manufacturing. This requirement was specified under the 
Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act (EPCRA) section 
313(b)(1)(A). EPCRA section 313(b)(1)(B) and (b)(2) provide the 
Administrator with the authority to add or delete SIC codes and the 
discretion to add particular facilities based on a broad set of 
factors. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has recently 
expanded this original list of covered industries. EPA began additional 
analyses to determine whether facilities which perform exploration and 
production of oil and gas should also be added to the list of 
facilities covered under EPCRA section 313. Facilities recently added 
include certain electric generating facilities, waste management 
facilities, metal and coal mining, hazardous waste treatment 
facilities, solvent recyclers, and wholesale distributors of chemicals 
and petroleum products.


Statement of Need:


The Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act (EPCRA) was 
passed to better plan for and prevent chemical accidents and 
emergencies and to provide the public with access to information 
regarding the release and disposition of toxic chemicals in their 
communities. The public access requirements of EPCRA originally covered 
facilities operating within the manufacturing sector. It has come to 
EPA's attention that industry groups not classified within the 
manufacturing sector also manage toxic chemicals and that information 
concerning their management practices is limited and generally not 
publicly available in the manner provided by EPCRA section 313. EPA 
believes that activities conducted by oil and gas exploration and 
production facilities involve toxic chemicals and may be associated 
with wastes that are managed for which limited information is publicly 
available. EPA believes that information related to the management of 
wastes associated with oil and gas exploration and production 
activities may significantly contribute to the public's knowledge of 
the release and disposition of toxic chemicals in the environment.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


This requirement was specified under the Emergency Planning and 
Community Right-To-Know Act (EPCRA) section 313(b)(1)(A). EPCRA section 
313(b)(1)(B) and (b)(2) provide the Administrator with the authority to 
add or delete SIC codes and the discretion to add particular facilities 
based on a broad set of factors. The statute as originally passed 
required reporting from facilities in Standard Industrial 
Classification (SIC) codes 20-39 only. The Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA) has recently expanded this original list of covered 
industries.


Alternatives:


Based on currently available information, existing sources of 
information are incomplete and do not satisfy the need of making 
publicly available information on the release and disposition of toxic 
chemicals in communities.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Based on the current status of the project, anticipated costs are 
unknown. Estimated costs for compliance with EPCRA section 313 
reporting requirements are available, but until further evaluation is 
completed no estimates are available for the impact of the resulting 
requirements. Equally true, until further evaluations are performed, 
estimated benefits cannot be accurately calculated. Generally, 
anticipated benefits will be in the form of making available more 
complete information regarding the release and disposition of toxic 
chemicals in the environment.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           09/00/99
Final Action                                                   12/00/00
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions


Government Levels Affected:


State, Federal


Sectors Affected:


 211111 Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas Extraction


Additional Information:


SAN No. 4023
Program is implemented at the Federal level. States are designated as 
co-recipients of the information, but are not required to manage the 
information in any particular manner.


Agency Contact:
Tim Crawford
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
7408
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 260-1715
Fax: 202 401-8142
Email: [email protected]
  
Maria J. Doa
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
7408
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 260-9592
Fax: 202 401-8142
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2070-AD19
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
117. STANDARDIZED PERMIT FOR RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES
Priority:


Other Significant


Reinventing Government:


This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will

[[Page 61362]]

revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline 
requirements.


Legal Authority:


 42 USC 6905; 42 USC 6912; 42 USC 6924; 42 USC 6925; 42 USC 6927; 42 
USC 6939; 42 USC 6974


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 124; 40 CFR 267; 40 CFR 270


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rulemaking will allow a type of general permit, called a 
standardized permit, for facilities that generate waste and routinely 
manage the waste on-site in tanks, containers, and containment 
buildings. Under the standardized permit, facility owners and operators 
would certify compliance with generic design and operating conditions 
set on a national basis. The permitting agency would review the 
certifications submitted by the facility owners or operators. The 
permitting agency would also be able to impose additional site-specific 
terms and conditions for corrective action or other purposes, as called 
for by RCRA. Ensuring compliance with the standardized permit's terms 
and conditions would occur during inspection of the facility after the 
permit has been issued.


Statement of Need:


The Agency convened a special task force in 1994 to look at permitting 
activities throughout its different programs and to make specific 
recommendations to improve these permitting programs. This task force, 
known as the Permits Improvement Team (PIT), spent two years working 
with stakeholders from the Agency, State permitting agencies, industry, 
and the environmental community. The PIT stakeholders mentioned, among 
other things, that permitting activities should be commensurate with 
the complexity of the activity. The stakeholders felt that current 
Agency permitting programs were not flexible enough to allow 
streamlined procedures for routine permitting activities.
Currently, facilities that store, treat, or dispose of hazardous waste 
must obtain site-specific ``individual'' permits prescribing conditions 
for each ``unit'' (e.g., tank, container area, etc.) in which hazardous 
waste is managed. Experience gained by the Agency and states over the 
past 15 years has shown that not all waste management activities are at 
the same level of complexity. Some activities, such as thermal 
treatment or land disposal of hazardous waste, are more complex than 
storage of hazardous waste. The Agency believes that thermal treatment 
and land disposal activities continue to warrant ``individual'' 
permits, prescribing unit-specific conditions. However, the Agency 
believes that some accommodation can be made for hazardous waste 
management practices in standardized units such as tanks, container 
storage areas, and containment buildings. The Agency's Permit 
Improvement Team tentatively recommended, among other things, that 
regulations be developed to allow ``standardized permits'' for on-site 
storage and non-thermal treatment of hazardous waste in tanks, 
containers, and containment buildings. The Agency is proposing to 
revise the RCRA regulations to allow this type of permit.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


Facilities that manage hazardous waste are required under RCRA to 
obtain a permit and carry out corrective action as necessary (see: RCRA 
Section 3004, 3005, 3008 and 3010). EPA has discretion under these 
statutory provisions to apply different permitting procedures to 
different types of facilities, as EPA is proposing to do here. No 
aspect of this streamlining action is required by court order.


Alternatives:


Several significant alternatives or options that have been considered 
concern the scope of the rule and corrective action alternatives. The 
scope of the proposed rule is expected to be limited to facilities that 
generate waste and manage it on-site. The Agency considered, however, 
and plans to ask for comment on, whether coverage of the rule should be 
expanded to facilities that generate waste at operations in more than 
one location and want to manage the waste at one location. The Agency 
also plans to ask for comment on the option of allowing a facility's 
RCRA corrective action activities to be postponed if corrective action 
is being carried out under an approved State remedial program.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The following cost/benefit information is based on preliminary 
estimates and is being provided for informational purposes only; it is 
subject to change. The RCRA standardized permit proposal is an optional 
rule designed to streamline the regulatory burden to EPA/States as well 
as to private sector facilities covered by the rule, by reducing the 
amount of information collected, submitted and reviewed for permit 
actions (i.e. new permit applications, permit modifications, and permit 
renewals). Because the rule proposes to streamline existing RCRA 
regulation, rather than add new RCRA regulation, implementation of the 
rule by the EPA and by States with EPA-authorized permitting programs 
is expected to result in economic benefits in the form of national cost 
savings from reducing both government and private sector resources 
required for the RCRA permit process. Based on a preliminary economic 
analysis, the EPA estimates that the potential average annual cost 
savings to eligible facilities resulting from implementation of this 
rule, will range from approximately $1,000 to $4,600 per permit action, 
depending on the type of permit and the type of treatment and storage 
equipment. The expected national cost savings benefit to the private 
sector for RCRA permitting is between $4.2 and $8.8 million annually. 
In addition, this rule is expected to produce an average annual cost 
savings benefit for streamlined EPA/State administrative review of $2.0 
million, representing a total annual national cost savings benefit of 
$6.2 to $10.8 million. Potential cost savings benefits are incremental 
to the average annual cost associated with the current RCRA permitting 
program. Compared to the magnitude of potential benefits, the costs to 
EPA/States of implementing the standardized permit option are 
considered minimal, and therefore have not been estimated by the EPA.


Risks:


A description of risks is not applicable to the rule. The purpose of 
this rule is to streamline existing RCRA permit application and 
issuance procedures. Since facilities covered by this rule are 
currently already required to obtain RCRA permits, this rule will have 
minimal effects on incremental risk reduction.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           12/00/98
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


State, Federal

[[Page 61363]]

Sectors Affected:


 3251 Basic Chemical Manufacturing; 325211 Plastics Material and Resin 
Manufacturing; 32551 Paint and Coating Manufacturing; 3252 Resin, 
Synthetic Rubber, and Artificial and Synthetic Fibers and Filaments 
Manufacturing; 32411 Petroleum Refineries; 32532 Pesticide and Other 
Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing; 332813 Electroplating, Plating, 
Polishing, Anodizing and Coloring


Additional Information:


SAN No. 4028


Agency Contact:
Vernon Myers
Environmental Protection Agency
Solid Waste and Emergency Response
5303W
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 703 308-8660
Fax: 703 308-8609
RIN: 2050-AE44
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
118. HAZARDOUS WASTE MANIFEST REGULATION
Priority:


Other Significant


Reinventing Government:


This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will 
revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline 
requirements.


Legal Authority:


 42 USC 6922 Resource Conservation Recovery Act sec 3002; 42 USC 6923 
Resource Conservation Recovery Act sec 3003; 42 USC 6926 Resource 
Conservation Recovery Act sec 3006


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 260; 40 CFR 261; 40 CFR 262; 40 CFR 263; 40 CFR 264; 40 CFR 
265; 40 CFR 270; 40 CFR 271


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest (Form 8700-22) is a multi-copy 
form used to identify the quantity, composition, origin, routing, and 
destination of hazardous waste during its transportation. The manifest 
system's reliance on paper results in significant paperwork and cost 
burden to waste handlers and States who collect manifest information. 
The Agency intends to pursue an optional approach to redesign the 
manifest system so that it utilizes automated technologies to increase 
access to manifest related information, and to facilitate the manifest 
process, including the form's preparation, transmission, and 
recordkeeping, thereby lessening the total burden on waste handlers and 
States.


Statement of Need:


The Agency is revising the RCRA manifest system because of the amount 
of paperwork burden associated with the manifest. Reduction in 
paperwork burden is part of the Administration's Regulatory Reinvention 
goal of cutting government ``red tape.'' The Agency wants to 
standardize the manifest program across the States by introducing a 
truly uniform manifest tracking form. The chief goal of the manifest 
system is to facilitate the safe transportation of offsite shipments of 
hazardous waste to appropriate RCRA management facilities. Furthermore, 
the manifest promotes accountability throughout the generation, 
transportation, and disposal cycle of a hazardous waste shipment; and 
the manifest also provides essential hazard information to handlers and 
emergency responders.


Alternatives:


The Agency has looked at three alternatives to revising the manifest 
system. The first alternative is to revise and standardize the manifest 
form itself. The second alternative is to introduce the option of 
automated technologies (electronic commerce) to reduce paperwork and 
make the manifest system more efficient. The third alternative is to 
develop alternative requirements for certain types of hazardous waste 
handlers which will reduce some of the paperwork burden. The Agency has 
chosen to combine the three alternatives into one cohesive package 
which will preserve the positive features of the current manifest 
system (maintaining the necessary controls to protect human health and 
the environment) and at the same time substantially reducing the burden 
on industry.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The overall costs of this action should be minimal to the regulated 
industry since the new Federal manifest system should reduce the 
overall number of elements on the manifest form. Additionally, 
uniformity in data required across the U.S. will benefit the 
transportation industry by reducing the burden associated with 
obtaining various State requirements for wastes traveling through 
multiple States. Other hazardous waste handlers will benefit from 
having the option to use automation to complete, send, receive, and 
store manifest information. Some States may have to modify their data 
systems in response to his action. The Agency is currently conducting 
an analysis to determine the costs and benefits of the rule.


Risks:


This rule reduces the burden of the manifest on the public without 
reducing protectiveness to the public.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           03/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


State, Tribal, Federal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 3147


Agency Contact:
Ann Codrington
Environmental Protection Agency
Solid Waste and Emergency Response
5304W
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 703 308-8825
  
Rich Lashier
Environmental Protection Agency
Solid Waste and Emergency Response
5304W
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 703 308-8796
RIN: 2050-AE21
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
119. MANAGEMENT OF CEMENT KILN DUST (CKD)
Priority:


Other Significant


Reinventing Government:


This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will 
revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline 
requirements.

[[Page 61364]]

Legal Authority:


 42 USC 6912(a) Resource Conservation Recovery Act sec 2002(a); 42 USC 
6921(a) Resource Conservation Recovery Act sec 3001(a)


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 259; 40 CFR 261; 40 CFR 264; 40 CFR 266


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


CKD is a high volume material by-product of the cement manufacturing 
process. While it contains potentially hazardous constituents such as 
lead, cadmium and chromium, it has been exempted since November 1980 
from hazardous waste regulation under RCRA Subtitle C by the Bevill 
Amendment, which modified Section 3001 of RCRA to exempt certain 
special wastes until further studies could be completed and any 
applicable regulations were promulgated. In December 1993, EPA 
submitted a Report to Congress with its findings on the nature and 
management practices associated with CKD. This was followed in January 
1995 by an EPA regulatory determination published in the Federal 
Register (60 FR 7366, 2/7/95), which concluded that additional control 
of CKD is warranted. In the regulatory determination EPA committed to 
develop additional tailored regulations under RCRA Subtitle C and, if 
necessary, the Clean Air Act. As part of its regulatory development 
effort, the Office of Solid Waste within EPA's Office of Solid Waste 
and Emergency Response has initiated further studies and has held 
informal discussions with stakeholders interested in regulations under 
RCRA Subtitle C for the management of CKD. The proposed regulations 
will be tailored to protect human health and the environment while 
limiting burden on the regulated community.


Statement of Need:


This action follows EPA's RCRA mandated regulatory determination on 
CKD, published in the Federal Register (60 FR 7366, 2/7/95), which 
concluded that additional control of CKD is warranted in order to 
protect human health, and to prevent environmental damage associated 
with current disposal practices for this waste.


Alternatives:


EPA will develop a range of landfill management standards for sensitive 
and non-sensitive environments, each involving protections for 
groundwater and air pathways. It is anticipated that the base standards 
would be performance based, and form the basis for a conditional 
exemption from Subtitle C regulation. If an owner/operator complied 
with the base performance standards, his CKD waste would not be subject 
to Subtitle C regulation. Alternatively, an owner/operator could comply 
with default technical requirements under Subtitle C.
It is anticipated that the conditions for exemption and the default 
technical requirements would be similar and would include: fugitive 
dust controls, provisions and restrictions for landfills located in 
sensitive environments, groundwater monitoring requirements, 
performance standards for liners and caps, metals limits for CKD used 
as agricultural lime, and corrective action for currently active units. 
The Agency hopes to afford States considerable flexibility in setting 
and tailoring requirements in their own programs.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Analysis of costs and benefits will be conducted as part of the 
economic analysis for this rule as required under Executive Order 
12866.


Risks:


As explained in the regulatory determination for CKD, EPA believes that 
subjecting CKD waste to the full RCRA Subtitle C program would be 
prohibitively burdensome on the cement industry. EPA believes it is 
appropriate to apply only those components of Subtitle C that are 
necessary, based on our current knowledge of the cement industry and 
the human health and environmental concerns associated with CKD, 
thereby achieving a common sense result with respect to the hazards 
posed by CKD on a site-specific basis. EPA anticipates that any such 
standards would be designed to be protective, yet minimally burdensome, 
and may not necessarily apply to all facilities, or may not apply to 
all facilities in the same manner or to the same extent.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           11/00/98
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


State, Federal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 3856


Agency Contact:
William Schoenborn
Environmental Protection Agency
Solid Waste and Emergency Response
5306W
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 703 308-8483
RIN: 2050-AE34
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
120. BEST TECHNOLOGY AVAILABLE (BTA) FOR COOLING WATER INTAKE 
STRUCTURES UNDER SECTION 316(B) OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT
Priority:


Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.


Legal Authority:


 33 USC 1311 CWA sec 301; 33 USC 1316 CWA sec 306; 33 USC 1326 CWA sec 
316; 33 USC 1361 CWA sec 501


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 125; 40 CFR 401


Legal Deadline:


NPRM, Judicial, July 2, 1999.


Final, Judicial, August 13, 2001.


Abstract:


EPA is developing regulations to minimize the adverse environmental 
impact of cooling water intake structures (e.g., to minimize the impact 
on aquatic organisms).


Statement of Need:


State implementation of section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act has been 
inconsistent, in several instances allowing significant impacts on 
aquatic ecosystems. Literally tons of fish and other aquatic organisms 
are cropped annually as a result of inadequate controls of cooling 
water intake.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


This action is required under consent decree in settlement of Cronin, 
et al. v. Reilly, 93 Civ. 0314 (AGS) (U.S.D.C., Southern District of 
New York, October 10, 1995).


Alternatives:


Regulatory options are being developed at this time.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Undetermined.

[[Page 61365]]

Risks:


Undetermined.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           07/00/99
Final Action                                                   08/00/01
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local, Federal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 3444


Agency Contact:
Deborah Nagle
Environmental Protection Agency
Water
4203
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 260-2656
RIN: 2040-AC34
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
121. REVISION OF NPDES INDUSTRIAL PERMIT APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS AND 
FORM 2C--WASTEWATER DISCHARGE INFORMATION
Priority:


Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.


Reinventing Government:


This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will 
revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline 
requirements.


Legal Authority:


 33 USC 1342 Clean Water Act sec 402


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 122.21(g)


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


All existing manufacturing, commercial, mining, and silvicultural 
operations requiring a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 
(NPDES) permit must submit an application in order to obtain a permit. 
The existing industrial application form has not been revised since 
1984 and needs to be updated to reflect statutory and regulatory 
changes in the NPDES program, advances in analytical methods and an 
increased emphasis on toxic control. The purpose of this action is to 
revise and consolidate existing application forms and requirements for 
industries, and to streamline the permit application process for these 
facilities. The Agency seeks to establish a unified process that 
minimizes the need for additional information from applicants while 
providing permit writers the necessary information, including toxics 
data, to ensure that permits adequately address concerns of permittees 
and environmental protection. The Agency will seek to allow the use of 
existing data to the extent possible and to avoid unnecessary 
reporting. The Agency is also considering how to utilize electronic 
data submission. Although these forms will increase the burden on 
permittees not already required to provide these data, many other 
permittees are already required to submit the data. The Agency is 
reviewing ways to minimize the need for information from small 
dischargers, including tribal facilities. EPA will also seek to 
minimize and reduce the burden on States through improvements to the 
application forms.


Statement of Need:


Section 402(a) of the CWA, as amended, authorizes the EPA to issue 
permits under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 
(NPDES) permits program for the discharge of any pollutants or 
combination of pollutants. Form 2C is the NPDES permit application for 
discharges from manufacturing, commercial, mining and silviculture 
operations. Form 2C has not been revised since 1984 despite many 
amendments to the CWA and to the regulations under the Act which have 
significantly changed the permitting strategy of the NPDES program. The 
proposed rule will finalize changes to the regulations at sections 
122.21(d) and 122.21(g) and to Form 2C that will make a number of 
improvements to the Form 2C permitting process. The proposed rule will 
consolidate application requirements and clarify the process for permit 
applicants, thereby reducing redundant reporting and reducing 
permitting burden on facilities. It will effectively provide permit 
writers with the information necessary to develop appropriate NPDES 
permits consistent with requirements of the CWA. Additionally, the 
proposed rule will meet the updated NPDES requirements, scientific 
advancements, and current socioeconomic concerns.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


Not required by law or court order.


Alternatives:


The Form 2C workgroup identified several key issues to be addressed and 
revised. For each key issue several options were suggested and 
consensus was reached on these options during an April 1996 initial 
Form 2C workgroup closure meeting. The proposed rule reflects the 
options selected.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


It is anticipated that the rule will reduce permitting application 
burden to facilities and improve the permit writer's ability to 
evaluate discharges because of improvements made to information and 
data submission requirements. Generally, it is anticipated that the 
rule will clarify the permitting application requirements. As a whole, 
such changes to the rule and Form 2C will enable it to serve its 
regulatory purpose more efficiently, thereby benefiting the environment 
and human health.


Risks:


The application form rule will allow permit writers to better evaluate 
industrial discharges, and the better a permit writer can evaluate the 
discharge, the better EPA can protect the environment and human health.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           12/00/98
Final Action                                                   09/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local, Tribal, Federal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 3234


Agency Contact:
Greg Gwaltney
Environmental Protection Agency
Water
4203
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 260-9532
RIN: 2040-AC26

[[Page 61366]]

_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
122. STREAMLINING THE GENERAL PRETREATMENT REGULATIONS FOR EXISTING AND 
NEW SOURCES OF POLLUTION
Priority:


Other Significant


Reinventing Government:


This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will 
revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline 
requirements.


Legal Authority:


 33 USC 1314 Clean Water Act sec 304; 33 USC 1317 Clean Water Act sec 
307; 33 USC 1342 Clean Water Act sec 402j; 33 USC 1361 Clean Water Act 
sec 501


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 403


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The National Pretreatment Program was established in 1972. The Office 
of Water is exploring ways to reduce federally mandated activities 
under the program that don't result in benefits to the environment and 
to improve program efficiencies. For example, this rule will consider 
appropriate exclusions or variable requirements for numerous smaller 
facilities that contribute insignificant amounts of pollutants.


Statement of Need:


Many POTWs and smaller industrial users have identified problems with 
the effectiveness of some requirements of the Pretreatment Program. 
Reducing the administrative and monitoring costs for these entities 
will provide greater flexibility in the use of program resources to 
achieve environmental protection.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


This action is not required by law or court order.


Alternatives:


None known.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Undetermined as of this date; a very preliminary estimate of the burden 
reduction is 1 percent to 10 percent of the total annual burden. The 
principal benefit is to provide POTWs and industrial users with 
additional flexibility in conducting their pretreatment program 
activities.


Risks:


None known.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           12/00/98
Final Action                                                   09/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local, Tribal, Federal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 3663


Agency Contact:
Jeff Smith
Environmental Protection Agency
Water
4203
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 260-5586
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2040-AC58
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
123. NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS: RADON
Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


 42 USC 300 Safe Drinking Water Act sec 1412


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 141; 40 CFR 142


Legal Deadline:


Other, Statutory, February 6, 1999, Publish radon health risk reduction 
and cost analysis.


NPRM, Statutory, August 6, 1999.


Final, Statutory, August 6, 2000.


Abstract:


Radon in drinking water increases risk to public health, both from 
inhalation of radon discharged through normal household water use, such 
as showering, and from ingestion of water. In 1991, EPA estimated that 
radon in public drinking water supplies causes about 192 avoidable 
cancer cases each year. EPA does not currently regulate radon in 
drinking water. On July 18, 1991, EPA proposed a Maximum Contaminant 
Level (MCL) for radon in drinking water at 300 pCi/L, to address radon 
in public water supplies (systems serving over 25 individuals or with 
greater than 15 service connections). EPA withdrew the proposed radon 
regulation on August 6, 1997 (62 FR 42221). This rule will impact small 
entities, including small public water supplies and municipalities. 
Tribal governments will be affected if they provide water through 
systems meeting the definition of public water supply. States with 
primacy will implement the final regulation, and will be asked to 
assist EPA in developing guidelines for multi-media mitigation 
programs.
The 1996 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act add new radon 
requirements. Congress directed EPA to: (1) Withdraw the 1991 proposed 
rule; (2) Work with the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to conduct a 
risk assessment for radon in drinking water and an assessment of the 
health risk reduction benefits associated with various mitigation 
methods of reducing radon in indoor air; (3) Publish a radon health 
risk reduction and cost analysis for possible radon MCLs for public 
comment, by February 1999; (4) Propose MCL Goal and National Primary 
Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR) for radon by August 1999; and (5) 
Publish MCL Goal and Final NPDWR for radon, by August 2000.
Pursuant to 1412 (b)(13) of SDWA, EPA promulgates an MCL more stringent 
than necessary to reduce the contribution to radon in indoor air from 
drinking water to a concentration that is equivalent to the national 
average concentration of radon in outdoor air, the Agency must 
establish an alternative MCL. The level of the alternative MCL is 
linked to average outdoor radon levels. If an alternative MCL is 
established, EPA must publish guidelines for States to develop 
multimedia radon mitigation programs. If EPA approves a State 
multimedia mitigation program, public water supply systems within the 
State may comply with the alternative MCL. EPA shall evaluate 
multimedia radon mitigation programs every 5 years.


Statement of Need:


Radon in drinking water increases risk to public health, both from 
inhalation of radon discharged through normal water use, such as 
showering, and from ingestion of water.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


Pursuant to the Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended in 1996, section

[[Page 61367]]

1412(b)(13), EPA is required to: (1) Withdraw the 1991 proposed radon 
in drinking water rule; (2) Work with the National Academy of Sciences 
to conduct a risk assessment for radon in drinking water and an 
assessment of the health risk reduction benefits associated with 
various mitigation methods of reducing radon in indoor air; (3) Publish 
a radon health risk reduction and cost analysis for possible radon 
Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for public comment, by February 1999; 
(4) Propose an MCL Goal and National Primary Drinking Water Regulation 
(NPDWR) for radon by August 1999; and (5) Publish an MCL Goal and Final 
NPDWR for radon by August 2000.
In addition, if EPA promulgates an MCL more stringent than necessary to 
reduce the contribution to radon in indoor air from drinking water to a 
concentration that is equivalent to the national average concentration 
of radon in outdoor air, the Agency must establish an alternative MCL 
(AMCL). The AMCL is to be set at a level which would result in a 
contribution of radon from drinking water to radon levels in indoor air 
equivalent to the national average concentration of radon in outdoor 
air. If an alternative MCL is established, EPA must publish guidelines 
for States to develop multimedia radon mitigation programs. EPA shall 
approve State multimedia mitigation programs if they are expected to 
achieve equivalent or greater health risk reduction benefits than would 
be achieved through compliance with the MCL. If EPA approves a State 
multimedia mitigation program, public water supply systems within the 
State may comply with the AMCL. If a State does not have an approved 
multimedia mitigation program, any public water system may submit a 
program for approval by EPA according to the same criteria, conditions, 
and approval process that would apply to a State program. EPA shall 
evaluate multimedia mitigation programs every 5 years.


Alternatives:


EPA will consider a range of MCL options for radon in drinking water in 
the Health Risk Reduction and Cost Analysis (HRRCA) (to be published by 
February 1999). EPA will also develop guidelines for a State or public 
water system to develop a multimedia mitigation program in order for it 
to comply with the AMCL. The National Academy of Sciences will provide 
information on key factors (the water to air transfer factor and the 
national average outdoor radon level) that EPA will use in setting the 
AMCL.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


EPA is currently developing estimates of the anticipated costs and 
benefits. Among other things, we will be evaluating the unit risk 
information (with the input of the National Academy of Sciences), the 
occurrence of radon in public water systems, the unit costs of various 
types of radon in water treatment systems, the characterization of the 
flows associated with ``model'' systems, the number of systems in 
various size categories, the costs and benefits associated with the 
health effects of radon, and models for integrating much of these data. 
Most of this information and supporting calculations are expected to be 
available by the time the Health Risk Reduction and Cost Analysis is 
published (February 1999).


Risks:


In accordance with the Safe Drinking Water Act, the National Academy of 
Sciences (NAS) is conducting a risk assessment for radon in drinking 
water and will be producing a consensus report by August 1998. The NAS 
report, which is expected to include the unit risk (risk per pCi/L) 
associated with exposure to radon in drinking water, will be used along 
with other available information to develop a national risk estimate 
for radon in drinking water.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM           51 FR 34836                                    09/30/86
NPRM            56 FR 33050                                    07/18/91
Withdrawal of NP62 FR 42221                                    08/06/97
Notice                                                         02/00/99
Reproposal                                                     08/00/99
Final                                                          08/00/00
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, Organizations


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local, Tribal, Federal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 2281


Agency Contact:
Sylvia Malm
Environmental Protection Agency
Water
4607
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 260-0417
RIN: 2040-AA94
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
124. NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS: GROUND WATER RULE
Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


 42 USC 300 Safe Drinking Water Act sec 1412


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 141; 40 CFR 142


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, May 31, 2002.


Abstract:


The Safe Drinking Water Act as amended in 1996 directs EPA to 
promulgate regulations requiring disinfection ``as necessary'' for 
ground water systems. The intention is to reduce microbial 
contamination risk from public water systems relying on ground water. 
To determine if treatment is necessary, the rule will establish a 
framework to identify public water supplies vulnerable to microbial 
contamination and to develop and implement risk control strategies 
including but not limited to disinfection. Development and 
implementation of the rule will involve local, tribal, State and 
Federal governments. The structure of the draft rule is a series of 
barriers to microbial contamination. The proposed barriers are source 
water protection and vulnerability assessment; assessment and 
maintenance of the well, treatment facility and distribution system; 
disinfection where necessary; and monitoring.


Statement of Need:


Public water systems (PWSs) that use ground water as their sole source 
of water, as opposed to surface water PWSs, are not federally regulated 
as to treatment for microorganisms. There is data that indicates that a 
number of ground water PWSs are contaminated with microorganisms of 
fecal origin that can and have caused illness.

[[Page 61368]]

Summary of the Legal Basis:


Section 1412(b)(1)(A) of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) requires 
EPA to establish National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for 
contaminants that may have an adverse public health effect and that 
present a meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction. This 
general provision is supplemented with an additional requirement under 
section 1412(b)(8) that EPA also develop regulations specifying the use 
of disinfectants for ground water systems as necessary.


Alternatives:


Not available at this time.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Not available at this time.


Risks:


Not available at this time.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           03/00/99
Final                                                          11/00/00
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, Organizations


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local, Tribal, Federal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 2340


Agency Contact:
Tracy Bone
Environmental Protection Agency
Water
4607
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 260-2954
RIN: 2040-AA97
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
125. PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM PUBLIC NOTIFICATION REGULATION
Priority:


Other Significant


Reinventing Government:


This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will 
revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline 
requirements.


Legal Authority:


 42 USC 300f et seq


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 141.32; 40 CFR 142.14; 40 CFR 142.15; 40 CFR 142.16


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This action revises an existing regulation to incorporate the new 
public notification provisions in section 1414(c) of the Safe Drinking 
Water Act. The basic requirement for public water systems with 
violations of drinking water standards to give public notification is 
not changed by the 1996 SDWA amendments. A Public Water System is 
required under section 1414(c) of the SDWA to provide notification to 
its customers whenever: (1) a violation of certain drinking water 
regulations occurs (including MCL, treatment technique, and monitoring/
reporting requirements); (2) a variance or exemption to those 
regulations is in place or the conditions of the variance or exemption 
are violated; or (3) results from unregulated contaminant monitoring 
required under section 1445 of the SDWA are received. The Administrator 
is required under this statute to prescribe by regulation the manner, 
frequency, form, and content for giving notice. The existing regulation 
is in 40 CFR section 141.32. States are required to adopt this rule to 
retain primacy under 40 CFR section 142.10.
The 1996 amendments significantly revise the public notification 
requirements. The amendments: (1) require notice within 24 hours for 
violations posing a serious public health risk from short term exposure 
and give EPA discretion to set the timing of the notification for all 
other violations; (2) give EPA discretion to set the method of delivery 
of the notices as long as the public notice reaches all persons served; 
(3) establish a specific requirement for EPA consultation with the 
States in issuing revised regulations; (4) allow the primary States to 
prescribe alternative notification requirements by rule with respect to 
the form and content of the notice. One other new requirement -- for 
public water systems to prepare an annual consumer confidence report -- 
is being implemented under a separate regulatory action.
The benefits of the revised public notification regulations will be to 
streamline the existing requirements, provide quicker and more 
effective notification of violations that have a serious adverse 
effect, and better inform the customers of public water systems of the 
quality of their drinking water and the risk to their health.


Statement of Need:


The public notification rule is being revised to incorporate the 
legislative changes contained in the 1996 SDWA amendments under 
sections 1414(c)(1) and (2). The new provisions require EPA to tailor 
the frequency and content of the public notice to the relative risks to 
public health and otherwise streamline the process currently in place. 
The statute requires EPA to promulgate regulations, after consultation 
with the states, to implement this section.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


The 1996 SDWA amendments require EPA to promulgate public notification 
regulations to implement new sections 1414(c)(1) and (2). There is no 
statutory deadline.


Alternatives:


Within the statutory obligation to issue revised public notification 
regulations, EPA is developing regulatory options that balance the need 
to protect public health with the need to provide flexibility in local 
implementation and a reduced reporting burden. Options are being 
considered related to the frequency of notices for violations not 
posing a risk to health from short term exposure, how best to ensure 
that notices reach all persons served, what the notice should contain 
to be most effective, and how the public notice provisions could be 
integrated into the parallel requirement for an annual consumer 
confidence report.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Not available at this time.


Risks:


The public notification regulations require water systems to notify all 
persons served of any violation of drinking water standards. Consumers 
not notified of violations may put themselves at risk from drinking the 
water and otherwise will be unable to make informed choices about 
whether to continue drinking the water. Risks are largest when the 
violation is for a contaminant that poses a risk from short-term 
exposure or for subpopulations vulnerable to the contaminants in the 
drinking water. Compliance with the public notification rule allows 
consumers, at their option,

[[Page 61369]]

to make timely choices about the risk from their drinking water. Public 
notification is one of several Federal barriers protecting consumers 
from exposure to harmful contaminants from their drinking water.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           12/00/98
Final                                                          08/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, Organizations


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local, Tribal, Federal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 4009


Agency Contact:
Carl Reeverts
Environmental Protection Agency
Water
4606
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 260-7273
Fax: 202 260-4656
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2040-AD06
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

126. NEW SOURCE REVIEW (NSR) REFORM
Priority:


Other Significant


Reinventing Government:


This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will 
revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline 
requirements.


Legal Authority:


 Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, title I


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 51.160 to 51.166; 40 CFR 52.21; 40 CFR 52.24


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The purpose of this action is to revise the Clean Air Act new source 
review (NSR) regulations, which govern the preconstruction air quality 
review and permitting programs that are implemented by States and the 
Federal Government for new and modified major stationary sources of air 
pollution. This rulemaking will deregulate, that is, exclude from major 
NSR program requirements those activities of sources that, with respect 
to air pollution, have little environmental impact. The rulemaking will 
encourage pollution control and pollution prevention projects at 
existing sources. Control technology requirements will be clarified 
with respect to when and how they apply to sources that are covered. 
The action seeks to more clearly define the appropriate roles and 
requirements of sources, permitting authorities and Federal land 
managers and EPA in the protection of air-quality-related values in 
Federal Class I areas (i.e., certain national parks and wilderness 
areas) under the new source review regulations. State, local, and 
tribal permitting agencies will be given more flexibility to implement 
program requirements in a manner that meet their specific air quality 
management needs. Consequently, the rulemaking decreases the number of 
activities that are subject to NSR requirements and also expedites the 
permitting process for those sources that are subject to NSR. This 
action is designed to reduce the regulatory burden over all industries 
without respect to commercial size or capacity; therefore, it should 
have no detrimental impact on small businesses. Finally, this action 
also addresses several pending petitions for judicial review and 
administrative action pertaining to new source review applicability 
requirements and control technology review requirements.
Regulations that will be affected are State implementation plan 
requirements for review of new sources and modifications to existing 
sources (40 CFR 51.160-166), the Federal prevention of significant 
deterioration program (40 CFR 52.21), and Federal restriction on new 
source construction (40 CFR 52.24) to be proposed in another rulemaking 
action.


Statement of Need:


In August 1992, EPA voluntarily initiated a comprehensive effort to 
reform the NSR process. This effort was initiated to examine complaints 
from the regulated community that the current regulatory scheme is too 
complex, needlessly delays projects, and unduly restricts source 
flexibility. Currently there are no applicable statutory or judicial 
deadlines for the NSR reform rulemaking effort. The goal of this effort 
is to address industries' concerns without sacrificing the 
environmental benefits embodied in the present approach; that is, 
protecting and improving local air quality, and stimulating pollution 
prevention and advances in control technologies.
In July 1993, the New Source Review (NSR) Reform Subcommittee was 
formed under the auspices of the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee. The 
Subcommittee's purpose is to provide independent advice and counsel to 
EPA on policy and technical issues associated with reforming the NSR 
rules. The Subcommittee was composed of representatives from industry, 
State/local air pollution control agencies, environmental 
organizations, EPA headquarters and regions, and other Federal agencies 
(Federal Land Managers, National Park Service and Forest Service, 
Department of Energy, and the Office of Management and Budget).


Summary of the Legal Basis:


There are no applicable statutory or judicial deadlines for the NSR 
reform rulemaking effort. However, the rule will address three 
outstanding settlement agreements: CMA Exhibit B, Top-down BACT, and 
the applicability test for modifications at utilities (``WEPCO''). The 
pending settlement on WEPCO will impose a judicial deadline on the 
rulemaking.


Alternatives:


The Subcommittee discussed numerous options for implementing NSR 
reform. However, EPA's primary focus has been to consider the specific 
recommendations developed by the Subcommittee and, where appropriate, 
use them in this rulemaking effort. In January 1996, EPA, as part of 
another regulatory streamlining measure, merged portions of a separate 
rulemaking to implement the 1990 CAA Amendments with the Reform effort. 
The combined package was proposed in the Federal Register on July 23, 
1996. On July 24, 1998, EPA issued another Federal Register Notice 
seeking comment on revised alternatives for two applicability 
provisions.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


From a cost perspective, this rulemaking represents a decrease in 
applications and recordkeeping costs to

[[Page 61370]]

industry of at least $13 million per year, as compared to the 
preexisting program, based primarily on the fact that fewer sources 
will need to apply for major source permits. In addition, the cost to 
State and local agencies will be reduced by approximately $1.4 million 
per year. The Federal Government should realize a savings of 
approximately $116,000 per year. Additional cost reductions, which are 
difficult to quantify, will be realized due to the streamlining effect 
of the rulemaking on the permitting process, for example, the 
opportunity costs for shorter time periods between permit application 
and project completion and reduced uncertainty in planning for future 
source growth.


Risks:


This is a procedural rule applicable to a wide variety of source 
categories. Moreover, it applies to criteria pollutants for which NAAQS 
have been established. This action is considered environmentally 
neutral. However, any potential risks are considered in the NAAQS 
rulemaking from a national perspective.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            61 FR 38249                                    07/23/96
Final Action                                                   05/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


State


Additional Information:


SAN No. 3259


Agency Contact:
Dennis Crumpler
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
MD-12
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Phone: 919 541-0871
RIN: 2060-AE11
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
127. OPERATING PERMITS: REVISIONS (PART 70)
Priority:


Other Significant


Reinventing Government:


This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will 
revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline 
requirements.


Legal Authority:


 42 USC 7661 et seq


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 70; 40 CFR 51


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


In response to litigation on the part 70 regulations, to provide more 
effective implementation of part 70, and to address comments provided 
in response to notices of proposed rulemaking, parts 51 and 70 are 
being revised. In part, the changes include the following: streamlined 
procedures for revising stationary-source operating permits issued by 
State and local permitting authorities under title V of the Clean Air 
Act; changes to the certification of compliance that is required to be 
submitted as part of the permit documentation; clarification of the 
title I and title V permitting requirements for research and 
development facilities; and changes in public participation 
requirements for minor new source review actions under title I of the 
Act.


Statement of Need:


These revised rules will allow more streamlined procedures for revising 
many operating permits. These revisions reflect the principles 
articulated in the President's and the Vice President's March 16, 1995 
report Reinventing Environmental Regulation. That report established as 
goals for environmental regulation the building of partnerships between 
EPA and State and local agencies, minimizing costs, providing 
flexibility in implementing programs, tailoring solutions to the 
problem, and shifting responsibility to State and local programs.


Alternatives:


The Clean Air Act requires that EPA develop regulations which set 
minimum standards for State operating-permit programs. In response to 
concerns expressed in comments on the draft final rulemaking, the EPA 
talked with representatives from State and local permitting 
authorities, industry and environmental groups to hear their 
implementation concerns, and then asked for public comments on a 
revised draft final rule. This action will incorporate many of those 
comments and recommendations into a final rule.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The administrative cost of implementing the final rules by permitting 
authorities, EPA, and permitted sources was estimated. Administrative 
costs include a range of costs which cover the source's preparing an 
application through EPA's and the permitting authority's effort to 
complete the process. The administrative costs are estimated to be 
approximately $33 million. By comparison, the cost of implementing the 
current part 70 permit revision system is approximately $118 million. 
Implementing the revised regulations will reduce costs by about $85 
million.


Risks:


All major sources of air pollution are required to have a permit to 
operate by the Clean Air Act. No adverse effect on the public health or 
ecosystems should result from this action, because the rule will 
require permit revisions with significant environmental impact to 
undergo public and EPA review.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            59 FR 44460                                    08/29/94
NPRM Supplementa60 FR 20804for Part 71                         04/27/95
NPRM Supplementa60 FR 45530for Part 70                         08/31/95
Final Action                                                   09/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


State


Additional Information:


SAN No. 3412


Agency Contact:
Roger Powell
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
MD-15
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Phone: 919 541-5331
RIN: 2060-AF70
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
128. AMENDMENTS--INTEGRATED NESHAP AND EFFLUENT GUIDELINES: PULP AND 
PAPER
Priority:


Economically Significant

[[Page 61371]]

Legal Authority:


 42 USC 7412 Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 sec 112; 42 USC 7414 
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 sec 114; 42 USC 7601 Clean Air Act 
Amendments of 1990 sec 301; 33 USC 1314 Clean Water Act sec 304; 33 USC 
1316 Clean Water Act sec 306-308; 33 USC 1317; 33 USC 1318; 33 USC 1361 
Clean Water Act sec 301; Clean Water Act sec 501


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 63; 40 CFR 430


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments of 1990 direct the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) to set National Emission Standards for 
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for new and existing sources under 
section 112 and to base these standards on maximum achievable control 
technology (MACT). The Clean Water Act (CWA) directs EPA to develop 
effluent guidelines for certain categories and classes of point 
sources. These guidelines are used for setting discharge limits for 
specific facilities that discharge to surface waters or municipal 
sewage treatment systems. On April 15,1998, the EPA promulgated signed 
an integrated regulation for the pulp and paper industry that includes 
both effluent guidelines and air emission standards to control the 
release of pollutants to both the water and the air. At the same time, 
the EPA proposed MACT standards for the chemical recovery combustion 
sources. The regulations were developed jointly to provide greater 
protection to human health and the environment, to promote the concept 
of pollution prevention, and to enable the industry to more effectively 
plan compliance via a multimedia approach.
Next Steps will be to issue final effluent guidelines for Phase II and 
Phase III mills. Phase II will address the effluent from mills not 
covered in the Final Phase I effluent guidelines (except dissolving 
grade mills) plus will set limits for reserved parameters for chemical 
oxygen demand (COD) and chloroform at Phase I mills. Phase III will set 
final effluent limits for dissolving grade mills.
This Regulatory Plan entry also includes RIN 2040-AB53, Effluent 
Guidelines and Standards for the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Category, 
reported in full in part III of this issue of the Federal Register.


Statement of Need:


This action limits surface water discharges of toxic, conventional, and 
nonconventional pollutants and emissions of hazardous air pollutants 
(HAPs) from pulp and paper mills. The NESHAP limits the release of HAPs 
such as chloroform, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and methanol. The 
effluent guidelines will limit the discharge of dioxin, furan, and 
other toxic and conventional pollutants to rivers and other surface 
waters. The Statutory authorities and deadlines are cited above. 
Additionally, EPA promulgated these effluent guidelines to satisfy a 
provision in a Consent Decree entered in settlement of Environmental 
Defense Fund and National Wildlife Federation v. Thomas, Civ. No. 85-
0973 (D.D.C.).


Alternatives:


Both the CAA and the CWA specify that these regulations be established 
on a technology basis. The CAA specifies that MACT for existing sources 
can be no less stringent than the average emission limitations achieved 
by the best-performing similar source. The CWA specifies that effluent 
limitations guidelines and standards be based on specific technology 
levels, such as the best available technology economically achievable. 
For the integration of air and water standards, EPA developed 
regulatory alternatives from combinations of process changes and 
pollution control technologies. The Agency considered the combined 
costs and impacts of these alternatives while remaining responsive to 
the statutory requirements under both laws.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The promulgated integrated air and water rules comprise effluent 
guidelines for pulp and paper mills and MACT standards for the 
noncombustion sources at all kraft, soda, sulfite, and semi-chemical 
pulp and paper mills. At the same time these standards were 
promulgated, the Agency proposed MACT standards for the kraft, soda, 
sulfite, and semi-chemical mills. For the rulemaking components that 
have been promulgated and proposed, the Agency estimated total 
annualized costs of $277 million (1995 dollars).
The types of benefits associated with the proposed integrated rule 
include improvements to air and water quality and reduced human health 
risks. The estimated reductions in HAP emissions exceed 155,000 tons 
per year. An estimated reduction in volatile organic compound emissions 
of 485,000 tons per year; a reduction in total reduced sulfur emissions 
of 165,000 tons per year; and a reduction in particulate matter 
emissions of 26,000 tons per year are also projected to occur as a 
result of the promulgated and proposed rules. Projected reductions in 
chloroform and chlorinated phenolics effluent discharges are 
approximately 100 tons per year; adsorbable organic halides (AOX) 
reductions of 31,000 tons per year are projected. Dioxins and furan 
effluent levels will be reduced to 12 grams nationally. Ultimately all 
dioxin fish consumption advisories associated with the 96 bleached 
paper grade mills will be eliminated. Some categories of the benefits 
can be expressed in monetary terms; they are in the range of $730 
million to $1,500 million.
The Agency has received public comments on the proposed MACT standard 
for chemical recovery combustion sources and is in the process of 
developing the promulgation rule.


Risks:


Two types of pollutants found in pulp and paper wastestreams, dioxin 
and furan, are of particular concern due to their carcinogenic risk and 
their toxicity to aquatic life. Reducing the discharge and emission of 
these and other toxic pollutants reduces the exposure risks to human 
health and the environment.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM NESHAP Phas61 FR 9383nchemical and Other Mills            03/08/96
NPRM NESHAP Phas63 FR 18754ustion Sources                      04/15/98
Final NESHAP Pha63 FR 18504II and Effluent Guidelines Phase I  04/15/98
Final NESHAP Phase II - Combustion Sources                     04/00/99
Final Effluent Guidelines Phase II                             02/00/00
Final All NESHAP Phases                                        08/00/00
Final Effluent Guidelines Phase III - Dissolving Grade         08/00/00

[[Page 61372]]

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local, Federal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 3105
(Air), SAN No. 2712 (Water), SAN No. 4050 (Water Phase II),
ADDITIONAL AGENCY CONTACT: Jeff Telander (NESHAP Phase II - Combustion 
Sources)
ADDITIONAL AGENCY CONTACT: Elaine Manning (NESHAP Phase III - 
Nonchemical and other Pulp and Paper Mills)
See also RIN 2040-AB53


Agency Contact:
Penny Lassiter
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
MD-13
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Phone: 919 541-5396
  
Donald F. Anderson
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
4303
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 260-7189
RIN: 2060-AD03
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
129. VOC REGULATION FOR ARCHITECTURAL COATINGS
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


 42 USC 7401 Clean Air Act sec 183


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 59


Legal Deadline:


Final, Judicial, August 15, 1998.


Abstract:


This regulation will control volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions 
from architectural coatings. These coatings are applied to stationary 
structures and their appurtenances, to portable buildings, to 
pavements, or to curbs. Traditional VOC limitations, market-based 
approaches, and phased-in approaches are all being considered. The EPA 
is working with coating manufacturers and other stakeholders to ensure 
that this rule is based on the best possible understanding of the 
industry and that it affords the flexibility to achieve the necessary 
emission reductions in the most sensible, cost-effective ways.


Statement of Need:


This regulation will establish VOC content limits for over 50 
categories of architectural coatings. These limits will reduce the VOC 
emissions from architectural coatings and will reflect best available 
controls, as defined by section 183(e) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). The 
architectural coatings category is a significant contributor of VOC 
emissions in ozone nonattainment areas.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


Section 183(e) of the CAA requires that the EPA list those categories 
of consumer and commercial products (CCP) that account for at least 80 
percent of VOC from all CCP in ozone nonattainment areas and establish 
a schedule for regulating the categories. The architectural coatings 
category was included on the list and schedule published March 23, 
1995, and is in the group of categories to be regulated by March 1997.


Alternatives:


There are many alternatives to the proposed rule that were or are being 
considered, including: alternative VOC content limits for some types of 
coatings; issuance of a control techniques guideline in lieu of a 
national rule; low-volume exemptions; payment of fees, if desired, to 
exceed the VOC content limits; variances based on economic hardship; 
and an incentive to recycle paint. The requirements in the proposed 
rule are based on product reformulation, a pollution prevention method.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The rule will impose an estimated cost of $28 million per year for 
coating manufacturers and would reduce VOC emissions from architectural 
coatings by an estimated 113,500 tons per year. VOC emissions are a 
main component in formation of ground-level ozone which can damage lung 
tissue and cause serious respiratory illness.


Risks:


In the past, the CAA has focused on reducing VOC emissions from mobile 
sources (cars and trucks) and stationary sources, such as power plants 
and factories. Requiring additional controls on these sources may be 
very costly for the emissions reductions achieved. Regulating consumer 
and commercial products may prove to be a more cost-effective way of 
substantially reducing VOC emissions nationwide. Consumer and 
commercial products, such as surface coatings, personal care products, 
and household cleaning products, contribute about six million tons 
(approximately 30 percent) annually of VOC emissions nationwide. The 
architectural coating category is one of the largest contributors.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            61 FR 32729                                    06/25/96
Final Rule                                                     10/00/98
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local


Additional Information:


SAN No. 3351


Agency Contact:
Ellen Ducey
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
MD-13
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Phone: 919 541-5408
Fax: 919 541-5689
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2060-AE55
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
130. NATIONAL VOC EMISSION STANDARDS FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


 42 USC 7401 et seq


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 59


Legal Deadline:


Final, Judicial, August 15, 1998.


Abstract:


This regulation will reduce volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions 
from 24 types of consumer products

[[Page 61373]]

which are currently regulated by California and several other States. 
The EPA is working with consumer product manufacturers and other 
stakeholders to ensure that this rule is based on the best possible 
understanding of the industry and that it affords the flexibility to 
achieve the necessary emission reductions in the most sensible, cost-
effective ways.


Statement of Need:


This regulation will establish VOC content limits for 24 types of 
consumer products. These limits will reduce the VOC emissions from 
these products and will reflect best available controls, as defined by 
section 183(e) of the Clean Air Act. The consumer products category is 
a significant contributor of VOC emissions in ozone nonattainment 
areas.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


Section 183(e) of the CAA requires that the EPA list those categories 
of consumer and commercial products (CCP) that account for at least 80 
percent of VOC from all CCP in ozone nonattainment areas and establish 
a schedule for regulating the categories. The consumer products 
category was included on the list and schedule published March 23, 
1995, and is in the group of categories to be regulated by March 1997.


Alternatives:


Alternatives to requirements in the proposed rule that were or are 
being considered, include alternative VOC content limits; issuance of a 
control techniques guideline in lieu of a national rule; variances 
based on economic hardship; and an incentive for innovative product 
development. The requirements in the proposed rule are based on product 
reformulation, a pollution prevention method.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The rule would impose an estimated cost of $27 million per year for 
consumer product manufacturers and would reduce VOC emissions from the 
products by an estimated 90,000 tons per year. VOC emissions are a main 
component in formation of ground-level ozone which can damage lung 
tissue and cause serious respiratory illness.


Risks:


In the past, the CAA has focused on reducing VOC emissions from mobile 
sources (cars and trucks) and stationary sources, such as power plants 
and factories. Requiring additional controls on these sources may be 
very costly for the emissions reductions achieved. Regulating consumer 
and commercial products may prove to be a more cost-effective way of 
substantially reducing VOC emissions nationwide. Consumer and 
commercial products, such as surface coatings, personal care products, 
and household cleaning products, contribute about six million tons 
(approximately 30 percent) annually of VOC emissions nationwide. The 
consumer products category is one of the largest contributors.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            61 FR 14531                                    04/02/96
Final Action                                                   10/00/98
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local, Tribal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 3658


Agency Contact:
Bruce Moore
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
MD-13
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Phone: 919 541-5460
Fax: 919 541-5689
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2060-AF62
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
131. CONTROL OF EMISSIONS OF AIR POLLUTION FROM HIGHWAY HEAVY-DUTY 
ENGINES AND DIESEL ENGINES
Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


 Clean Air Act sec 202(a), sec 211(c), sec 213(a), sec 301(a)


CFR Citation:


 Not yet determined


Legal Deadline:


Final, Judicial, August 29, 1997.


Abstract:


The primary focus of this action will be reducing emissions of nitrogen 
oxides (NOx), non-methane hydrocarbon (NMHC), and particulate matter 
(PM) from diesel and gasoline fueled engines used in highway trucks and 
buses and in nonroad equipment and vehicles. Nitrogen oxides are a 
significant contributor to urban ozone pollution (smog), acid rain, and 
particulate pollution. Particulates, including those emitted directly 
and secondary particulates formed in the atmosphere, have been 
associated with increased death and illness rates as well as impaired 
visibility. Non-Methane hydrocarbons also contribute to ozone 
pollution. Highway and nonroad engines and vehicles are very 
significant contributors to these air-quality problems. This initiative 
has been marked by an unprecedented degree of cooperation between EPA, 
the State of California, and the engine manufacturing industry, as well 
as the involvement of States, regional air-management organizations, 
and public interest and environmental organizations. The result has 
been a plan for very stringent new emission standards that have the 
support of the industry. EPA has proposed new standards for highway 
truck and bus engines, as well as nonroad diesel engines. In 1999, the 
Agency will complete a technical review to determine whether the 
highway standards should be adjusted further.


Statement of Need:


Ozone pollution poses a serious threat to the health and well-being of 
millions of Americans and a large burden to the U.S. economy. Many 
ozone nonattainment areas face great difficulties in reaching and 
maintaining attainment of the ozone health-based air quality standards 
in the years ahead. Recognizing this challenge, States, local 
governments, and others have called on the Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA) to promulgate additional national measures to reduce 
nitrogen oxides (NOx), hydrocarbons, and particulate matter in order to 
protect the public from the serious health effects of ozone pollution.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


Clean Air Act sec 202(a), Clean Air Act sec 211(c), Clean Air Act sec 
213(a), Clean Air Act sec 301(a)


Alternatives:


EPA will consider alternatives for this rule as part of the notices of 
proposed rulemaking (NPRMs) planned for this initiative.

[[Page 61374]]

Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


By 2020, the proposed standards will reduce NOx by 50 percent, VOC by 
15 percent, and particulate matter by 20 percent, compared with 
emissions under current standards. The cost-effectiveness will be about 
$300 per ton for VOC and NOx, and about $1500 per ton for particulate 
matter.


Risks:


Oxides of nitrogen comprise a family of highly reactive gaseous 
compounds that contribute to air pollution in both urban and rural 
environments. NOx is directly harmful to human health and the 
environment, contributes to particulate pollution, and plays a critical 
role in the formation of atmospheric ozone. Based on studies of human 
populations exposed to high concentrations of particles and laboratory 
studies of animals and humans, there are major human health concerns 
associated with PM. These include deleterious effects on breathing and 
respiratory systems, aggravation of existing respiratory and 
cardiovascular disease, alterations in the body's defense systems 
against foreign materials, damage to lung tissue, carcinogenesis, and 
premature death.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM           60 FR 45580                                    08/30/95
NPRM Highway    61 FR 33421                                    06/27/96
ANPRM Nonroad   62 FR 200                                      01/02/97
NPRM Nonroad    62 FR 50152                                    09/24/97
Final Action Hig62 FR 54694                                    10/21/97
Final Action Nonroad                                           10/00/98
NPRM Technical Review                                          12/00/98
Final Action Technical Review                                  12/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Additional Information:


SAN No. 3645
The rule on Nonroad Diesel Engines will be published separately under 
RIN 2060-AH50 (SAN 4014).


Agency Contact:
Tad Wysor
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
NFEVL
Ann Arbor, MI 48105
Phone: 734 214-4332
RIN: 2060-AF76
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
132. NONROAD SPARK-IGNITION ENGINES AT OR BELOW 19 KILOWATTS (25 
HORSEPOWER) (PHASE 2)
Priority:


Other Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


 42 USC 7547 Clean Air Act sec 213


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 90


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This action will establish the second phase of emissions standards for 
new nonroad spark-ignition engines at or below 19 kilowatts (25 
horsepower), as required by section 213(a)(3) of the Clean Air Act as 
Amended. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had been developing 
the second phase of small-engine regulations through a negotiated 
rulemaking, with representation by engine manufacturers, equipment 
manufacturers, emissions control manufacturers, equipment dealers, 
environment and public health interests, and State air programs. The 
negotiations came to an end on February 16, 1996 with no consensus 
reached. EPA will now develop the rulemaking through other means.
The affected engines are used in lawn, garden, and utility equipment, 
such as lawnmowers, string trimmers, chain saws, and small pumps and 
generators. The first phase was established July 3, 1995 (60 FR 34582), 
effective for the 1997 model year, and was very similar to the tier 1 
small-engine regulations developed by California for the same engines. 
Regulated pollutants are hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and oxides of 
nitrogen.


Statement of Need:


Nonroad engines contribute significantly to total ozone precursor and 
CO emissions in areas that have failed to attain the National ambient 
air quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone and CO. Requirements for 
emissions reductions will help many areas achieve the NAAQS. The second 
phase will include additional controls not achievable in the time frame 
of the first phase, which are necessary for continued attainment of 
NAAQS.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


Clean Air Act section 213


Alternatives:


Regulation of this category of engines was split into two phases on the 
recommendation of the regulated industry, in order to obtain some early 
reductions quickly while providing sufficient lead-time to develop and 
implement an appropriate second phase. The regulatory negotiation 
committee was convened for the second phase to ensure that all possible 
options for achieving appropriate emissions reductions from this sector 
were considered.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The regulatory negotiation committee is developing the rule, including 
setting of emissions standards levels, based on a cost/benefit analysis 
that considers cost per ton of emissions reduced as well as cost per 
engine. Until that process is complete, the specific costs and benefits 
are unknown. The benefits of phase 1 were a 32 percent reduction in 
hydrocarbons and a 7 percent reduction in carbon monoxide from these 
engines, at a cost of $266 per ton of hydrocarbons reduced.


Risks:


Over 89 million small engines contribute to unhealthy ozone and carbon 
monoxide levels in nearly 100 cities across the country. An estimated 
6.8 million tons of air pollution are generated from lawn and garden 
equipment each year. Carbon monoxide is an odorless, colorless 
poisonous gas. Hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen contribute to the 
formation of ground-level ozone, which is a noxious pollutant that 
impairs lung functioning and is a key ingredient in smog.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM           62 FR 14740                                    03/27/97
NPRM Hand-held e63 FR 3950                                     01/27/98
NPRM Non-hand-he63 FR 3950                                     01/27/98
Final Action Hand-held engines                                 12/00/98
Final Action Non-hand-held engines                             12/00/98

[[Page 61375]]

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


Federal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 3361


Agency Contact:
Betsy McCabe
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
NFEVL
Ann Arbor, MI 48105
Phone: 734 241-4344
RIN: 2060-AE29
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
133. GROUND WATER AND PESTICIDE MANAGEMENT PLAN
Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


 7 USC 136a; Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act sec 3


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 152.170


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This regulation would establish Pesticide Management Plans (PMPs) as a 
new regulatory requirement for certain pesticides. Absent an EPA-
approved Plan specifying risk-reduction measures, use of the chemical 
would be prohibited. The rule would also specify procedures and 
deadlines for development, approval and modification of plans.


Statement of Need:


EPA proposed to make specific pesticides subject to the provisions of 
EPA-approved Pesticide Management Plans (PMPs) because of their strong 
ground-water contamination potential. The rule will establish PMPs as 
an ``other regulatory restriction'' and define the minimum requirements 
and procedures for developing, approving and managing PMPs. Upon 
promulgation of this rule, the labels of the designated pesticides will 
be changed to require use in conformance with EPA-approved PMPs, and to 
prohibit sale and use in States or Indian Country without such approved 
Plans (after a period allowed for development and EPA review of these 
Plans). A PMP is a State's or tribe's commitment to EPA and the public 
to manage the use of a certain pesticide in such a way as to avoid 
unreasonable risks to ground water that would otherwise warrant 
cancellation of the use. An approved plan will embody a combination of 
educational, scientific, and regulatory tools to fulfill the State's 
ground-water protection goals, developed through a process of public 
participation. A plan will include a process for disseminating this 
information to pesticide users and marketers, and for monitoring the 
effectiveness of the plan through the development of appropriate 
indicators of environmental improvement and/or protection.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) 
generally requires EPA to regulate pesticide use in such a manner as to 
prevent unreasonable risks to human health and the environment. 
Specifically, 7 USC 136a authorizes EPA to prescribe by regulation 
``other regulatory restrictions'' for pesticides that may generally 
cause unreasonable risks to the environment (such as those that are 
associated with ground-water contamination potential) without those 
restrictions.


Alternatives:


This Rule is a direct outgrowth of the Pesticides and Ground Water 
Strategy, published in October 1991 (after extensive consultation with 
States, localities, and other affected stakeholders). In publishing the 
Strategy EPA conducted an analysis of three different alternatives to 
the regulation of pesticides' ground-water risks. One option was to 
rely exclusively on orthodox national-level pesticide regulatory tools 
(tantamount to a ``baseline''), which would entail tolerating or 
remediating a certain level of ground-water contamination. At the other 
extreme, outright cancellation of candidate pesticides with significant 
ground-water contamination potential was considered to provide full 
assurance that no further ground water contamination would occur 
(taking into account the high economic losses due to the removal of the 
pesticide from the market). The analysis concluded that a 
``partnership'' approach, providing a mechanism for more tailored 
management of pesticide use (i.e., taking into account the prevailing 
influence of highly variable hydrologic ``sensitivity'' factors), would 
be simultaneously a more effective and least costly alternative.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


EPA anticipates four categories of costs entailed in requiring PMPs. 
Federal Program Costs are those of administering ground-water 
protection activities, such as the review of State or tribal proposals. 
State Program Costs entail both capital and annual costs. Registrant 
and user impacts are the economic losses ascribed to the reduced use of 
the classified pesticides, as well as the costs (to the registrants) of 
complying with Federal, State and tribal provisions. Benefits accrue 
from the reduced levels of pesticide residues in ground water, and a 
corresponding reduction in: 1) human and ecological risk (see below); 
and 2) threats to the economic and intrinsic values of the ground-water 
resource. Enormous uncertainties attend the quantification of these 
benefits, however.


Risks:


The pesticides under consideration are those most frequently detected 
(sometimes at concentrations exceeding health-based reference points) 
of currently-registered pesticides, and display physical and chemical 
characteristics associated with a ground-water contamination potential. 
The level of potential contamination (and related risk to both human 
health and the environment) represent a potential unreasonable risk to 
the environment in the absence of local management measures. State 
management measures are expected to avert these risks substantially. 
Because the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) requires that EPA 
consider drinking water as part of dietary exposure, the Agency is 
analyzing implications for this regulation.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            61 FR 33259                                    06/26/96
Final Action                                                   04/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local, Tribal, Federal

[[Page 61376]]

Additional Information:


SAN No. 3222
Effective Date will be 3 years after promulgation.


Agency Contact:
Arthur-Jean B. Williams
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
7506C
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 703 305-5239
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2070-AC46
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
134. LEAD; TSCA SECTION 403; IDENTIFICATION OF DANGEROUS LEVELS OF LEAD
Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


 15 USC 2683


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 745


Legal Deadline:


NPRM, Judicial, May 26, 1998.


Other, Statutory, May 26, 1998, Consent Decree: NPRM signed.


Abstract:


The Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992 (title X) 
amended TSCA by adding a new title IV. TSCA section 403 requires EPA to 
promulgate regulations that identify lead-based paint hazards, lead-
contaminated dust and lead-contaminated soil for the purposes of TSCA 
title IV as well as for the entire Title X. EPA developed an interim 
guidance document in July 1994, to provide public and private decision-
makers with guidance on identifying and prioritizing lead-based paint 
hazards for control. This interim guidance, which was subsequently 
published in 1995 (60 FR 47248, 9/11/95), will continue to serve as 
EPA's official policy until the final TSCA section 403 rule is 
promulgated.


Statement of Need:


Childhood lead poisoning is a pervasive problem in the United States, 
with almost a million young children having more than 10 ug/dl of lead 
in their blood, Center for Disease Control's level of concern. Elevated 
blood-lead levels can lead to reduced intelligence and neurobehavioral 
problems in young children, as well as causing other adverse health 
effects in children and adults. Although there have been dramatic 
declines in blood-lead levels due to reductions of lead in paint, 
gasoline, and food sources, remaining paint in older houses remains the 
significant source of childhood lead poisoning. This regulation is a 
focal point of the Federal lead program and supports the implementation 
of regulations already promulgated (e.g., lead hazard disclosure in 
real estate transactions) as well as others under development (e.g., 
worker training and certification). By supporting the implementation of 
the national lead program, this rule would help prevent lead poisoning 
in children under the age of six.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


This action is mandated by TSCA section 403.


Alternatives:


Alternatives were discussed in the proposed rule. Alternatives will be 
further considered as part of the proposed rule's comment review.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Although this action doesn't require any action, the costs associated 
with the establishment of these levels were estimated in a draft 
economic impact analysis that was prepared for the proposed rule. Since 
benefits depend on private sector implementation of certain lead hazard 
abatement activities which are not mandated by any of these rules, 
benefits will be difficult to quantify. During its review of the NPRM 
under EO 12866, OMB attributed the potential impact of all of the lead 
regulations to this rule and determined that this action should be 
classified as economically significant.


Risks:


This rule is aimed at reducing the prevalence and severity of lead 
poisoning, particularly in children.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            63 FR 30301                                    06/03/98
Notice Comment E63 FR 39262                                    07/22/98
Notice Comment E63 FR 52662                                    10/01/98
Final Action                                                   09/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, Organizations


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local, Tribal, Federal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 3243


Agency Contact:
Ellie Clark
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
7404
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 260-3402
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2070-AC63
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
135. REVISED STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE COMBUSTION FACILITIES
Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


 42 USC 6924 Resource Conservation Recovery Act sec 3004; 42 USC 6925 
Resource Conservation Recovery Act sec 3005; Clean Air Act sec 112; 
Clean Air Act sec 114


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 60; 40 CFR 63; 40 CFR 260; 40 CFR 261; 40 CFR 264; 40 CFR 265; 
40 CFR 266; 40 CFR 270; 40 CFR 271


Legal Deadline:


 Final, Judicial, February 1999.


Settlement agreements: industrial furnaces and incinerators. See 
Additional Information.


Abstract:


The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) strategy for hazardous 
waste minimization and combustion and a judicial settlement agreement 
commit EPA to upgrade its standards for burning hazardous waste in 
incinerators, boilers, and industrial furnaces.


Statement of Need:


Under the Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments of 1990, EPA is required to 
establish National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 
(NESHAPs) for most hazardous waste combustors (HWCs) (i.e., 
incinerators, cement kilns, boilers, and some types

[[Page 61377]]

of smelting furnaces). In addition, under the Resource Conservation and 
Recovery Act (RCRA), EPA is required to establish standards for all 
HWCs as necessary to ensure protection of human health and the 
environment. EPA is concerned that its current RCRA standards for HWCs 
may not be adequately protective given that the standards do not take 
into account indirect pathways of exposure and that there have been 
advances both in risk assessment and control technologies since 
promulgation of the current standards.
Consequently, the Agency plans to establish new emissions standards for 
HWCs under joint CAA and RCRA authority. This will avoid duplicative 
Agency effort and piecemeal regulation of the hazardous waste 
combustion industry.


Alternatives:


Under provisions of the CAA, the Agency plans to consider the cost-
effectiveness of emission limits more stringent than the minimum limits 
mandated by the statute. Further, the Agency plans to evaluate 
approaches to reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants by improving 
good operating practices (e.g., controlling the way in which 
problematic materials such as toxic metals are introduced into the 
combustor).


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


EPA's analysis of the recommended standards for the final rule indicate 
that some combustion facilities may experience a substantial change in 
the per ton cost of burning waste, but that this change is likely to 
have a limited impact on the overall combustion market. In terms of 
effects on waste-burning cost structure, cement kilns and lightweight 
aggregate kilns (LWAKs) are most affected by the regulation. This is 
primarily a product of their relatively low baseline costs of burning, 
meaning that incremental compliance costs represent a large increase in 
their overall cost of burning waste. For incinerators, compliance costs 
are lower, represent smaller additions to baseline costs, and change 
little across regulatory options. The analysis concludes that cement 
kilns have the lowest waste burning costs even after regulation, and so 
will continue to have the greatest flexibility in marketing their 
services.
To the extent that compliance costs cannot be passed through to 
generators and fuel blenders, the profitability of waste burning in 
kilns will fall. Nonetheless, waste burning kilns are expected to have 
healthy operating profit margins after the rule. Market exit in all 
sectors is concentrated among facilities that burn small quantities of 
hazardous waste. Approximately 15 combustion facilities may stop 
burning hazardous wastes as a result of the planned maximum achievable 
control technology (MACT) options. The small quantities these 
facilities burn suggest that market dislocations will be minor.
Overall, the social costs of the rule are balanced by a set of 
potentially substantial benefits. Given the severity of the potential 
adverse health effects from dioxin and mercury (cancer, adverse 
developmental effects in children, severe neurological effects in 
adults, and bioaccumulation in ecosystems), EPA believes the 
substantial reductions of these pollutants from hazardous waste burning 
sources under the MACT standard justifies moving ahead with the final 
recommended standards.


Risks:


EPA has estimated that hazardous waste incinerators and hazardous-waste 
burning cement and lightweight aggregate kilns currently emit (1997 
base year) a total of 40g toxicity equivalent (TEQ) of TCDD and TCDF 
(isomers of dioxin) per year. Therefore, hazardous waste burning 
sources represent about 1.5 percent of total anthropogenic emissions of 
dioxins in the U.S.
EPA estimates that dioxin emissions from hazardous waste-burning 
sources will be reduced to approximately 12g TEQ per year at the 
recommended standard. These reductions would result in decreases to 
approximately 0.4 percent of total estimated anthropogenic U.S. 
emissions. EPA expects that reductions in dioxin emissions will help 
reduce dioxin levels over time in foods used for human consumption and, 
therefore, reduce the likelihood of adverse health effects, including 
cancer, occurring in the general population.
EPA has estimated that hazardous waste incinerators and hazardous 
waste-burning cement and lightweight aggregate kilns currently emit a 
total of 6Mg of mercury per year. Based on these estimates, hazardous 
waste-burning sources represent about 4.4 percent of total 
anthropogenic emissions of mercury in the U.S.
EPA estimates that mercury emissions from hazardous waste-burning 
sources will be reduced to 2.3Mg per year at the current floor levels. 
These reductions would result in reductions of total anthropogenic U.S. 
emissions to approximately 1.6 percent. EPA expects that reductions in 
emissions from mercury-emitting sources will help reduce mercury levels 
in fish over time.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM Cement Kiln61 FR 17358ight Aggregate Kilns & Incinerators 04/19/96
Final MACT Fast-63 FR 33782                                    06/19/98
Final Cement Kilns & LWAKs & Incinerators                      02/00/99
NPRM Boilers & Other Industrial Furnaces                       12/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


State


Additional Information:


SAN No. 3333
On October 25, 1993, the Agency reached a settlement agreement with the 
following parties: Citizens for a Safe Environment; Saucon Association 
for a Viable Environment, Inc.; Citizens Aware and United for a Safe 
Environment; Clean Water Fund of North Carolina; Natural Resources 
Defense Council; Sierra Club, Inc.; Hazardous Waste Treatment Council; 
and National Solid Wastes Management Association. In summary, that 
agreement requires:
Notice and comment rulemaking on air emission standards for hazardous 
waste (HW) incinerators and HW-burning cement kilns and lightweight 
kilns by September 20, 1995;
Final rulemaking for HW incinerators and HW-burning kilns by December 
15, 1996;
Notice and comment rulemaking on air emission standards for HW-burning 
boilers and other industrial furnaces by December 15, 1998; and
Final rulemaking for HW-burning boilers and industrial furnaces by 
December 15, 1999.
The Agency's current schedule is significantly behind that outlined in 
the

[[Page 61378]]

settlement agreement. The Agency has had informal discussions with the 
petitioners concerning the present schedule.


Agency Contact:
Larry Denyer
Environmental Protection Agency
Solid Waste and Emergency Response
5302W
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 703 308-8770
RIN: 2050-AE01
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
136. NPDES STREAMLINING RULE--ROUND II
Priority:


Other Significant


Reinventing Government:


This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will 
revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline 
requirements.


Legal Authority:


 33 USC 1311 Clean Water Act sec 301; 33 USC 1314 Clean Water Act sec 
304; 33 USC 1312 Clean Water Act sec 302; 33 USC 1316 Clean Water Act 
sec 306; 33 USC 1318 Clean Water Act sec 308; 33 USC 1342 Clean Water 
Act sec 402; 33 USC 1361 Clean Water Act sec 501


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 122; 40 CFR 123; 40 CFR 124; 40 CFR 125


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


On February 21, 1995, President Clinton issued a directive requesting 
that Federal agencies review their regulatory programs to eliminate any 
obsolete, ineffective, or unduly burdensome regulations. In response to 
that directive, the Office of Wastewater Management plans to issue a 
comprehensive rulemaking package revising certain NPDES requirements in 
parts 122, 123 and 124 to eliminate redundant regulations, provide 
clarification, and remove or streamline unnecessary procedures which do 
not provide any environmental benefits. Some of these revisions 
include: 1) consolidating regulatory definitions; 2) removal of part 
124, subpart F, non-adversary panel hearings; 3) possible removal of 
storm water group application requirements; 4) streamlining permit 
termination procedures; and 5) removing part 124 evidentiary hearing 
procedures.
This rulemaking is expected to affect entities who operate the NPDES 
program or who are regulated by it. This includes small businesses and 
State and local governments. Most of these effects are expected to be 
deregulatory or streamlining in nature.


Statement of Need:


This rule is in response to the President's directive.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


This action is not being taken as a result of a court order and is not 
required by law.


Alternatives:


Alternatives are being considered as part of the proposed rule's 
comment review.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The proposed rule is expected to provide savings for the regulated 
entities and permit issuing authorities in respect to costs and labor. 
It is not expected to result in any increased costs to those entities.


Risks:


Risks to the environment are expected to be minimal.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            61 FR 65268                                    12/11/96
Final                                                          03/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, Organizations


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local, Tribal, Federal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 3762


Agency Contact:
Howard Rubin
Environmental Protection Agency
Water
4203
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 260-2051
Fax: 202 260-1460
RIN: 2040-AC70
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
137. EFFLUENT GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS FOR THE INDUSTRIAL LAUNDRIES 
POINT SOURCE CATEGORY
Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


 33 USC 1311 Clean Water Act sec 301; 33 USC 1317 Clean Water Act sec 
307; 33 USC 1314 Clean Water Act sec 304; 33 USC 1361 Clean Water Act 
sec 501; 33 USC 1316 Clean Water Act sec 306; 33 USC 1318 Clean Water 
Act sec 308


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 441


Legal Deadline:


Final, Judicial, June 30, 1999.


Abstract:


EPA is developing pretreatment standards for industrial laundries 
(facilities that launder industrial textile items, such as shop and 
printer towels, mops, mats). These standards include limitations on 
toxic and nonconventional pollutants, and are anticipated to reduce the 
annual discharge of pollutants to waters of the United States by 5 
million pounds.


Statement of Need:


Control of wastewater discharge by local authorities has been 
inconsistent, in some cases encouraging facilities to shift processing 
of the most contaminated items to localities with the least stringent 
requirements and allowing the unnecessary discharge of pollution that 
could be economically eliminated by the industry.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


This action is required under consent decree in settlement of NRDC et 
al v. Browner (D.D.C. Civ. No. 89-2980, January 31, 1992, as modified).


Alternatives:


Options considered in the proposed rule included a small facility 
exclusion (based on pounds of production); limitations applying to the 
treatment of all facility wastewaters or only those from the laundering 
of heavily contaminated items based on performance of the following 
technology options in addition to gravity settling, screening, 
equalization, pH adjustment, sludge dewatering, and pollution 
prevention: chemical emulsion breaking of wastewater from the washing 
of heavily contaminated

[[Page 61379]]

industrial items, chemical precipitation technology, dissolved air 
flotation technology; and a ``no regulation'' option.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Estimated post-tax compliance costs incurred by industry based upon the 
proposal are $93.9 million annually. Estimated social costs of the 
proposal are $139.4 million per year; estimated monetized benefits are 
$2.9 to $10.6 million per year. Additional benefits that could not be 
monetized include reduced noncancer health effects, and reduced POTW 
operating and maintenance costs.


Risks:


Regulation expected to result in the avoidance of no more than 1 cancer 
case a year and eliminate excursions of ambient water quality criteria 
for the protection of human health on 7 river reaches.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            62 FR 66182                                    12/17/97
Final Action                                                   06/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local, Federal


Sectors Affected:


 812332 Industrial Launderers; 812331 Linen Supply


Additional Information:


SAN No. 3209


Agency Contact:
Marta Jordan
Environmental Protection Agency
Water
4303
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 260-0817
Fax: 202 260-7185
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2040-AB97
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
138. NPDES WASTEWATER PERMIT APPLICATION FORMS AND REGULATORY REVISIONS 
FOR MUNICIPAL DISCHARGES AND SEWAGE SLUDGE USE OR DISPOSAL
Priority:


Other Significant


Reinventing Government:


This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will 
revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline 
requirements.


Legal Authority:


 33 USC 1342 Clean Water Act sec 402; 33 USC 1314 Clean Water Act sec 
304; 33 USC 1318 Clean Water Act sec 308; 33 USC 1345 Clean Water Act 
sec 405; 33 USC 1361 Clean Water Act sec 501


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 122.21(j); 40 CFR 122.21(q)


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The purpose of this action is to revise and consolidate existing 
application forms and requirements for Publicly Owned Treatment Works 
(POTWs) and other Treatment Works Treating Domestic Sewage (TWTDS), and 
to streamline the application process for these facilities. The Agency 
seeks to establish a unified process that minimizes the need for 
additional information from applicants while providing permit writers 
the necessary information, including toxics data, to ensure that 
permits adequately address concerns of permittees and environmental 
protection. The Agency seeks to allow the use of existing data and to 
avoid unnecessary reporting. The Agency is also considering how to 
utilize electronic data submission. Although these forms will increase 
the burden on permittees not already required to submit these data, the 
Agency is minimizing the need for information from small entities, 
including tribal facilities. The burden on States would be minimized 
because of improvements to the application forms.


Statement of Need:


Section 402(a) of the CWA, as amended, authorizes the EPA to issue 
permits for the discharge of any pollutant or combination of 
pollutants. The content of the application forms 2A (standard form A) 
and 2S (short form A) is derived from the requirements in proposed 
sections 122.21(j) and 122.21(q). Currently POTWs submit these forms 
(based on size) for wastewater discharges and the interim sewage sludge 
application form for sludge discharges. EPA has not revised the 
wastewater forms since 1973, despite many amendments to the CWA and to 
the regulations under the Act which have significantly changed the 
permitting strategy of the NPDES program. Increased wastewater 
treatment required by the CWA has resulted in increased generation of 
sewage sludge. The interim sludge application form was developed in 
1993 in response to regulatory changes to the part 503 sewage sludge 
regulations.
This rule will finalize changes to the regulations at sections 
122.21(j) and 122.21(q) and forms 2A and 2S to provide permit writers 
with sufficient data to develop appropriate permit limitations that 
will be effective in ensuring that permittees meet the requirements of 
the regulations.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


This action is not required by law or court order.


Alternatives:


In preparation of the proposed rulemaking several scenarios for data 
collection were evaluated for both 2A and 2S. EPA looked at several 
options for the collection in 2A including all POTWs reporting the 
maximum data elements. In the end the proposal required two levels of 
data collection for form 2A.
Proposed form 2S was also evaluated for various levels of data 
collection. In the proposed rule Class 1 facilities complete the most 
information and the sludge-only facilities complete the least.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


This rule is a streamlining rule. It is anticipated that overall the 
final rule will decrease burden on facilities from the existing 
application burden. The burden reduction will come from streamlined 
application procedures which will decrease the number of 308 letters 
necessary.
The costs of the final rule will be decreased from the proposal. The 
proposed rule costs included a lot of testing which will be eliminated 
in the final rule.


Risks:


The application forms rule will allow permit writers to better evaluate 
discharges from POTWs and other TWTDS. The better the permit writer can 
evaluate the discharge, the better EPA can protect the environment and 
public health with appropriate limits and necessary conditions in the 
permits.

[[Page 61380]]

Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            60 FR 62545                                    12/06/95
Final                                                          11/00/98
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local, Tribal, Federal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 2501


Agency Contact:
Robin Danesi
Environmental Protection Agency
Water
4203
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 260-2991
RIN: 2040-AB39
_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
139. NPDES COMPREHENSIVE STORMWATER PHASE II REGULATIONS
Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


 33 USC 1311 Clean Water Act sec 301; 33 USC 1318 Clean Water Act sec 
308; 33 USC 1342 Clean Water Act sec 402; 33 USC 1361 Clean Water Act 
sec 501


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 122; 40 CFR 123


Legal Deadline:


NPRM, Judicial, December 15, 1997.


Final, Judicial, March 1, 1999.


Abstract:


EPA proposed changes to the stormwater regulations for the remaining 
unregulated dischargers that require regulation. Also known as Phase II 
dischargers, these sources potentially could have included all 
stormwater discharges from municipal separate storm sewer systems 
serving populations of less than 100,000 and construction activities 
resulting in the land disturbance of less than 5 acres. Data collected 
under sections 305(b) and 402(p)(5) of the CWA indicate that benefits 
will be derived from addressing these discharges under the Phase II 
program. Urban stormwater runoff is a real cause of water quality use 
impairment. EPA has invited stakeholders to participate in the 
development of comprehensive Phase II rules under the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (FACA). This FACA subcommittee is assisting in the 
development of the rule. Currently, all Phase II dischargers are 
required to have stormwater permits by 2001. EPA proposed to limit the 
universe of designated Phase II sources and proposed an approach that 
would promote the use of general permits for most Phase II sources. The 
proposed changes would also provide regulatory relief by waiving Phase 
I facilities that have no exposure to stormwater from otherwise 
applicable permit requirements.


Statement of Need:


Data collected under sections 305(b) and 402(p)(5) of the CWA indicate 
that uncontrolled stormwater discharges from municipalities serving 
populations less than 100,000 and construction sites that result in the 
disturbance of less than 5 acres of land cause water quality use 
impairment. The proposed changes to the NPDES stormwater regulations 
would address these currently unregulated stormwater discharges. The 
proposed changes would also provide needed regulatory relief to Phase I 
facilities that have no exposure to stormwater and do not cause water 
quality use impairment.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


CWA sec. 402(p)(6) requires EPA, in consultation with States and local 
officials, to issue regulations for the designation of the remaining 
unregulated discharges to be regulated to protect water quality. The 
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit remanded EPA's de 
minimis exemption of construction sites below 5 acres and the no 
exposure exemption for category (XI) industrial facilities under the 
Phase I rule (NRDC v. EPA, 966 F.2d 1292 (9th Cir. 1992)). This remand 
requires EPA to examine construction sites below 5 acres for possible 
designation. EPA is also currently subject to a court order to propose 
supplemental rules under CWA sec. 402(p)(6) by September 1, 1997, and 
finalize these rules by March 1, 1999 (NRDC v. Browner, Civ. No. 95-634 
PLF (D.D.C., April 6, 1995)).


Alternatives:


The proposed changes to the NPDES stormwater regulations are being 
developed with significant input from the FACA subcommittee. 
Alternative options, as well as successive drafts of the proposed 
changes, were distributed to FACA members for comment. The language of 
the proposed changes are the result of extensive stakeholder input. The 
Agency plans to solicit comments on alternative approaches in the 
preamble to the proposed rule.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


EPA estimated that the proposed rule would result in a mean annual cost 
of $511 million, with expected mean annual monetized benefits from 
implementation of the requirements of $310 million. EPA also estimated 
that the ``no exposure'' waiver for Phase I industrial facilities would 
result in minimum annual cost savings of $88 million. EPA is in the 
process of revising these estimates as the Agency develops the final 
rule.


Risks:


The proposed changes to the NPDES stormwater regulations will reduce 
adverse water quality impacts from stormwater, thereby reducing risks 
to aquatic habitat and public health.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            63 FR 1535                                     01/09/98
Final                                                          03/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, Organizations


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local, Tribal, Federal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 3785


Agency Contact:
George Utting
Environmental Protection Agency
Water
4203
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 260-9530
Fax: 202 260-1460
RIN: 2040-AC82

[[Page 61381]]

_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
140. NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS: STAGE I DISINFECTANT/
DISINFECTION BY-PRODUCTS RULE
Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


 42 USC 300 Safe Drinking Water Act sec 1412


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 141; 40 CFR 142


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, November 30, 1998.


Abstract:


The 1996 SDWA amendments require EPA to promulgate an Interim Enhanced 
Surface Water-Treatment Rule (IESWTR) and a Stage 1 Disinfectants/
Disinfection Byproducts (DBP) Rule by November 1998. EPA proposed both 
rules in 1994 as a result of formal regulatory negotiations. The 
regulations, along with a long-term ESWTR and Stage 2 DBP Rule that 
will be promulgated later, are intended to expand existing public 
health protections and address concerns about risk trade-offs between 
pathogens and disinfection byproducts.
EPA is working under an expedited schedule to meet the November 1998 
deadline for the final IESWTR and Stage 1 Rule. The Agency issued a 
Notice of Data Availability (NODA) for public comment in the fall of 
1997 as part of this schedule. The NODA detailed the recommendations 
made by the DBP Advisory Committee (established under the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (FACA)) on a number of key elements in the rule. 
The Agency issued another NODA in March 1998 that detailed EPA's 
analysis of new health effects research and possible regulatory 
applications.


Statement of Need:


EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB), an independent panel established by 
Congress, cited drinking water contamination as one of the highest 
ranking environmental risks as recently as 1990. The SAB reported that 
microbiological contaminants (e.g., bacteria, protozoa, viruses) are 
likely the greatest remaining health risk management challenge for 
drinking water suppliers. Therefore, utilities usually apply some form 
of contaminant control. Disinfection is one important and widespread 
practice used to meet the public health goal of providing safe water to 
the public.
Over 200 million people in the United States are served by public water 
systems that apply a disinfectant (e.g., chlorine) to water in order to 
provide protection against microbial contaminants. While these 
disinfectants are effective in controlling many harmful microorganisms, 
they combine with organic matter in the water and form DBPs, some of 
which may pose health risks. Some of these byproducts, including those 
that are the subject of this rule (total trihalomethanes-TTHMs-and 
haloacetic acids-HAAs), are potentially associated with health risks, 
such as cancer, and reproductive and developmental effects. Therefore, 
EPA believes, that the Stage 1 DBR is needed for protection of public 
health from exposure to DBPs and meeting the requirements of the 1996 
SDWA.


Alternatives:


The central requirement of regulatory analyses under Executive Order 
12866 is to perform an analysis of net benefits and to consider the 
regulatory alternatives in light of a criterion of maximizing net 
benefits. The preliminary regulatory analysis focused on two options, 
Option 1 and Option A. Option 1 proposed a total trihalomethane (TTHM) 
maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 80 and a total haloacetic acid (HAA) 
MCL of 60 for large water systems (and a simple TTHM standard of 100 
for small systems). Option A called for the use of precursor removal 
technology to reduce the level of total organic carbon (TOC). 
Alternative levels of TOC were considered, ranging from 4.0 to 0.5.
After additional analysis, two additional options, or hybrids (Option 
A), were added to the mix: the 80/60/4 and 80/60/5 options represented 
an attempt to merge concepts of TOC removal and MCLs of 80 for TTHM and 
60 for HAAs. These also represented the first detailed considerations 
of a staged approach to DBP regulation.
Option 1 (100/80/60) and the two hybrids under Option A (80/60/4 and 
80/60/5) were carried forward after a review of the reductions in 
exposure and a comparison of national costs arising from the options. 
Option 1 would have required treatment changes in 45 percent of plants, 
whereas the 80/60/4 option would have required changes in 56 percent of 
plants and the 80/60/5 option would require changes in 43 percent of 
plants.
National cost estimates developed at the time indicated that total 
capital cost of the three Stage 1 options ranged from $3.7 billion for 
the Option 1 to $8 to $9 billion for Option A. The small (serving 
populations of less than 10,000) systems share of the national capital 
cost of the Stage 1 options ranged from $0.8 billion for Option 1 to 
$3.1 to $3.2 billion for Option A. Reduced exposure to TOC was 
considerable in Option A hybrids but not present in Option 1. The major 
cost difference between Option 1 and the Option A hybrids stems from 
the requirement to reduce TOC.
The DBP Committee convened in 1997 to review assumptions and new data 
and to lay the groundwork for the promulgation of the final rule in 
November of 1998. Costs were modified based on new unit costs estimates 
and revised assumptions about the compliance forecast.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Cost-benefit data is under development.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            59 FR 38668                                    07/29/94
Notice Notice of62 FR 59387ability                             11/03/97
Notice Notice of63 FR 15674ability                             03/31/98
Final Action                                                   11/00/98
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local, Tribal, Federal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 2772


Agency Contact:
Thomas Grubbs
Environmental Protection Agency
Water
4607
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 260-7270
RIN: 2040-AB82

[[Page 61382]]

_______________________________________________________________________
EPA
141. NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS: INTERIM ENHANCED 
SURFACE WATER TREATMENT RULE
Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


 42 USC 300 Safe Drinking Water Act sec 1412


CFR Citation:


 40 CFR 141; 40 CFR 142


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, November 30, 1998.


Abstract:


The 1996 SDWA amendments require EPA to promulgate an Interim Enhanced 
Surface Water Treatment Rule (IESWTR) and a Stage 1 Disinfectants/
Disinfection Byproducts (DBP) Rule by November 1998. EPA proposed both 
rules in 1994 as a result of formal regulatory negotiations. The 
regulations, along with a long-term ESWTR and Stage 2 DBP Rule that 
will be promulgated later, are intended to expand existing public 
health protections and address concerns about risk trade-offs between 
pathogens and disinfection byproducts.
EPA is working under an expedited schedule to meet the November 1998 
deadline for the final IESWTR and Stage 1 Rule. The Agency issued a 
Notice of Data Availability (NODA) for public comment in the fall of 
1997 as part of this schedule. The DBP Advisory Committee (established 
under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA)) met from March through 
July 1997 to discuss, evaluate, and provide advice on data, analysis 
and approaches related to the two rules. On July 15, 1997, the 
committee formally reached consensus and signed an agreement that 
includes recommendations, also included in the 11/97 NODA, to EPA on a 
number of key rule elements.


Statement of Need:


EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB), an independent panel established by 
Congress, cited drinking water contamination as one of the highest 
ranking environmental risks as recently as 1990. The SAB reported that 
microbiological contaminants (e.g., bacteria, protozoa, viruses) are 
likely the greatest remaining health risk management challenge for 
drinking water suppliers. Therefore, utilities usually apply some form 
of contaminant control. Disinfection is one important and widespread 
practice used to meet the public health goal of providing safe water to 
the public. Disinfection, however, may pose risks of its own. 
Disinfectants and their byproducts are associated with potential health 
risks that include cancer and reproductive and developmental effects. 
EPA has identified ways to significantly lessen the potential risks 
associated with microbial contaminants without increasing the use and 
potential risks posed by disinfectants at reasonable costs and minimal 
burden. To implement these changes, EPA is publishing a final Interim 
Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (IESWTR) as mandated by Congress 
in the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Amendments of 1996.
The primary goal of the IESWTR is to improve public health by 
increasing the level of protection from exposure to Cryptosporidium and 
other pathogens in drinking water supplies. The SDWA requires the 
setting of drinking water standards at contaminant levels designed to 
avoid adverse effects on health while allowing for a margin of safety. 
The rule is expected to reduce the level of Cryptosporidium and other 
pathogen contamination in finished drinking water supplies through 
improvements in filtration at water systems. The rule is also expected 
to provide a larger margin of safety, particularly by reducing the 
likelihood of the occurrence of Cryptosporidium outbreaks.


Alternatives:


Because Cryptosporidium is particularly resistant to inactivation using 
chlorine, physical removal by filtration is extremely important in 
controlling this organism. Filtration requirements under the Surface 
Water Treatment Rule (SWTR) mandate achieving a 0.5 Nephelometric 
Turbidity Units (NTU) for combined filter effluent (CFE) in 95 percent 
of monthly samples, with levels never exceeding 5 NTU. To improve 
filtration performance, EPA considered alternative tightened turbidity 
levels and monitoring of individual filtration performance. The final 
IESWTR includes revised filtration requirements, individual filter 
monitoring, disinfection benchmarking requirements intended to prevent 
significant decreases in existing microbial protection while systems 
comply with the Stage 1 Disinfectant/Disinfection Byproducts Rule, a 
sanitary survey requirement, a requirement to cover all new finished 
water reservoirs, and the rule adds Cryptosporidium to the watershed 
control requirements for unfiltered systems as well as the definition 
of ground water under the direct influence of surface water.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


As reflected in the November 1997 Interim Enhanced Surface Water 
Treatment Rule Notice of Data Availability, EPA estimated that the 
national capital and annualized costs (amortized capital and annual 
operating costs) of possible IESWTR provisions (based on a 10 percent 
interest rate) would be $730 million and $312 million, respectively. 
These figures include costs associated with improved treatment, 
turbidity monitoring, a disinfection benchmark, and sanitary surveys. 
Mean estimated benefits of the provisions range from $244.8 million to 
$844.2 million, depending upon varied baseline and improved 
cryptosporidium removal assumptions with corresponding reduced cases of 
cryptosporidiosis illness ranging from 136,000 to 469,000. EPA is 
currently revising these estimates as part of a final Regulatory Impact 
Analysis that will be published this fall when the final IESWTR is 
promulgated.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            59 FR 38832                                    07/29/94
Notice of Data A62 FR 59485                                    11/03/97
Final Action                                                   11/00/98
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local, Tribal, Federal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 2304


Agency Contact:
Elizabeth Corr
Environmental Protection Agency
Water
4607
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 260-8907
RIN: 2040-AC91
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F

[[Page 61383]]

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION (EEOC)
Statement of Regulatory and Deregulatory Priorities
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) enforces six 
statutes prohibiting discrimination in employment. Title VII of the 
Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, prohibits employment 
discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, or national 
origin. The Equal Pay Act of 1963, as amended, prohibits the payment of 
different wages to women and men working in the same establishment, 
performing equal work that requires equal skill, effort, and 
responsibility under similar working conditions, unless the pay 
differential is based on factor(s) other than sex. The Age 
Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended (ADEA), prohibits 
employment discrimination on the basis of age against people age 40 and 
older. Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as 
amended (ADA), prohibits employment discrimination against qualified 
individuals with disabilities. Sections 501 and 505 of the 
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, prohibit Federal agencies from 
discriminating in employment against qualified individuals with 
disabilities and require agencies to accommodate the special needs of 
persons with disabilities. The Government Employee Rights Act of 1991 
extends protections against employment discrimination to certain 
employees who were not previously covered.
The mission of the Agency is to ensure equality of opportunity by 
vigorously enforcing Federal legislation prohibiting discrimination in 
employment. Enforcement is accomplished through investigation, 
conciliation, alternative methods of dispute resolution, litigation, 
coordination, and regulation, as well as by education, policy research, 
and technical assistance. In pursuing its mission of eradicating 
discrimination in the workplace, the Commission intends that its 
enforcement be certain and predictable and that its remedies be 
preventive and remedial in scope.
One important step toward these ends is to make sure that employees, 
employers, and union representatives understand their rights and 
obligations under the Federal laws prohibiting employment 
discrimination. In accordance with the President's national regulatory 
principles, EEOC develops regulations necessary to inform employees and 
employers of their rights and obligations under the statutes it 
enforces. EEOC further educates the public on an ongoing and proactive 
basis through interpretive guidelines, policy documents, management 
directives, and other public guidance programs.
EEOC is currently considering one significant action of a regulatory 
nature, which has been published for public comment.
The Commission proposes to amend 29 CFR part 1614 to change the Federal 
sector complaint process. The proposed changes are designed to correct 
the perception of unfairness or inefficiency in the Federal sector 
complaint process. In addition, the proposed changes accomplish the 
National Performance Review goals of removing unnecessary layers of 
review and delegating decisionmaking authority to front-line employees.
(Consistent with section 4(c) of Executive Order 12866, this statement 
was reviewed and approved by the Chairman of the Agency. The statement 
has not been reviewed or approved by the other members of the 
Commission.)
_______________________________________________________________________
EEOC

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

142. FEDERAL SECTOR EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY PROCEDURES
Priority:


Other Significant


Reinventing Government:


This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will 
revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline 
requirements.


Legal Authority:


 42 USC 2000e-16; 29 USC 206(d); 29 USC 633a; 29 USC 791; 29 USC 794a


CFR Citation:


 29 CFR 1614


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


Commission staff has reviewed part 1614 to assess its effectiveness and 
conformity with National Performance Review principles. As a result, 
several changes are being proposed to streamline the process and 
eliminate unnecessary layers of review.


Statement of Need:


The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) is 
proposing to revise the Federal sector complaints process to increase 
its overall efficiency and integrity. Two specific goals are to 
motivate agencies to take early corrective action and encourage 
individuals to fully utilize the administrative process.
As part of an ongoing effort to evaluate and improve the effectiveness 
of the EEOC's operations, former Chairman Gilbert F. Casellas 
established the Federal Sector Workgroup to review the Federal sector 
equal employment opportunity process. The Workgroup, composed of 
representatives from offices throughout the Commission, evaluated the 
Commission's administrative processes governing its enforcement 
responsibilities in the Federal sector and developed recommendations to 
improve its effectiveness. In addition the review sought to implement 
the goals of Vice President Gore's National Performance Review (NPR), 
including eliminating unnecessary layers of review, delegating 
decisionmaking authority to front-line employees, developing 
partnership between management and labor, seeking stakeholder input 
when making decisions, and measuring performance by results.
The Federal Sector Workgroup issued a report entitled ``The Federal 
Sector EEO Process...Recommendations for Change'' in May 1997. The 
report contained numerous recommendations for changing the Federal 
sector complaint process, including changes to the part 1614 
regulations, changes to EEOC's Management Directive 110 which contains 
additional guidance and instructions on the Federal complaint process, 
and changes to EEOC's internal procedures. The Commission proposes to 
amend part 1614 to implement the regulatory recommendations. The 
proposed changes address the continuing perception of unfairness and 
inefficiency in the Federal sector complaint process. In addition, the 
proposals accomplish the National Performance Review goals of removing 
unnecessary layers of review and delegating decisionmaking authority to 
front-line employees.
EEOC spent over a year and a half in the development of this NPRM. 
During that time period, EEOC consulted

[[Page 61384]]

extensively with all stakeholders in the Federal sector process. On 
April 22, 1996, prior to the development of any recommendations, the 
EEOC's Federal Sector Workgroup held a meeting with Federal EEO and 
Civil Rights personnel organized by the President of the Council of 
Federal and Civil Rights Executives. On May 21, 1996, then-Chairman 
Casellas wrote to the EEO Directors of all departments and agencies 
requesting their written comment on a number of subjects related to the 
Federal sector complaint process. We received comments from 27 
agencies, all of which were fully considered in developing the 
recommendations contained in the Workgroup's report. On September 26, 
1997, the Workgroup held a briefing for EEO Directors on the 
Workgroup's recommendations. The Commission coordinated the draft NPRM 
with all Federal agencies pursuant to Executive Order No. 12067 (1978).


Summary of the Legal Basis:


The proposed revisions are not required by statute or court order. The 
changes are proposed to improve the existing procedural regulations 
that were issued under the Commission's authority to issue such 
regulations as it deems necessary and appropriate to carry out its 
responsibilities under 42 USC 2000e-16, 29 USC 206(d), 29 USC 633a, 29 
USC 791, 29 USC 794a, and Executive Order No. 11478.


Alternatives:


This proposal contains numerous changes to the Federal sector 
processing regulations. The agency has consulted widely with all 
stakeholders in developing these proposals and will consider all 
alternatives offered by them and the public commenters.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The anticipated costs and benefits for each of the major changes are:
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) in the pre-complaint process. Many 
agencies have existing ADR programs and consequently this proposal will 
result in no or minimal increased costs. Agencies without such programs 
may have start-up costs or incur costs to purchase such services. We 
believe that ADR will result in better and earlier resolutions, thereby 
saving investigation and litigation costs, and potentially result in 
fewer filings.
Dismissals. We propose to add two new bases for dismissals of 
complaints: dissatisfaction with the EEO process and abuse of the EEO 
process. The two new bases for dismissal will enable agencies to save 
administrative processing and litigation costs where complainants are 
dissatisfied with the processing of complaints or abuse the process. We 
believe this will result in a net cost savings to the agencies with no 
detriment to those with good faith claims.
Offer of Resolution. We propose to eliminate the dismissal for failure 
to accept full relief and to replace it with an offer of resolution 
whereby the amount of recoverable attorney's fees will be limited when 
a complainant rejects an agency's offer of relief but subsequently 
obtains less relief through the administrative process. The dismissal 
for failure to accept full relief has become less useful as a result of 
the availability of compensatory damages. We believe this alternative 
will provide an incentive to complainants to accept reasonable 
settlement offers.
Partial Dismissals. We propose to eliminate interlocutory appeals when 
an agency dismisses only a part of a complaint. This has resulted in 
fragmentation of complaints and delays in processing. As proposed, a 
complainant can obtain review of the agency's partial dismissal from an 
EEOC administrative judge if a hearing is requested, or from EEOC if an 
appeal is filed. We believe that eliminating these appeals will save 
considerable resources, and that the elimination of fragmentation and 
delays will benefit both parties.
Hearings. Requests for hearings will be made directly by complainants 
to EEOC rather than to the agency, which would then transmit it to 
EEOC. This will relieve the agencies of this burden and eliminate the 
delay incident to that two-step process. The administrative judges 
(AJs) will be given the authority to dismiss cases rather than having 
to remand the cases to the agency for dismissal. This should save time 
for all parties and save costs to the agency. The AJs will be able to 
issue decisions without hearings in appropriate cases where the record 
is sufficient and credibility determinations are not at issue. This 
will save costs and time. Finally, the AJs will issue final decisions. 
This will save the agencies the costs of writing their own decisions 
and avoid the appearance of conflict of interest that accompanies the 
issuance of a decision on the matter by the same agency that is accused 
of committing the discrimination.
Class Complaints. Because very few class complaints are filed or 
certified at the administrative level, some complainants wait to raise 
class allegations in court. This deprives the agencies of the ability 
to resolve these matters early in the process and denies victims a 
prompt remedy. The changes to these provisions are intended to remove 
unnecessary barriers to the filing of class complaints and to insure 
fairness of remedies. Any increase in costs due to increased filings 
should be offset by earlier resolution.
Appeals. We propose to amend some time frames to shorten the process 
thereby eliminating delays. We are changing the appellate standard of 
review from de novo to substantial evidence and revising the 
reconsideration standards to increase deference to administrative 
judges' decisions and to avoid a second level of appeal. This will 
eliminate duplication of EEOC's efforts and unnecessary layers of 
review and permit decisionmaking at an earlier stage.


Risks:


This regulation does not address risks to public health, safety, or the 
environment. The proposed regulatory changes, however, will lessen the 
risks of undue delay and of the perception of unfairness in the 
processing of EEO complaints. The Commission has a significant interest 
in addressing these risks because they undermine the integrity of the 
EEO process and, to the extent they deter individuals from filing EEO 
complaints or fully exhausting the EEO process, deprive agencies of the 
opportunity to take early corrective action. EEOC proposes to minimize 
delays by increasing the opportunities for early resolution of 
complaints, eliminating interlocutory appeals, dismissing complaints 
because of abuse or dissatisfaction with the EEO process, permitting 
administrative judges to issue dismissals in appropriate circumstances 
instead of remanding cases to the agency for dismissal, allowing offers 
of resolution, making hearing requests directly to EEOC, and shortening 
some of the appellate time frames. EEOC addresses the perception of 
unfairness by authorizing administrative judges to issue final 
decisions instead of recommendations that the agency can reject, having 
partial dismissals reviewed by administrative judges, eliminating 
unnecessary barriers to the filing of class complaints, and changing 
the standard of appellate review from de novo to substantial evidence.

[[Page 61385]]

Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            63 FR 8594                                     02/20/98
NPRM Comment Period End                                        04/21/98
Final Action                                                   12/00/98
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Federal


Agency Contact:
Thomas J. Schlageter
Assistant Legal Counsel
Office of Legal Counsel
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
1801 L Street NW.
Washington, DC 20507
Phone: 202 663-4669
TDD: 202 663-7026
Fax: 202 663-4639
RIN: 3046-AA66
BILLING CODE 6570-06-F
  _____________________________________________________________________

[[Page 61386]]

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION (GSA)
Statement of Regulatory and Deregulatory Priorities
The General Services Administration (GSA) establishes policy for and 
provides economical and efficient management of Government property and 
records, including construction and operation of buildings, procurement 
and distribution of supplies, utilization and disposal of property, and 
transportation, traffic, and communications management.
GSA's regulatory priorities for fiscal year 1999 are to continue to 
ensure our regulations reflect the President's philosophy of being 
consistent, sensible, and understandable and do not place an undue 
burden on the public.
GSA issues the Federal Property Management Regulations (FPMR) to 
prescribe Governmentwide regulations for real property, for personal 
property, and for other programs and activities within GSA's regulatory 
authority. The FPMR is intended to keep agencies abreast of the 
policies, regulatory requirements, and specific procedures, 
information, and standards that apply to the management of property and 
administrative services.
An agencywide review of the FPMR found the regulation was in need of 
improvement to streamline and clarify its contents. As a result, the 
FPMR is being converted into a new Federal Property and Administrative 
Services Regulation (FPASR). The FPASR will contain the policies and 
regulatory requirements which GSA issues for managing property and 
administrative services. Materials will appear in a plain language 
question and answer format. Nonregulatory materials, such as guidance, 
procedures, and standards currently found in the FPMR, will be 
available in separate documents, such as customer guides. These content 
changes will help conform the FPASR to the recommendations of Vice 
President Gore's National Partnership for Reinventing Government to 
reduce regulations and use plain language in regulatory documents.
Additionally, working with Vice President Gore's National Partnership 
for Reinventing Government, GSA has already issued parts of the Federal 
Travel Regulation (FTR) in the new plain language question and answer 
format that is easier for customers to use and understand.
BILLING CODE 6820-34-F

[[Page 61387]]

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION (NASA)
Statement of Regulatory Priorities
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) was 
established by the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958, which 
laid the foundation for NASA's mission. It directs NASA to conduct 
space activities devoted to peaceful purposes for the benefit of all 
humankind. We are to preserve the leadership of the United States in 
aeronautics and space science and technology, and we are to expand 
knowledge of the Earth and space. To carry out this mission, NASA is 
authorized to conduct research for the solution of problems of flight 
within and outside the Earth's atmosphere; to develop, construct, test, 
and operate aeronautical and space vehicles for research purposes; to 
operate a space transportation system including the space shuttle, 
upper stages, space station, and related equipment; and to perform such 
other activities as may be required for the exploration of space. NASA 
conducts activities required for the exploration of space with human-
tended and expendable vehicles and arranges for the most effective 
utilization of the scientific and engineering resources of the United 
States with other nations engaged in aeronautical and space activities 
for peaceful purposes.
NASA's mission, as documented in its 1998 Strategic Plan, is to 
explore, use, and enable the development of space for human enterprise; 
to advance and communicate scientific knowledge and understanding of 
the Earth, the solar system, and the universe and use the environment 
of space for research; and to research, develop, verify, and transfer 
advanced aeronautics, space, and related technologies.
The following are narrative descriptions of the most important 
regulations being planned for publication in the Federal Register 
during fiscal year (FY) 1999.
The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), 48 CFR chapter 1, contains 
procurement regulations that apply to NASA and other Federal agencies. 
NASA implements and supplements FAR requirements through the NASA FAR 
Supplement (NFS), 48 CFR chapter 18. Major revisions are not expected 
in FY 1999, except to conform to FAR changes that are currently being 
promulgated in part 19, Small Business Programs, and part 45, 
Government Property.
In a continuing effort to keep the NFS current with NASA initiatives 
and Federal procurement policy, minor revisions to the NFS may be 
published. For instance, NASA is developing a risk-centered approach to 
acquisition that will affect acquisition planning, contract structure, 
contractor surveillance, and other contract management areas. NASA's 
implementation is expected to result in NFS revisions.
To reduce the time and cost spent by the Agency and by our science and 
industry partners in the procurement of basic and applied research, 
NASA is focusing on streamlining our processes. To go forward in this 
effort, the Grant and Cooperative Agreement Handbook, 14 CFR parts 
1260, 1273, and 1274 will be rewritten to incorporate improvements and 
streamlining initiatives.
NASA is working on revision of its regulations for implementing the 
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which are presented at 14 CFR 
subparts 1216.1 and 1216.3. These changes are being contemplated to 
streamline and clarify the Agency's NEPA process and conserve time and 
other resources, while more effectively addressing the purposes of NEPA 
and developing more responsibility to NASA Centers.
NASA is working on technical amendments to revise, refine, and clarify 
the cross-waiver of liability in NASA contracts and agreements 
involving activities such as launch services.
NASA is also in the process of clarifying its claims regulations that 
implement and provide procedures for exercising its claims authority 
under 42 U.S.C. 2473(c)(13) of the National Aeronautics and Space Act 
of 1958, as amended, especially as applied to Agency functions such as 
launches of NASA missions.
BILLING CODE 7510-01-F

[[Page 61388]]

NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION (NARA)
Statement of Regulatory Priorities
The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) promulgates (1) 
regulations directed to other Federal agencies regarding adequate and 
proper documentation of the policies and transactions of the Federal 
Government and for ensuring proper records disposition and (2) 
regulations directed to the public relating to access to and use of the 
historically valuable archives, donated historical materials, Nixon 
Presidential materials, and Presidential records in the National 
Archives, regional archives, Presidential libraries, and Presidential 
Materials Projects operated by NARA. NARA also promulgates regulations 
relating to the National Historical Publications and Records Commission 
(NHPRC) grant programs.
NARA's regulatory priorities for fiscal year 1999 will be issuance of 
records management regulations concerning Federal agency electronic 
records and regulations relating to storage of inactive Federal 
records. NARA records management regulations must provide agencies with 
the guidance they need to fulfill their statutory obligation to make 
and preserve records containing adequate and proper documentation of 
the agency's business. NARA intends to update and expand its regulation 
relating to recordkeeping requirements for electronic records. The 
regulation will help Federal agencies to manage their Federal records 
created or received in electronic form, including those generated with 
newer technologies and those in the physical custody of contractors. 
Records in electronic form may contain information vital to the 
operation of the Government or records that must be maintained for a 
lengthy period of time.
NARA also intends to issue revised regulations on facility standards 
for agency records centers to ensure that Federal records stored in 
agency- or privately operated records storage facilities are stored in 
facilities meeting the appropriate environmental, physical security, 
and fire safety standards to maintain the records for their required 
retention period. The current regulation does not distinguish between 
the environmental storage conditions for temporary records and for 
permanently valuable records, nor does it reflect current fire safety 
standards. NARA's other high-priority regulation will provide policy 
and procedures to Federal agencies relating to conversion of NARA's 
records center operations to a totally reimbursable program on October 
1, 1999 (FY 2000).
NARA also intends to review and revise other records management 
regulations relating to removal of personal documentary materials from 
agencies, NARA records centers storage procedures, and records 
declassification procedures, which are discussed in greater detail in 
the NARA section of the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and 
Deregulatory Actions.
NARA plans no significant rulemakings in the area of public use of 
archival records and materials in NARA research rooms in FY 1999. As 
described in the NARA section of the Unified Agenda, NARA is revising 
its regulations on research room procedures and use of NARA facilities 
to reflect changes in policies and procedures. NARA also plans to 
review and update its fees for reproduction of records and other 
materials transferred to NARA.
_______________________________________________________________________
NARA

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

143. AGENCY RECORDS CENTERS
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


 44 USC 2104 (a); 44 USC 3103


CFR Citation:


 36 CFR 1228.222


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


NARA is revising the regulations on facility standards for records 
centers in 36 CFR part 1228, subpart I. The current regulation cites 
obsolete industry standards and has not been revised since the early 
1980's. This rulemaking action revises standards for environmental 
conditions, with particular emphasis on storage areas for archival 
material; incorporates standards for the storage of nontextual records; 
prescribes new physical security and fire detection and suppression 
standards; and establishes environmental and security requirements for 
new agency records centers.


Statement of Need:


This regulation is required to ensure that Federal records are stored 
in facilities meeting the appropriate environmental, physical security 
and fire safety standards to maintain the records for their required 
retention period. Permanently valuable records need to be stored in 
environmental conditions that will preserve the records for extended 
periods of time while temporary records require a different level of 
environmental storage conditions. The previous standards did not 
distinguish between the environmental storage conditions for temporary 
records and for permanently valuable records. In addition, the previous 
standards do not reflect current information relative to fire safety or 
to the proper long term storage of permanently valuable records.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


This regulation reflects the legal requirements for agencies to 
maintain records in a manner to insure that the records are available 
for the appropriate retention period. The National Archives and Records 
Administration (NARA) is required by law to assist Federal agencies in 
the development of standards and guidelines for the appropriate 
management of Federal records storage conditions for Federal records. 
The Archivist of the United States is also statutorily responsible for 
insuring that Federal agencies are maintaining records in an 
appropriate manner.


Alternatives:


The current standards in 36 CFR 1228 do not adequately distinguish 
between storage requirements for temporary records and for permanently 
valuable records. Further, the draft international standards do not 
provide the appropriate storage conditions for the preservation and 
protection of Federal records. An alternative to this regulation change 
would be to state in the regulations only the statutory requirements 
for storage of Federal records in the appropriate environmental 
conditions. Since agencies are permitted to maintain their own records, 
NARA would then be required to prepare and issue a records storage 
guide describing the appropriate environmental conditions for records 
storage facilities. This alternative, however, would reduce the 
effectiveness of the regulation since the specific environmental limits 
would be contained in nonmandatory guidance.

[[Page 61389]]

Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


There are costs associated with bringing existing facilities up to the 
new standards and, in some cases, replacing existing facilities that 
can not be brought up to the performance requirements of the new 
standards. It is expected that the existing facilities that store 
permanently valuable records, for the most part, will have to be 
replaced since replacing the facility is more cost effective than 
attempting to renovate the facility. For facilities storing temporary 
records, it is expected that most of these facilities can be renovated 
to comply with the new standards. Agencies that arrange for their own 
storage of records will be required to maintain facilities meeting the 
new standards. The agencies that contract for this service will be 
required to include the standards in their contracts with private 
companies.


Risks:


Failure to follow these regulations could result in records that are 
not properly maintained and, as a result, not available for use when 
they are required. In the case of permanently valuable records, failure 
to maintain the records in facilities meeting the revised standards 
could result in unique, valuable information being permanently lost. 
Information relative to the expenditure of funds could be lost; 
documentation of significant decisions with wide ranging effects on the 
public could be unavailable; and the lack of information could result 
in inefficient Government operations while trying to recreate the 
information or in fruitless searches for the information.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           01/00/99
NPRM Comment Period End                                        03/00/99
Final Action                                                   04/00/99
Final Action Effective                                         05/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Federal


Agency Contact:
Nancy Allard
Regulatory Contact
National Archives and Records Administration
8601 Adelphi Road (NPOL)
College Park, MD 20740-6001
Phone: 301 713-7360
Fax: 301 713-7270
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 3095-AA81
_______________________________________________________________________
NARA
144.  RECORDS CENTER FACILITIES REIMBURSABLE PROGRAM
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


 44 USC 2907; 44 USC 3103


CFR Citation:


 36 CFR 1228


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


NARA's records center program will convert to a totally reimbursable 
program on October 1, 1999 (FY 2000). This regulation will establish 
policies and procedures relating to the reimbursable program. The 
regulation will affect Federal agencies.


Statement of Need:


The Administration has decided that NARA's records center program will 
become fully reimbursable in FY 2000. In the past, only about 30 
percent of NARA's records center program was reimbursable. Seventy 
percent of the program relied on direct appropriations to provide 
storage space and records center services to other Federal agencies. 
This change in policy is intended to ensure that NARA has sufficient 
resources to provide adequate storage and reference services and to 
meet increasing demands for records center space and services. Aligning 
the costs of records center services with those Federal agencies that 
use the services will lead to greater emphasis on records management 
activities throughout the Federal Government.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


Under the Federal Records Act (44 U.S.C. 2907) NARA has the authority, 
but is not required, to operate the records center program. The records 
center program will continue, but on a reimbursable basis effective 
October 1, 1999.


Alternatives:


This approach was adopted by the Administration after consideration of 
all available alternatives. OMB has stipulated that NARA is to be the 
sole source for agency records center services through FY 2002 for 
agencies currently using NARA records centers. Agencies currently 
storing records in agency or private sector records centers may 
continue to do so. After FY 2002, agencies may choose to store records 
with NARA, a private sector records center, another agency's records 
center, or establish its own agency records center pursuant to 
guidelines that NARA will issue.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


While costs will increase for individual agencies, the overall cost to 
the Government will not increase. The new emphasis on records 
management may result in lowered costs for the storage of Federal 
records as records retention periods are reviewed and revised. The 
reimbursable program will allow for more and higher quality records 
center storage space and improved services to agencies. NARA's goal is 
to provide agencies with the best balance of service and cost.


Risks:


Management controls will be established to ensure that the program is 
achieving its intended objectives. Legislation is required to establish 
a revolving fund that will be used to finance the records center 
operations. The reimbursable program will be monitored by NARA staff 
and audited by OMB.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           02/00/99
NPRM Comment Period End                                        04/00/99
Final Action                                                   08/00/99
Final Action Effective                                         09/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Federal

[[Page 61390]]

Agency Contact:
Gregory A. Pomicter
Assistant for Customer Service/Operations
Office of Regional Records Services
National Archives and Records Administration
8601 Adelphi Road
College Park, MD 20740-6001
Phone: 301 713-7210
Fax: 301 713-7025
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 3095-AA86
_______________________________________________________________________
NARA
145.  STANDARDS FOR AGENCY RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


 44 USC 2904; 44 USC 2905; 44 USC 3101; 44 USC 3102; 44 USC 3303


CFR Citation:


 36 CFR 1220; 36 CFR 1222; 36 CFR 1228; 36 CFR 1234


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This regulation expands the current emphasis on electronic mail records 
to records created with all office automation applications, clarifies 
the records management requirements for electronic records maintained 
by contractors, and addresses records generated or received using newer 
electronic technologies.


Statement of Need:


This regulation is needed to ensure that agencies fully recognize the 
need to manage all Federal records created or received in electronic 
form, include those generated with newer technologies and those in the 
physical custody of contractors. Records in electronic form may contain 
information vital to the operation of the Government or records that 
must be maintained for a lengthy period of time, yet many times 
agencies adopt technologies without regard to the need to meet records 
management requirements that would ensure the preservation and 
integrity of the records.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


This regulation reflects the legal requirements for agencies to create 
and maintain records in a manner that ensures that the records are 
available for the appropriate retention period. The National Archives 
and Records Administration is required by law to issue standards and 
guidelines to Federal agencies for the appropriate management of 
Federal records. The statutory definition of ``records'' includes 
``machine readable materials.'' The law also provides that, among other 
goals, records management should result in creation of ``accurate and 
complete documentation of the policies and transactions of the Federal 
Government'' and ``judicious preservation and disposal of records.''


Alternatives:


An alternative to this regulatory change would be to provide guidance 
to agencies on creation, maintenance, and disposition of records in 
electronic format. NARA does provide such guidance and has plans for 
additional guidance addressing general electronic recordkeeping and 
records generated or received using newer technologies. However, NARA 
guidance is not mandatory, so it does not provide for adequate controls 
over the protection of Federal records and for ensuring the integrity 
of Federal records.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


NARA is unable to quantify the costs associated with ensuring that 
electronic records are properly maintained. For agencies that automate 
their processes and records with tools that provide records management 
functionality, the costs will be negligible. In other circumstances, 
agencies may need to acquire additional automated tools to ensure the 
protection and preservation of electronic records. Also unquantifiable 
is the need for agencies to provide training to employees who used 
office automation applications or other electronic systems that are not 
integrated with electronic recordkeeping systems.


Risks:


Failure to follow these regulations could result in loss of 
documentation or an inability to verify the validity of information 
needed to ensure accountability to oversight agencies, Congress, and 
the public; protect the legal and financial rights of the Government 
and of individuals directly affected by Government activities; and 
preserve institutional memory. Without proper controls over the 
management of electronic records held by contractors, the Government 
may fail to acquire useful information that belongs in the public 
domain.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           06/00/99
NPRM Comment Period End                                        08/00/99
Final Action                                                   09/00/99
Final Action Effective                                         10/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Federal


Agency Contact:
Michael Miller
Director, Modern Records Programs
National Archives and Records Administration
8601 Adelphi Road
College Park, MD 20740-6001
Phone: 301 713-7110
Fax: 301 713-6805
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 3095-AA88
BILLING CODE 7515-01-F

[[Page 61391]]

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT (OPM)
Statement of Regulatory Priorities
The Office of Personnel Management's (OPM) regulatory priorities for 
the coming year will continue to focus on human resource management 
reforms that will enable the Federal Government to meet the challenges 
of downsizing, increased use of technology, delayering, 
decentralization, improved labor-management relationships, and other 
changes that are reinventing the Federal workforce.
This administration has developed an outstanding record in managing the 
largest workforce in the Nation--a record that includes reinventing 
Federal human resource management systems, downsizing the Federal 
workforce by over 350,000 to its lowest point in 30 years, and at the 
same time, focusing on improving quality, effectiveness, and customer 
service. Continued progress toward centrally needed reform now depends 
largely upon the passage of legislation, which currently is in varying 
stages of discussion, that would provide the tools needed to make more 
profound improvements in Federal human resource management. Pending 
passage of legislation, OPM will continue to use its regulatory 
authority whenever regulations are the appropriate vehicle to achieve 
our goal of an effective, merit-based civil service system. However, we 
are also mindful of the dangers of over-regulating. Excessive 
regulation in the area of Federal human resources management creates 
obstacles that stand in the way of the innovation and creativity that 
Federal managers need to lead and motivate the workforce and to operate 
programs more effectively. We seek an appropriate balance of minimizing 
regulation to ensure flexibility, innovation, and excellence, while 
preserving the merit-based civil service system that serves as the 
cornerstone of our democracy.
Consistent with this approach and with the President's leadership to 
create a Government that works better and costs less, our regulatory 
activity will include proposing regulations to give agencies greater 
flexibility in designing their internal selection systems and to 
consolidate, streamline, and clarify the excessive number of hiring and 
examining authorities that currently exist in Government.
To help focus on excellence in employment, we will permit agencies in 
appropriate circumstances to use an initial probationary period of up 
to 3 years while establishing 1 year as the minimum period required to 
assess performance.
This Administration is justifiably proud of its progress in helping 
move record numbers of Americans from the hopelessness and despair of 
welfare to the promise of productive employment. More than 6000 people 
have already found employment in the Federal Government as part of the 
President's welfare-to-work initiative. Our regulations this year will 
facilitate agencies' efforts to promote many of these deserving and 
fully trained workers commensurate with their duties and performance.
Success in Government downsizing, though difficult, has been achieved 
with fairness and compassion to those affected. We will continue to 
balance the need for, and the effects of, downsizing with a clear 
understanding of equity as necessary jobs are filled in the future. In 
order to assist agencies in providing displaced employees with maximum 
reemployment opportunities, regulations will be promulgated to afford 
those separated by downsizing with the first opportunity for 
reemployment in their former agency. Similar priority will also be 
given to former employees who were separated or downgraded due to 
injury or disability but who have now fully recovered.
In our management of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, we 
will continue to look for opportunities to lead the Nation by 
implementing policies and regulations that ensure fair and effective 
treatment of those in need of health care.
Overall, the Office of Personnel Management will continue to improve 
existing human resource management systems in order to attract and keep 
the best possible talent, to promote fairness and diversity, and to 
create a Government that truly serves our citizens.
_______________________________________________________________________
OPM

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

146.  PROBATION ON INITIAL APPOINTMENT TO A COMPETITIVE 
POSITION
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


 5 USC 3321


CFR Citation:


 5 CFR 315, subpart H


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This regulation will permit agencies to use a competitive service 
probationary period of up to 3 years, when the work of the position 
cannot be properly evaluated in only 1 year. It will also establish 1 
year as the minimum probationary period.


Statement of Need:


A regulatory proposal is necessary because the probationary period is 
now set at 1 year by regulation. We would also need to prescribe the 
parameters under which a longer probationary period would be permitted.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


The legal basis for these regulations is 5 U.S.C. 3321, which 
authorizes the President to prescribe rules, regulations, and 
directives for a period of probation.


Alternatives:


While it is possible to do this by legislation, it would be more 
efficient and effective to do it by regulation. Legislation is not 
really necessary, and regulation allows for future flexibility.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


There are no anticipated costs associated with the publication of 
revised regulations on Competitive Service Probationary Periods. 
Revised regulations would provide additional flexibility for agencies.


Risks:


None


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           09/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None

[[Page 61392]]

Agency Contact:
Raleigh Neville
Employment Service
Staffing Reinvention Office
Office of Personnel Management
1900 E St. NW.
Washington, DC 20415
Phone: 202 606-0830
Fax: 202 606-0390
RIN: 3206-AI47
_______________________________________________________________________
OPM
147. MERIT PROMOTION AND INTERNAL PLACEMENT
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


 5 USC 3301; 5 USC 3302


CFR Citation:


 5 CFR 316; 5 CFR 335


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


In an effort to streamline selection procedures and provide agencies 
with greater flexibility, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is 
proposing to revise the regulations covering merit promotion and 
internal placement. These regulations will provide a framework within 
which agencies may develop merit-based programs for internal 
selections.


Statement of Need:


A regulatory proposal with request for comment is necessary to give 
agencies greater flexibility to design merit-based selection programs 
that are consistent with merit principles and other applicable 
statutory provisions.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


The legal bases for these regulations are 5 U.S.C. 3301 and 5 U.S.C. 
3302, which authorize the President to prescribe rules governing 
employment in the competitive civil service.


Alternatives:


We intend to include in the regulations only a basic framework to 
assure agency use of merit-based selection procedures. Alternatives are 
not appropriate. Concerning other materials for which there is a need, 
OPM will use other formats, such as handbooks or pamphlets.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


There are no anticipated costs associated with the publication of 
revised regulations on Merit Promotion and Internal Placement.


Risks:


None.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           12/00/98
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Karen Jacobs
Employment Service
Staffing Reinvention Office
Office of Personnel Management
1900 E St. NW.
Washington, DC 20415
Phone: 202 606-0830
TDD: 202 606-0023
Fax: 202 606-2329
RIN: 3206-AI20
_______________________________________________________________________
OPM
148.  TAPER EMPLOYMENT - SPECIFIC AUTHORITY FOR WORKER TRAINEE
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


 5 USC 3301; 5 USC 3302


CFR Citation:


 5 CFR 316, subpart B


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is proposing to revise the 
regulations to provide for the promotion of worker-trainees up to the 
GS-4, WG-5, or equivalent grades in the Federal Wage System. Promotions 
under this authority are currently limited to GS-3, WG-4, or 
equivalent.


Statement of Need:


A regulatory proposal with request for comment is necessary to update 
current regulations covering the worker-trainee program in order to 
allow for the possibility of promotion to higher levels.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


The legal bases for these regulations are 5 U.S.C. 3301 and 5 U.S.C. 
3302, which authorize the President to prescribe rules governing 
employment in the competitive civil service.


Alternatives:


The only reasonable alternative to proposing revisions to these 
regulations would be to retain the existing regulations unchanged, 
which would not provide the maximum opportunity for individuals hired 
into this program.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


There are no anticipated costs associated with the publication of these 
revised regulations. Revised regulations would provide additional 
benefit to those hired into this program by way of providing increased 
opportunity for advancement.


Risks:


None.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           10/00/98
Final Action                                                   12/00/98
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Diane Tyrrell
Employment Service
Staffing Reinvention Office
Office of Personnel Management
1900 E St. NW.
Washington, DC 20414
Phone: 202 606-0830
Fax: 202 606-0390
RIN: 3206-AI45
_______________________________________________________________________
OPM
149.  REEMPLOYMENT PRIORITY LIST
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


 5 USC 1315; 5 USC 8151


CFR Citation:


 5 CFR 330, subpart B

[[Page 61393]]

Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Office of Personnel Management is proposing regulations covering 
the operation and administration of the Reemployment Priority List 
(RPL). The RPL provides competitive service employees separated by 
reduction in force with the first opportunity for reemployment in their 
former agency over candidates who do not work for the agency. The RPL 
also provides the same priority to former employees who were separated 
or downgraded because of a compensable injury or disability and have 
fully recovered more than one year after compensation began. These 
proposed regulations would update RPL procedures in order to assist 
agencies in providing displaced employees with maximum reemployment 
opportunities.


Statement of Need:


A regulatory proposal with request for comment is necessary to update 
current Reemployment Priority List regulations.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


The legal bases for these regulations are 5 U.S.C. 3315 and 5 U.S.C. 
8151, which allow veterans and injured employees who have recovered to 
receive preference in consideration for reemployment.


Alternatives:


The only reasonable alternative to proposing revisions to these 
regulations would be to retain the existing regulations unchanged, 
which would leave them out of date and less effective in placing former 
employees in positions.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


There are no anticipated costs associated with the publication of 
revised regulations on reemployment priority. Revised regulations would 
provide more streamlined and effective means of reemployment 
consideration for employees and agencies, and take full advantage of 
technological advances.


Risks:


None.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           10/00/98
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Thomas A. Glennon
Employment Service
Workforce Restructuring Office
Office of Personnel Management
1900 E St. NW.
Washington, DC 20415
Phone: 202 606-0960
Fax: 202 606-2329
RIN: 3206-AI34
_______________________________________________________________________
OPM
150.  CLARIFICATION OF HIRING AUTHORITIES
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


 5 USC 3301; 5 USC 3302


CFR Citation:


 5 CFR 330; 5 CFR 332; 5 CFR 333; 5 CFR 337


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


In an effort to consolidate and streamline existing hiring authorities 
and to clarify existing competitive examining authorities, the Office 
of Personnel Management is proposing to revise the regulations covering 
the operation and administration of these authorities.


Statement of Need:


A regulatory proposal with request for comment is necessary to give 
agencies greater input regarding the structure and clarity of this 
consolidation effort.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


The legal bases for these regulations are 5 U.S.C. 3301 and 5 U.S.C. 
3302, which authorize the President to prescribe rules governing 
employment in the competitive civil service.


Alternatives:


We intend to consolidate information contained in all or part of these 
regulations to achieve a more organized approach to regulations dealing 
with competitive examining. The alternative would be to retain existing 
regulations unchanged, which would leave them without the benefit of 
this consolidated approach.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


There are no anticipated costs associated with the publication of 
revised regulations clarifying hiring authorities. Revised regulations 
would provide more effective means of applying and administering 
competitive hiring authorities.


Risks:


None.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           09/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Karen Jacobs
Employment Service
Staffing Reinvention Office
Office of Personnel Management
1900 E Street NW.
Washington, DC 20415
Phone: 202 606-0830
Fax: 202 606-0390
  
Raleigh Neville
Employment Service
Staffing Reinvention Office
Office of Personnel Management
1900 E Street NW.
Washington, DC 20415
Phone: 202 606-0830
Fax: 202 606-0390
RIN: 3206-AI46
BILLING CODE 6325-01-F

[[Page 61394]]

PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORPORATION (PBGC)
Statement of Regulatory and Deregulatory Priorities
PBGC Insurance Programs
The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) administers two 
insurance programs for privately defined benefit plans under title IV 
of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA): A 
single-employer plan termination insurance program and a multiemployer 
plan insolvency insurance program. The PBGC protects the pensions of 
nearly 42 million working men and women in about 45,000 privately 
defined benefit plans, including about 2,000 multiemployer plans.
Under the single-employer program, the PBGC pays guaranteed and certain 
other pension benefits to participants and beneficiaries if their plan 
terminates with insufficient assets (distress and involuntary 
terminations). At the end of fiscal year 1997, the PBGC was trustee of 
about 2,500 plans and paid $824 million in benefits to about 206,000 
people during 1997. Another 260,000 people will receive benefits when 
they retire in the future.
Most terminating single-employer plans terminate with sufficient assets 
to pay all benefits. The PBGC has administrative responsibility for 
these terminations (standard terminations), but its role is limited to 
seeing that proper procedures are followed and participants and 
beneficiaries receive their plan benefits.
The multiemployer program (which covers about 8.8 million workers and 
retirees in about 2,000 insured plans) is funded and administered 
separately from the single-employer program and differs in several 
significant ways. The multiemployer program covers only collectively 
bargained plans involving more than one unrelated employer. The PBGC 
provides financial assistance (in the form of a repayable loan) to the 
plan if the plan is unable to pay benefits at the guaranteed level. 
Guaranteed benefits are generally less than a participant's full 
benefit under the plan (and less than the single-employer guaranteed 
benefit). PBGC financial assistance occurs infrequently.
The PBGC receives no funds from general tax revenues. Operations are 
financed by insurance premiums, investment income, assets from pension 
plans trusteed by the PBGC, and recoveries from the companies formerly 
responsible for the trusteed plans.
To carry out these functions, the PBGC must issue regulations 
interpreting such matters as the termination process, establishment of 
procedures for the payment of premiums, and assessment and collection 
of employer liability.
Objectives and Priorities
PBGC regulatory objectives and priorities are developed in the context 
of the statutory purposes of title IV: (1) To encourage voluntary 
private pension plans, (2) to provide for the timely and uninterrupted 
payment of pension benefits to participants and beneficiaries, and (3) 
to maintain the premiums that support the insurance programs at the 
lowest possible levels consistent with carrying out the PBGC's 
statutory obligations (ERISA section 4002(a)).
The PBGC implements its statutory purposes by developing regulations 
designed (1) to assure the security of the pension benefits of workers, 
retirees, and beneficiaries; (2) to improve services to participants; 
(3) to ensure that the statutory provisions designed to minimize losses 
for participants in the event of plan termination are effectively 
implemented; (4) to encourage the establishment and maintenance of 
defined benefit pension plans; (5) to facilitate the collection of 
monies owed to plans and to the PBGC, while keeping the related costs 
as low as possible; and (6) to simplify the termination process.
Legislative Initiatives
On December 8, 1994, the Retirement Protection Act of 1994 was enacted. 
The Retirement Protection Act (1) accelerates the funding of 
underfunded single-employer pension plans, (2) phases out the cap on 
the variable rate portion of the premium paid to the PBGC by 
underfunded single-employer plans, (3) provides the PBGC with better 
tools to prevent employers from escaping their plan funding obligations 
through corporate transactions, (4) requires better information to 
participants in underfunded plans on plan funding status and PBGC 
guarantees, and (5) helps assure that workers do not lose pensions 
because they have lost contact with a terminating pension plan covered 
by the PBGC.
In May 1996, the President submitted the Retirement Savings and 
Security Act (RSSA) to Congress. The RSSA would have expanded coverage, 
increased portability and worker protection, and simplified pension 
law. The proposal included an increase in the guarantees in the 
multiemployer insurance program to address inflation since 1980 and 
expansion of the PBGC's missing participant program to include 
terminating defined contribution plans and non-PBGC-covered defined 
benefit plans. The Small Business Job Creation Act of 1996 and the 
Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 included many of the RSSA provisions but 
did not include the increase in the multiemployer guarantee or the 
expansion of the missing participant program. These provisions are 
contained in several bills that were introduced in the House and Senate 
in 1997 and 1998 and remain legislative objectives.
Many workers are not saving enough, through personal savings or a 
401(k) or other defined contribution plan, for a secure retirement. 
About half of all workers have no employment-based pension coverage. In 
businesses with fewer than 100 employees, only about 20 percent of 
workers are covered by any retirement plan. Traditional pension plans, 
i.e., defined benefit plans, provide a predictable lifetime benefit, 
guaranteed by the PBGC. Yet the defined benefit system is stagnating. 
We want to revitalize the system so that it can meet the retirement 
needs of American workers into the future.
In early 1998, the Administration proposed a new, simplified defined 
benefit plan--the Secure Money Annuity or Retirement Trust (SMART)--for 
employers with 100 or fewer employees. SMART combines the advantages of 
traditional defined benefit plans and defined contribution plans, while 
removing some of the major obstacles that discourage small business 
from adopting defined benefit plans. (The SMART proposal is contained 
in the Employee Pension Portability and Accountability Act of 1998 
(H.R.3672) and the Retirement Accessibility, Security, and Portability 
Act of 1998 (S.2249 and H.R.4152).) For workers, SMART provides 
predictable benefits for life, guaranteed by PBGC, portability, and a 
chance to share in favorable investment experience. For employers, 
SMART offers more predictable contributions and reduced administrative 
costs. The Administration is also looking at ways to revitalize the 
defined benefit system for larger employers and their workers. The PBGC 
has made one of its priorities talking with consultants and others 
trying to market defined benefit plans in order to understand what are 
the current barriers to expansion of defined benefit plans and what 
changes are necessary to reinvigorate the defined benefit system.

[[Page 61395]]

Regulatory and Deregulatory Initiatives
The PBGC issued regulations implementing the Retirement Protection Act 
through the end of 1996. In FY 1997 and FY 1998, the PBGC focused on 
changes that would simplify the rules and reduce regulatory burden. The 
PBGC:
 Reduced penalties for late premiums that are paid before the 
            PBGC notifies the plan of the delinquency (statement of 
            policy, December 2, 1996).
 Extended the time limits for various actions required to 
            terminate a fully funded single-employer plan in a 
            ``standard termination'' (final rule, November 7, 1997).
 Stopped the reduction of monthly benefits under its actuarial 
            recoupment method once the nominal amount of the benefit 
            overpayment is repaid (final rule, May 29, 1998).
 Provided participants with benefits valued up to $5,000 in 
            PBGC-trusteed plans with the choice of receiving their 
            benefit in the form of an annuity or a lump sum (final 
            rule, July 17, 1998).
The PBGC is continuing to review its regulations to look for further 
simplification opportunities.
The PBGC's regulatory plan for October 1, 1998, to September 30, 1999, 
consists of one significant regulatory action.
_______________________________________________________________________
PBGC

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

151. ALLOCATION OF ASSETS IN SINGLE-EMPLOYER PLANS; VALUATION OF 
BENEFITS AND ASSETS
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


 29 USC 1302(b)(3); 29 USC 1341; 29 USC 1301(a); 29 USC 1344; 29 USC 
1362


CFR Citation:


 29 CFR 4044 subpart B


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation is considering amending its 
benefit valuation and asset allocation regulations by adopting more 
current mortality tables and otherwise simplifying and improving its 
valuation assumptions and methods.


Statement of Need:


The PBGC's regulations prescribe rules for valuing a terminating plan's 
benefits for several purposes, including (1) determining employer 
liability and (2) allocating assets to determine benefit entitlements. 
The PBGC's interest assumption for valuing benefits, when combined with 
the PBGC's mortality assumption, is intended to reflect the market 
price of single-premium, nonparticipating group annuity contracts for 
terminating plans. In developing its interest assumptions, the PBGC 
uses data from surveys conducted by the American Council of Life 
Insurance. The PBGC currently uses a mortality assumption based on the 
1983 Group Annuity Mortality Table in its benefit valuation and asset 
allocation regulations (29 CFR parts 4044 and 4281). In May 1995, the 
Society of Actuaries Group Annuity Valuation Table Task Force issued a 
report that recommends new mortality tables for a new Group Annuity 
Reserve Valuation Standard and a new Group Annuity Mortality Valuation 
Standard. In December 1996, the National Association of Insurance 
Commissioners adopted the new tables as models for determining reserve 
liabilities for group annuities. The PBGC is now considering 
incorporating the new tables into its regulations and making other 
modifications.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


The PBGC has the authority to issue rules and regulations necessary to 
carry out the purposes of title IV of ERISA.


Alternatives:


Not yet determined.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Cost estimates are not yet available. However, the PBGC expects that 
this regulation will not have a material effect on costs.


Risks:


Not applicable.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Notice of Intent62 FR 12982 Rulemaking                         03/19/97
NPRM                                                           04/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
James L. Beller
Attorney
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation
Office of the General Counsel
1200 K St. NW.
Washington, DC 20005-4026
Phone: 202 326-4024
TDD: 800 877-8339
Fax: 202 326-4112
RIN: 1212-AA55
BILLING CODE 7708-01-F

[[Page 61396]]

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION (SBA)
Statement of Regulatory Priorities
The Small Business Administration (SBA) continues to focus its 
regulatory efforts towards delivering sound economic development 
programs to small businesses through streamlined, customer-oriented 
regulations. SBA began its efforts to streamline SBA regulations in 
1994 in response to a Presidential directive to all agencies to review, 
revise, and eliminate regulations. SBA followed the directive, 
thoroughly reviewed all regulations, and by 1996, revised the bulk of 
SBA's regulations. The revised regulations are less burdensome, more 
``user-friendly,'' and provide for more efficient operations. The 
regulations incorporate SBA's mission to ensure access to capital to 
our Nation's small businesses.
SBA's 1998 Regulatory Plan
Today, SBA regulations are streamlined and current. The SBA expects 
Congress to enact legislation that will require some alterations to 
SBA's lending and investment programs (13 CFR 107 and 120). SBA does 
not anticipate the need to draft substantive regulations for the 
Agency's 1998 initiatives and therefore submits no new regulations for 
the 1998 regulatory plan.
SBA's 1999 Regulatory Plan
Section 7(a) of the Small Business Act states that the Small Business 
Administration may provide financing to small businesses ``directly or 
in cooperation with banks or other financial institutions.'' Today, SBA 
guarantees loans through approximately 7,000 lenders. Of these lenders, 
14 currently are Small Business Lending Companies (SBLCs) that are not 
otherwise regulated by Federal or State chartering, licensing, or 
similar regulatory control. SBA examines or audits these SBLCs 
periodically. In view of SBA's desire to manage its guaranteed loan 
portfolio more effectively, along with recent increases in loan volume, 
SBA expects to increase its SBLC oversight. To that end, SBA will draft 
regulations that govern the oversight and operation of the SBLC 
program.
Other than the SBLC regulations, SBA does not anticipate the need to 
draft substantive regulations for the Agency's 1999 initiatives and 
therefore submits no further regulations for the 1999 regulatory plan.
_______________________________________________________________________
SBA

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

152.  SMALL BUSINESS LENDING COMPANY EXPANSION AND OVERSIGHT 
REGULATIONS
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


 15 USC 634(b)(6); 15 USC 636(a); 15 USC 636(b)


CFR Citation:


 13 CFR 120


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rulemaking would amend 13 CFR part 120 to update the rules 
regarding Small Business Lending Company (SBLC) oversight and expand 
the SBLC Program.


Statement of Need:


Section 7(a) of the Small Business Act states that the Small Business 
Administration (SBA) may provide financing to small businesses 
``directly or in cooperation with banks or other financial 
institutions.'' Today, SBA guarantees loans through approximately 7,000 
lenders. Of these lenders, 14 are Small Business Lending Companies 
(SBLCs) that are not otherwise regulated by Federal or State 
chartering, licensing, or similar regulatory control. SBA examines or 
audits these SBLCs periodically. Congressional and Administration 
policy to privatize SBA lending and recent increases in loan volume 
require that SBA increase its SBLC oversight. To that end, SBA will 
draft regulations that govern the oversight and expansion of the Small 
Business Lending Company Program.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


Not required by statute or court order.


Alternatives:


This rulemaking amends and expands SBA's existing regulations on the 
SBLC Program.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


This rulemaking is designed to clarify SBA's oversight responsibilities 
in the SBLC Program. It will also facilitate access by new potential 
small business lenders to the SBLC Program. No costs to the Government 
or the SBLCs associated with this rulemaking will result. However, 
benefits from improving access to the SBLC Program will accrue to the 
general economy through the creation of greater opportunity for small 
business loans, creation of jobs, and increased tax revenues.


Risks:


This regulation addresses no risks to the public health and safety or 
to the environment.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           01/00/99
NPRM Comment Period End                                        02/00/99
Final Action                                                   04/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
LeAnn Oliver
Director, Office of Financial Assistance
Small Business Administration
Phone: 202 205-6485
RIN: 3245-AE14
BILLING CODE 8025-01-F

[[Page 61397]]

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (SSA)
Statement of Regulatory Priorities
The Social Security Administration (SSA) administers the retirement, 
survivors, and disability insurance programs under title II of the 
Social Security Act (the Act) and the Supplemental Security Income 
(SSI) Program under title XVI of the Act. For the most part, SSA's 
regulations do not impose burdens on the private sector or on State or 
local governments. Our regulations codify the requirements for 
entitlement to benefits under the programs we administer.
Our nine entries for The Regulatory Plan represent areas of major 
importance in benefit program administration of the retirement, 
disability, and supplemental security income programs.
Included in this year's Plan are proposed regulations that will provide 
more choices for people with disabilities who seek Return-to-Work 
services so that they may become self-sufficient. These proposed 
regulations parallel provisions of legislation, The Work Incentives 
Improvement Act of 1998, presently pending in Congress.
We are currently preparing two final regulations to implement several 
elements of a major agency initiative known as ``process unification,'' 
which is designed to produce one set of adjudicative standards for all 
levels of disability review within SSA. The first, Weight of Disability 
Determination Service (DDS) Medical Consultant Opinions, will define 
the specific weight to be given to DDS medical consultant opinions in 
hearing decisions. The second, Assessment of Residual Functional 
Capacity, will clarify the guidelines in our regulations used in 
determining whether an individual under age 50 lacks the capacity to 
perform less than a full range of sedentary work.
In response to the Reinventing Government Initiative to create a 
Federal Government that works better and costs less, we list one 
regulatory initiative--Permit Department of State and the Immigration 
and Naturalization Service to Collect Information Needed to Assign 
Social Security Numbers to Aliens. The goal of this process is to 
coordinate services to customers who, under current procedures, must 
deal with multiple Federal agencies to establish their status as alien 
residents of the United States. This regulatory authority will support 
a project with INS whereby it would transmit data to SSA electronically 
so that SSA can issue social security numbers to certain resident 
aliens.
We have also included in this year's Plan a regulation, Administrative 
Res Judicata, that will set forth principles by which SSA distinguishes 
its policies on administrative res judicata and administrative 
collateral estoppel from the common-law doctrines of res judicata and 
collateral estoppel that courts sometimes apply in Social Security 
cases.
To improve management in the area of debt collection, we plan to 
develop regulations to implement the new debt collection tools 
authorized by recent legislation. Four of the entries in this year's 
Plan will further our efforts in this initiative. The first, Federal 
Salary Offset, will enable us to collect qualifying, delinquent title 
II debts owed by former beneficiaries who are currently Federal 
employees. The second, Private Collection Agencies, permits us to refer 
qualifying, delinquent title II debts owed by former beneficiaries to 
private collection agencies for further debt collection efforts. The 
third, Administrative Wage Garnishment, will enable us to collect 
qualifying, delinquent title II and title XVI debts owed by former 
beneficiaries who are now employed (by other than the Federal 
Government). The last in this category, Interest Charging/Indexing, 
will provide us authority to charge interest on qualifying, delinquent 
title II debts owed by former beneficiaries.
Consistent with the President's Regulatory Reinvention Initiative, we 
are working diligently to improve our program benefit regulations and 
to develop partnerships with large segments of the community of 
stakeholders interested in Social Security programs. We expect that the 
partnerships will contribute to the successful development of our 
Regulatory Plan entries.
_______________________________________________________________________
SSA

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

153. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW PROCESS; ADMINISTRATIVE RES JUDICATA AND 
RELATED RULES (526P)
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


 42 USC 405(a); 42 USC 405(b); 42 USC 405(d) to 405(h); 42 USC 405(j); 
42 USC 421; 42 USC 401(j); 42 USC 425; 42 USC 405 note; 42 USC 421 
note; 42 USC 1383; 42 USC 1383b; 42 USC 1382c; 42 USC 902(a)(5); 42 USC 
404(f)


CFR Citation:


 20 CFR 404.903a (New); 20 CFR 404.903b (New); 20 CFR 404.950; 20 CFR 
404.957; 20 CFR 404.967; 20 CFR 416.1403a (New); 20 CFR 416.1403b 
(New); 20 CFR 416.1450; 20 CFR 416.1457; 20 CFR 416.1467


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


These proposed changes will amend our regulations governing the 
administrative review process for the Social Security and Supplemental 
Security Income (SSI) programs to update our procedures and to reflect 
and implement sections 205(b)(3)(A) and 1631(c)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, as 
added by section 5107 of Pub. L. 101-508. Section 5107 specifies 
certain cases in which our policy on administrative res judicata may 
not be applied to deny a claimant's subsequent application for benefits 
under the Social Security or SSI program. In general, section 5107 
provides that an individual's failure to timely request review of an 
adverse determination (initial or reconsidered) under the Social 
Security or SSI program may not be used by us as a basis for a denial 
of the claimant's subsequent application for benefits under the same 
program, if the failure to request review was due to certain 
circumstances specified in the statute.
We are also proposing to amend our regulations to expand and clarify 
our policy on administrative res judicata and on collateral estoppel.


Statement of Need:


This regulation is necessary to implement provisions of Pub. L. 101-508 
and make related administrative changes.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


Public Law 101-508.


Alternatives:


None.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Undetermined at this time.


Risks:


We do not see any risks with these proposed changes.

[[Page 61398]]

Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           02/00/99
Final Action                                                   12/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Federal


Agency Contact:
Stan Axel
Social Insurance Specialist
Social Security Administration
Office of Program and Benefits Policy
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21235
Phone: 410 965-7927
RIN: 0960-AE11
_______________________________________________________________________
SSA
154.  FEDERAL SALARY OFFSET (WITHHOLDING A PORTION OF A FEDERAL 
EMPLOYEE'S SALARY TO COLLECT A DELINQUENT DEBT OWED TO THE SOCIAL 
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION) (721P)
Priority:


Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Legal Authority:


 42 USC 404; 42 USC 405; 42 USC 902; 5 USC 5514


CFR Citation:


 20 CFR 422


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This initiative will enable the Social Security Administration (SSA) to 
collect qualifying, delinquent title II debts owed by former 
beneficiaries who are currently Federal employees. The debt collection 
will be accomplished by the partial reduction of the employee's 
disposable salary.


Statement of Need:


This regulation is required by 5 U.S.C. 5514(b) and by regulations of 
the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) in order for SSA to 
participate in the Federal Salary Offset program. Treasury's regulation 
31 CFR section 285.7(d)(2) requires agencies to prescribe regulations 
in accordance with the requirements of 31 USC 3716 (administrative 
offset) and 5 USC 5514 (salary offset).


Summary of the Legal Basis:


SSA's use of the Federal Salary Offset program is authorized by 42 USC 
404(f), as amended by section 31001(z)(2) of Public Law 104-134, the 
Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, and 5 USC 5514.


Alternatives:


None.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Undetermined at this time.


Risks:


At this time we have not identified any risks associated with the 
proposal.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           09/00/99
Final Action                                                   09/00/00
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Federal


Agency Contact:
Edward Johns
Financial Management Analyst
Social Security Administration
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21235
Phone: 410 965-0392
RIN: 0960-AE89
_______________________________________________________________________
SSA
155.  PRIVATE COLLECTION AGENCIES (USING PRIVATE COLLECTION 
AGENCIES TO HELP SSA COLLECT DELINQUENT TITLE II DEBTS OWED BY FORMER 
BENEFICIARIES) (722P)
Priority:


Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Legal Authority:


 42 USC 404; 42 USC 405; 42 USC 902; 31 USC 3718


CFR Citation:


 20 CFR 422


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This initiative will enable the Social Security Administration (SSA) to 
refer delinquent title II debts owed by former beneficiaries to private 
collection agencies for further debt collection efforts.


Statement of Need:


This regulation will assist SSA's debt collection initiatives.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


The use of private collection agencies is authorized by 42 USC 404(f), 
added by section 5(a) of Public Law 103-387, the Domestic Employment 
Reform Act of 1994, and 31 USC 3718.


Alternatives:


We previously promulgated regulations for our debt collection program 
including such collection actions as tax refund offset, credit bureau 
reporting, and administrative offset. We feel regulations governing the 
use of private collection agencies are in keeping with this practice.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Undetermined at this time.


Risks:


At this time we have not identified any risks associated with the 
proposal.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           09/00/99
Final Action                                                   09/00/00
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Federal


Procurement:


This is a procurement-related action for which there is no statutory 
requirement. The agency has not yet determined whether there is a 
paperwork burden associated with this action.


Agency Contact:
Edward Johns
Financial Management Analyst
Social Security Administration
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21235
Phone: 410 965-0392
RIN: 0960-AE90

[[Page 61399]]

_______________________________________________________________________
SSA
156.  CHARGING INTEREST (CHARGING INTEREST ON DELINQUENT DEBTS) 
(723P)
Priority:


Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Legal Authority:


 42 USC 404; 42 USC 405; 42 USC 902; 31 USC 3717


CFR Citation:


 20 CFR 422


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


Under this initiative, the Social Security Administration (SSA) will 
charge interest and penalties on qualifying, delinquent title II debts 
owed by former beneficiaries.


Statement of Need:


This regulation will assist SSA's efforts in its debt collection 
initiatives.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


SSA is authorized to charge interest and penalties on certain 
delinquent title II overpayment debts in accordance with 31 U.S.C. 
3717, by 42 U.S.C. 404(f), as amended by section 31001(z)(2) of Pub. L. 
104-134, the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996. Section 31001(q) 
of the Debt Collection Improvement Act authorizes increasing the debt 
by the Cost-of-Living-Adjustment in lieu of charging interest.


Alternatives:


The statute also indicates that the head of an agency may prescribe 
regulations identifying appropriate circumstances to waive interest 
entirely. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking will propose conditions 
under which such actions could be taken.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Undetermined at this time.


Risks:


None.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           09/00/99
Final Action                                                   09/00/00
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Federal


Agency Contact:
Edward Johns
Financial Management Analyst
Social Security Administration
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21235
Phone: 410 965-0392
RIN: 0960-AE91
_______________________________________________________________________
SSA
157.  ADMINISTRATIVE WAGE GARNISHMENT (TO REPAY A DEBT OWED TO 
THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION) (724P)
Priority:


Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Legal Authority:


 42 USC 405; 42 USC 1383; 31 USC 3720D


CFR Citation:


 20 CFR 422


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This initiative will enable the Social Security Administration (SSA) to 
collect qualifying, delinquent titles II and XVI debts owed by former 
beneficiaries who are now employed (as other than Federal employees). 
Administrative wage garnishment allows SSA to direct an employer to 
deduct a percentage of the disposable wages earned by the worker/
debtor, and to send that amount to SSA as payment toward the delinquent 
debt. Administrative wage garnishment does not require a court judgment 
to impose the withholding order.


Statement of Need:


This regulation is necessary in order for SSA to use administrative 
wage garnishment as a debt collection tool.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


SSA is authorized to use administrative wage garnishment by 31 U.S.C. 
3720 D, added by section 31001(z)(2) of Public Law 104-134, the Debt 
Collection Improvement Act of 1996. Section (o)(1) authorizes the use 
of administrative offset.


Alternatives:


None--without regulatory authority we would be unable to proceed with 
administrative wage garnishment. SSA must either adopt by reference the 
Treasury Department's regulations on wage garnishment hearings or 
prescribe SSA regulations regarding such hearings consistent with those 
Treasury Department regulations. See 31 CFR 285.11(f)(1).


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Undetermined at this time.


Risks:


At this time we have not identified any risks associated with the 
proposal.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           09/00/99
Final Action                                                   09/00/00
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local, Tribal, Federal


Agency Contact:
Edward Johns
Financial Management Analyst
Social Security Administration
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21235
Phone: 410 965-0392
RIN: 0960-AE92
_______________________________________________________________________
SSA
158.  SELF-SUFFICIENCY INCENTIVES FOR TITLE II AND TITLE XVI 
PROGRAM BENEFICIARIES (725P)
Priority:


Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.


Legal Authority:


 42 USC 405; 42 USC 1383


CFR Citation:


 20 CFR 404.2101 to 404.2127; 20 CFR 416.2201 to 416.2227


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


These proposed changes will amend our regulations to provide increased 
choice for people with disabilities who seek vocational rehabilitation 
services and supports so that they may return to work. These proposed 
regulations

[[Page 61400]]

will also strengthen public-private partnerships to encourage support 
and assistance for people with disabilities to become employed.


Statement of Need:


These regulations are necessary to promote our goal of returning 
disabled persons to meaningful work activity, provide an alternative to 
SSA's Vocational Rehabilitation Reimbursement Program, and make other 
improvements to SSA's work incentives and rehabilitation and employment 
programs.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


The changes will be necessary to implement Administration sponsored 
legislation presently pending in Congress. The dates projected for 
publication of the NPRM and final assume Congressional enactment of 
legislation during 1998.


Alternatives:


None.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Undetermined at this time.


Risks:


At this time, we have not identified any risks associated with these 
proposed regulations.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           07/00/99
Final Action                                                   07/00/00
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


State, Federal


Agency Contact:
Kenneth McGill
Director, Division of Employment
and Rehabilitation Programs
Social Security Administration
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21235
Phone: 410 965-3988
RIN: 0960-AE93
_______________________________________________________________________
SSA

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

159. PERMIT DEPARTMENT OF STATE AND THE IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION 
SERVICE TO COLLECT INFORMATION NEEDED TO ASSIGN SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS 
TO ALIENS (569F)
Priority:


Other Significant


Reinventing Government:


This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will 
revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline 
requirements.


Legal Authority:


 42 USC 405; 42 USC 1383


CFR Citation:


 20 CFR 422.103; 20 CFR 422.106; 20 CFR 422.107; 20 CFR 422.110


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The regulations provide authorization for elements of the Department of 
State (DOS) and the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to 
obtain, as part of the immigration process, enumeration information for 
SSA to assign Social Security numbers (SSN) and issue SSN cards. 
Currently, SSA employees review evidence and process applications for 
all aliens who are issued SSN cards. This new process will eliminate 
duplicate collection of data by SSA of the data elements already 
collected by the DOS and/or INS for immigration purposes and provide 
for better overall government efficiency.


Statement of Need:


This regulation is necessary to implement a Reinventing Government 
initiative.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


These changes are not required by statute or court order.


Alternatives:


None.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


We will need to reimburse INS for the enumeration work they perform. We 
estimate that there is a 20 percent greater efficiency to the 
government if INS gathers the information to enumerate these 
applicants. After reimbursing INS, we expect to save approximately $13 
million for the period 1998-2002.


Risks:


At this time we have not identified any risks associated with the 
proposal.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            62 FR 63681                                    12/02/97
NPRM Comment Period End                                        02/02/98
Final Action                                                   12/00/98
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Federal


Agency Contact:
Daniel T. Bridgewater
Legal Assistant
Social Security Administration
Office of Process and Innovation Management
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21235
Phone: 410 965-3298
RIN: 0960-AE36
_______________________________________________________________________
SSA
160. FEDERAL OLD-AGE, SURVIVORS, AND DISABILITY INSURANCE; DETERMINING 
DISABILITY AND BLINDNESS; REVISION TO MEDICAL-VOCATIONAL GUIDELINES 
(599F)
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


 42 USC 423; 42 USC 405(a); 42 USC 902(a)(5)


CFR Citation:


 20 CFR 404.1500, app 2


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rule would clarify the Social Security Medical-Vocational 
guidelines used to evaluate disability in individuals under age 50 who 
have severe impairments that do not meet or equal the criteria of any 
listed impairment but have a residual functional capacity for no more 
than the full range of sedentary work. The

[[Page 61401]]

guidelines are contained in appendix 2 of subpart P of 20 CFR 404.


Statement of Need:


This regulation is necessary to implement one of several process 
unification initiatives approved by the Commissioner on July 8, 1996.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


None.


Alternatives:


None.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Since these regulations merely clarify existing policy, they impose no 
additional program or administrative costs.


Risks:


None--Because the only purpose of these regulations is to clarify 
existing policy.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            62 FR 49636                                    09/23/97
NPRM Comment Period End                                        11/24/97
Final Action                                                   06/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Federal


Agency Contact:
Robert J. Augustine
Legal Assistant
Social Security Administration
Office of Process and Innovation Management
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21235
Phone: 410 966-5121
RIN: 0960-AE42
_______________________________________________________________________
SSA
161. FEDERAL OLD-AGE, SURVIVORS, AND DISABILITY INSURANCE AND 
SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY INCOME FOR THE AGED, BLIND AND DISABLED; 
EVALUATING OPINION EVIDENCE (624F)
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


 42 USC 405(a); 42 USC 405(b); 42 USC 902(a); 42 USC 1382C; 42 USC 221


CFR Citation:


 20 CFR 404.1502; 20 CFR 404.1512; 20 CFR 404.1513; 20 CFR 404.1519; 20 
CFR 404.1527; 20 CFR 416.902; 20 CFR 416.912; 20 CFR 416.913; 20 CFR 
416.919; 20 CFR 416.927


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


These changes will revise our disability regulations to clarify the 
weight administrative law judges and the appeals council are to give to 
opinion evidence from State agency medical and psychological 
consultants, other program physicians and psychologists, and medical 
experts in claims for disability benefits under title II and title XVI 
of the Social Security Act.


Statement of Need:


This regulation is necessary to implement one of several process 
unification initiatives approved by the Commissioner on July 8, 1996.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


None.


Alternatives:


None.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


We do not anticipate any additional program or administrative costs.


Risks:


At this time we have not identified any risks associated with the 
proposal.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            62 FR 50270                                    09/25/97
NPRM Comment Period End                                        11/24/97
Final Action                                                   02/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Federal


Agency Contact:
Lawrence V. Dudar
Legal Assistant
Social Security Administration
Office of Process and Innovation Management
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21235
Phone: 410 966-5995
RIN: 0960-AE56
BILLING CODE 4190-29-F

[[Page 61402]]

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION (CFTC)
Statement of Regulatory Priorities
The mission of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission is to protect 
market users and the public from fraud, manipulation, and abusive 
practices related to the sale of commodity futures and options and to 
foster open, competitive, and financially sound commodity futures and 
option markets. The Commission's objectives are to: (1) Foster futures 
and option markets that accurately reflect the forces of supply and 
demand for the underlying commodity and are free of disruptive 
activity; (2) oversee markets which can be used effectively by 
producers, processors, financial institutions, and other firms for the 
purposes of price discovery and risk shifting; (3) promote compliance 
with, and deter violations of, Federal commodities laws; (4) require 
commodities professionals to meet high standards; (5) provide a forum 
for effectively and expeditiously handling customer complaints against 
persons or firms registered under the Commodity Exchange Act; (6) 
ensure sound financial practices of clearing organizations and firms 
holding customer funds; (7) promote and enhance effective self-
regulation of the commodity futures and option markets; (8) facilitate 
the continued development of an effective, flexible regulatory 
environment responsive to evolving market conditions; and (9) promote 
markets free of trade practice abuses.
_______________________________________________________________________
CFTC

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

162.  CONCEPT RELEASE CONCERNING FOREIGN COMPUTER TERMINAL 
PLACEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES
Priority:


Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.


Legal Authority:


 7 USC 2; 7 USC 4; 7 USC 6; 7 USC 6c; 7 USC 12a


CFR Citation:


 17 CFR 30


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Commission issued a Concept Release to solicit the views of the 
public on issues relating to the placement of computer terminals in the 
U.S. by foreign boards of trade. The terminals would be used for the 
purpose of trading products available through those boards of trade. 
The Release requests public comment on a variety of issues including 
the extent to which a foreign board of trade should be permitted to 
place computer terminals in the U.S. without being designated as a U.S. 
contract market and issues relating to electronic order routing and 
trade execution systems. The Release also sets forth a potential 
regulatory framework for a proposed rule and serves as the first stage 
of the Commission's rulemaking process.


Statement of Need:


The Commission received a number of inquiries regarding the ability of 
a foreign board of trade to place computer terminals in the U.S. for 
the purpose of facilitating the trading of products available on the 
boards of trade without being required to be designated as a U.S. 
contract market. In undertaking a rulemaking in this area, the 
Commission seeks to implement a regulatory framework that will provide 
certainty to foreign boards of trade that want to place terminals in 
the U.S., will not inhibit cross-border trading activities, will be 
consistent with the Commission's regulatory obligations to maintain the 
integrity and competitiveness of the U.S. markets, and will provide 
protection to U.S. customers.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


Section 4(a) of the Commodity Exchange Act (Act) states that a 
commodity futures contract may be traded lawfully in the U.S. if it is 
traded on or subject to the rules of a board of trade that has been 
designated as a contract market by the Commission. The concept release 
requests comments on a potential regulatory framework that would 
provide a means for a foreign board of trade to petition the Commission 
to place its computer terminals in the U.S. without subjecting the 
foreign board of trade to the requirement that it be designated as a 
contract market under the Act.


Alternatives:


Absent the Commission undertaking a rulemaking in this area, foreign 
boards of trade would be required to be designated as U.S. contract 
markets prior to placing terminals in the U.S. for the purpose of 
facilitating access to their products.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


As a financial regulator, the Commission is acutely aware of the costs 
of regulation. Throughout its history, the Commission has taken into 
account the costs of its proposed regulations to ensure that the 
benefits of its regulations outweigh the costs.


Risks:


The Commission, through its Concept Release, has asked for public 
comment regarding any risks from the placement and use of foreign board 
of trade terminals in the U.S. and whether foreign boards of trade 
should be subject to Commission rules in order to minimize risks.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Concept Release 63 FR 39779                                    07/24/98
NPRM                                                           11/00/98
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Lawrence T. Eckert
Staff Attorney
Division of Trading and Markets
Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Three Lafayette Centre
1155 21st Street NW.
Washington, DC 20581
Phone: 202 418-5430
Fax: 202 418-5536
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 3038-AB30
_______________________________________________________________________
CFTC
163.  REVISION OF FEDERAL SPECULATIVE POSITION LIMITS AND 
ASSOCIATED RULES
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


 7 USC 1a; 7 USC 2; 7 USC 4; 7 USC 6a; 7 USC 6c; 7 USC 6f; 7 USC 6g; 7 
USC 6h; 7 USC 6i; 7 USC 6k; 7 USC 6m; 7 USC 6n; 7 USC 12a; 7 USC 
12a(5); 7 USC 19

[[Page 61403]]

CFR Citation:


 17 CFR 1; 17 CFR 17; 17 CFR 18; 17 CFR 150


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Commission is proposing rules to raise the levels of Commission 
speculative limits for futures contracts on various agricultural 
commodities for the deferred contract months, codify a number of broad 
exemptions from the Commission rule that exchanges set speculative 
position limits for all contracts not subject to Commission limits, 
broaden the existing speculative position limit exemption provided 
under the Commission rule for independent account controllers, and 
amend the Commission's aggregation policy.


Statement of Need:


The Commission recently reviewed its policies and rules governing 
speculative position limits and found that expansion of the back-month 
speculative position limits would be appropriate. The Commission also 
believes it appropriate to codify a number of Commission policies 
relating to exchange-set speculative position limits and to expand the 
existing speculative limit exemptions provided under Commission rule 
for independent account controllers to reflect the trends toward 
greater complexity in the structure of financial services companies and 
greater professional management of trading funds.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


Section 4a(1) of the Commodity Exchange Act provides the Commission 
with the authority to ``fix such limits on the amount of trading which 
may be done or positions which may be held by any person under 
contracts of sale of such commodity for future delivery on or subject 
to the rules of any contract market as the Commission finds are 
necessary to diminish, eliminate, or prevent such burden.''


Alternatives:


The Commission has reviewed the alternatives of not revising its 
speculative limit rules as proposed and believes that those 
alternatives do not provide for appropriate expansion of the back-month 
speculative position limits nor appropriate codification of a number of 
Commission policies relating to speculative position limits.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The anticipated benefits arising from the proposed rules would be that 
the Commission would reflect better the changing composition of the 
futures markets. The Commission anticipates that the rules would not 
result in an increase in any costs.


Risks:


Speculative limits are an effective means of preventing unreasonable or 
unwarranted price fluctuations. Periodic review of these limits enables 
the Commission to assess their effectiveness.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            63 FR 38525                                    07/17/98
NPRM Comment Period End                                        10/19/98
Interim Final Rule                                             12/00/98
Final Action                                                   01/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Paul M. Architzel
Chief Counsel
Division of Economic Analysis
Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Three Lafayette Centre
1155 21st Street NW.
Washington, DC 20581
Phone: 202 418-5260
Fax: 202 418-5527
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 3038-AB32
_______________________________________________________________________
CFTC

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

164. PROHIBITION ON VOTING BY INTERESTED MEMBERS
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


 7 USC 7a(a)(17)


CFR Citation:


 17 CFR 1.69


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The regulation will implement the provisions of section 217 of the 
Futures Trading Practices Act of 1992, which require contract markets 
to adopt rules to avoid conflicts of interest in deliberations and 
voting by members of the governing board and disciplinary and other 
oversight committees. The rulemaking will define the relationships 
between a named party in interest and a member of the governing board 
or committee that would require abstention from deliberations and 
voting. The rulemaking will also provide guidelines on situations that 
would require a member to abstain from voting on a significant action 
because of a substantial financial interest in the outcome of the vote, 
based on positions held personally or at an affiliated firm, as well as 
on other matters addressed by the statute. The action potentially 
impacts the selection and composition of contract market governing 
boards and committees.


Statement of Need:


This rulemaking will further the regulatory objective of oversight of 
contract markets so as to assure that the markets remain open, 
competitive, and efficient.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


Section 5a(a)17 of the Commodity Exchange Act states that contract 
markets must ``provide for the avoidance of conflict of interest in 
deliberations by (their) governing board(s) and any disciplinary and 
oversight committees.'' The rulemaking would establish standards for 
contract market rules that address the requirements stated above.


Alternatives:


These rules are required by statutory mandate set forth in the Futures 
Trading Practices Act of 1992. The Commission intends to pursue this 
rulemaking to achieve rules that will fulfill this statutory mandate in 
a cost-effective manner.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


As a financial regulator, the Commission is acutely aware of the costs 
of regulation. Throughout its history, the Commission has taken into 
account the costs of its proposed regulations in order to ensure that 
the benefits of its regulations outweigh the costs. To date, we know of 
no Commission regulation that adversely affected small entities as 
defined under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-611 (1988).

[[Page 61404]]

Risks:


By avoiding conflicts of interest by governing board and committee 
members of self-regulatory organizations, the risks of interference 
with open, competitive and efficient markets is reduced.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            63 FR 3492                                     01/23/98
NPRM Comment Period End                                        03/23/98
Final Action                                                   11/00/98
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
David P. Van Wagner
Special Counsel
Division of Trading and Markets
Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Three Lafayette Centre
1155 21st Street NW.
Washington, DC 20581
Phone: 202 418-5481
Fax: 202 418-5536
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 3038-AB03
_______________________________________________________________________
CFTC
165.  ECONOMIC AND PUBLIC INTEREST REQUIREMENTS FOR CONTRACT 
MARKET DESIGNATION
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


 7 USC 6c; 7 USC 7; 7 USC 7a; 7 USC 8; 7 USC 12a


CFR Citation:


 17 CFR 5


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Commission is proposing revisions to its Guideline on Economic and 
Public Interest Requirements for Contract Market Designations, 17 CFR 
part 5, appendix A, Guideline No. 1. Guideline No. 1 details the 
information that an application for contract markets designation should 
include to demonstrate that the contract market meets the economic 
requirements for designation. In furtherance of recent Commission 
streamlining efforts to reduce the time for Commission review of such 
applications, the Commission is proposing that Guideline No. 1 be 
revised to reduce any unnecessary burdens associated with designation 
applications.


Statement of Need:


The Commission recently promulgated fast-track review procedures to 
reduce the time for Commission review of contract market designation 
applications. To further streamline efforts, the Commission believes 
that it is necessary to revise the form and content requirements of 
Guideline No. 1 to reduce any unnecessary burdens associated with the 
designation process.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


The statutory requirements for contract market designation are found in 
sections 2(a)(1)(B), 5 and 5a of the Commodity Exchange Act (Act). The 
Commission, as an aid to the exchanges, has provided guidance in 
meeting these statutory requirements including the issuance of 
Guideline No. 1.


Alternatives:


The Commission has reviewed the alternatives of not revising Guideline 
No. 1 as proposed and has determined that without revising Guideline 
No. 1, the reduction of unnecessary burdens associated with the 
designation process could not be realized.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The anticipated benefits from the proposed revisions to Guideline No. 1 
include the codification of Commission contract market designation 
practices. The Commission also anticipates that the costs associated 
with the designation process will be reduced.


Risks:


The contract market designation process allows the Commission to 
evaluate whether the terms and conditions of proposed contracts address 
risks including market manipulation and dissemination of false 
information. In this action, the Commission is proposing to further 
streamline the contract designation process while preserving the 
regulatory functions of the process.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            63 FR 38537                                    07/17/98
NPRM Comment Period End                                        09/15/98
Final Action                                                   12/00/98
Final Action Effective                                         01/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Paul M. Architzel
Chief Counsel
Division of Economic Analysis
Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Three Lafayette Centre
1155 21st Street NW.
Washington, DC 20581
Phone: 202 418-5260
Fax: 202 418-5527
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 3038-AB33
BILLING CODE 6351-01-F

[[Page 61405]]

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION (CPSC)
Statement of Regulatory Priorities
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission is charged with protecting 
the public from unreasonable risks of death and injury associated with 
consumer products. To achieve this goal, the Commission:
 Participates in the development or revision of voluntary 
            product safety standards;
 Develops mandatory product safety standards or banning rules 
            when other, less restrictive, efforts are inadequate to 
            address a safety hazard;
 Obtains repair, replacement, or refund of the purchase price 
            for defective products that present a substantial product 
            hazard; and
 Develops information and education campaigns about the safety 
            of consumer products.
When deciding which of these approaches to take in any specific case, 
the Commission gathers the best available data about the nature and 
extent of the hazard presented by the product. The Commission then 
analyzes this information to determine the best way to reduce the 
hazard in each case. The Commission's rules require the Commission to 
consider, among other factors, the following criteria when deciding the 
level of priority for any particular project:
 Frequency and severity of injury;
 Causality of injury;
 Chronic illness and future injuries;
 Cost and benefits of Commission action;
 Unforeseen nature of the risk;
 Vulnerability of the population at risk; and
 Probability of exposure to the hazard.
Additionally, if the Commission proposes a mandatory safety standard 
for a particular product, the Commission is generally required to make 
statutory cost-benefit findings and adopt the least burdensome 
requirements that adequately protect the public.
The Commission's statutory authority requires it to rely on voluntary 
standards rather than mandatory standards whenever a voluntary standard 
is likely to result in the elimination or adequate reduction of the 
risk of injury and it is likely that there will be substantial 
compliance with the voluntary standard. As a result, much of the 
Commission's work involves cooperative efforts with other participants 
in the voluntary standard-setting process rather than promulgating 
mandatory standards.
In fiscal year 1999, the Commission's significant rulemaking activities 
will involve development of options to address risks of fire associated 
with upholstered furniture and development of a proposed standard for 
multi-purpose lighters to make those products resistant to operation by 
young children. These projects are described in detail below.
Both of the rulemaking proceedings in the Commission's 1999 regulatory 
plan are related to protection of vulnerable populations. Upholstered 
furniture fires kill and injure children, the elderly, and families and 
individuals with lower incomes disproportionately to the representation 
of these persons in the population. With regard to multi-purpose 
lighters, children younger than 5 years of age usually are incapable of 
dealing with a fire once it has started. Consequently, they and their 
families are at special risk of injury from fires started by children 
playing with multi-purpose lighters. Most fatalities from the fires 
resulting from children playing with multi-purpose lighters reported to 
the Commission were the children who started the fires.
The emphasis on these two rulemaking activities in the Commission's 
1999 regulatory plan is consistent with the Commission's statutory 
mandate and its criteria for setting priorities. Additionally, the 
Commission's 1999 regulatory plan supports the President's goal to 
reduce costs of health care by preventing injuries to individuals who 
are among the most vulnerable to being injured in accidents associated 
with the use of consumer products.
_______________________________________________________________________
CPSC

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

166. FLAMMABILITY STANDARD FOR UPHOLSTERED FURNITURE
Priority:


Economically Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.


Legal Authority:


 15 USC 1193 Flammable Fabrics Act


CFR Citation:


 16 CFR 1640


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


On June 15, 1994, the Commission published an advance notice of 
proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) to begin a proceeding for development of a 
flammability standard to address risks of death, injury, and property 
damage from fires associated with ignition of upholstered furniture by 
small open-flame sources such as matches, lighters, or candles. This 
ANPRM was issued after the Commission granted part of a petition 
requesting development of a mandatory flammability standard to address 
risks of injury from ignition of upholstered furniture by: (1) small 
open-flame sources; (2) large open-flame sources; and (3) cigarettes. 
The Commission voted to deny that part of the petition requesting 
development of a mandatory standard to address hazards associated with 
ignition of upholstered furniture by large open-flame sources. The 
Commission also voted to defer a decision on that part of the petition 
requesting development of a standard to address cigarette ignition, and 
directed the staff to report to the Commission on the effectiveness of, 
and the extent of industry compliance with, a voluntary program to 
reduce risks of ignition of upholstered furniture by cigarettes. The 
Commission staff developed a draft standard to address ignition of 
upholstered furniture by small open-flame sources. The staff also 
reported its findings on the efficacy of the voluntary program 
developed by the furniture industry to reduce the risk of cigarette 
ignition. On March 2, 1998, the Commission voted to defer action on 
small open-flame sources and gather additional information on the 
potential toxicity of flame-retardant chemicals that might be used to 
meet a standard. A public hearing on this subject was held on May 5-6, 
1998. The staff is now analyzing data from the hearing and completing 
other technical studies. In 1999, the staff is scheduled to brief the 
Commission on its findings and will present alternatives for future 
action by the Commission.


Statement of Need:


In 1995, approximately 670 deaths, more than 1,700 injuries, and about 
$250 million in property damage resulted from 13,600 residential fires 
in the United States in which upholstered furniture was the first item 
to ignite. This total includes fires ignited by small open-flame 
sources, large open-flame sources, and cigarettes. Small open-flame 
fires accounted for approximately 90 deaths, 490 injuries

[[Page 61406]]

and $62 million in property losses in 1995.
The total societal cost attributable to upholstered furniture fires was 
approximately $4.0 billion in 1995. A significant portion of that total 
-- $625 million -- was associated with upholstered furniture fires 
ignited by small open-flame sources, such as matches, lighters, or 
candles. These fires are not addressed by any national standard or 
voluntary program.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


Section 4 of the Flammable Fabrics Act (FFA) (15 USC 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.'' No aspect of the 
Commission's regulatory proceeding is required by statute or court 
order.
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 
labeling requirements, resist ignition, or meet other performance 
criteria under test conditions specified in the standard.


Alternatives:


The ANPRM stated that the Commission was considering the following 
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 by small open-flame sources;
(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; and
(4) The Commission could terminate the proceeding and withdraw the 
ANPRM.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The estimated annual cost of imposing a mandatory standard to address 
ignition of upholstered furniture by small open-flame sources will 
depend upon the test requirements imposed by the standard and the steps 
manufacturers take to meet those requirements. The average annual 
societal cost of fires involving upholstered furniture ignited by small 
open-flame sources since 1990 is more than $600 million. Again, 
depending upon the test requirements, a small open-flame standard could 
also reduce cigarette-ignited fire losses, the societal cost of which 
was over $2 billion in 1995. For this reason, the potential benefits of 
a mandatory standard to address the risk of ignition of upholstered 
furniture by small open-flame sources could be significant, even if the 
standard did not prevent all such fires started by open-flame sources.


Risks:


The estimated total cost to society from all residential fires 
associated with upholstered furniture was $4.0 billion in 1995.
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                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM           59 FR 30735                                    06/15/94
ANPRM Comment Period End                                       08/15/94
Staff Briefing of Commission on ANPRM                          12/18/97
Commission Voted To Defer Action Pending Results Of Toxicity He03/02/98
Commission Hearing May 5 & 6, 1998 on Possible Toxicity of Flame 
        Retardan63 FR 13017                                    03/17/98
Commission Decision on NPRM                                    12/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Agency Contact:
Dale R. Ray
Project Manager
Directorate for Economic Analysis
Consumer Product Safety Commission
Washington, DC 20207
Phone: 301 504-0962
RIN: 3041-AB35
_______________________________________________________________________
CPSC
167. REQUIREMENTS FOR CHILD-RESISTANCE OF MULTI-PURPOSE LIGHTERS
Priority:


Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.


Legal Authority:


 15 USC 2051 Consumer Product Safety Act


CFR Citation:


 Not yet determined


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


On January 16, 1997, the Commission published an advance notice of 
proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) to begin a proceeding which may result in a 
mandatory consumer product safety rule requiring multi-purpose lighters 
to resist operation by children. The Commission began this proceeding 
after granting a petition.
A mandatory product safety rule for multi-purpose lighters would 
require these lighters to have a child-resistant mechanism to prevent 
operation by most children younger than five years of age. The standard 
would include lighters marketed for a wide range of general household 
uses, such as igniting fuel for fireplaces, charcoal or gas-fueled 
grills, and camping equipment.
The staff forwarded a briefing package to the Commission in July 1998. 
The briefing package recommended publication of a notice of proposed 
rulemaking (NPRM) for a rule that would require multi-purpose lighters, 
also called utility lighters, to be child-resistant. On September 30, 
1998, a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) was published in the 
Federal Register.


Statement of Need:


When the Commission issued the safety standard for cigarette lighters 
(16 CFR part 1210) in 1993, multi-purpose lighters were excluded from 
its

[[Page 61407]]

requirements because the Commission lacked information to establish 
that multi-purpose lighters were associated with an unreasonable risk 
of injury from fires set by children playing with such lighters. 
However, since issuance of the cigarette lighter standard, the 
Commission staff has obtained information about 158 incidents occurring 
from January 1988 through April 1998 in which children younger than 
five years of age started fires using multi-purpose lighters. These 
fires resulted in 23 deaths and 58 injuries. Because these data are 
actual incidents rather than national estimates, the extent of the 
total problem may be greater.
Children younger than five years of age usually are incapable of 
dealing with a fire once it has started. Consequently, they and their 
families are at special risk of injury from fires started by child-
play. About half of all of the fatalities in the fires resulting from 
children playing with multi-purpose lighters were the children who 
started the fires. About 25 percent of the 58 persons injured in fires 
started by children with multi-purpose lighters were hospitalized for 
treatment.
Annual sales of multi-purpose lighters have grown from one million in 
1985 to 20 million in 1998. With sales growing at a rate estimated to 
be 5 percent to 10 percent a year, it is expected that fires started 
with these products by children under five will also increase. Staff 
testing of lighters currently on the market indicated child resistance 
levels ranging from a low of 4 percent to a high of 41 percent, still 
far below the 85 percent required of cigarette lighters under the 
Commission's cigarette lighter standard.
Fires started by young children playing with multi-purpose lighters are 
not addressed by any voluntary standard or other voluntary program.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


Sections 7 and 9 of the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA) authorize 
the Commission to issue a consumer product safety standard to eliminate 
or reduce an unreasonable risk of injury associated with a consumer 
product. No aspect of this proceeding is required by statute or court 
order.


Alternatives:


This proceeding could result in the establishment of requirements for 
multi-purpose lighters to reduce risks of death and injury associated 
with fires ignited by multi-purpose lighters operated by young 
children. The ANPRM discussed the following alternatives:
(1) Establishment of a mandatory standard with performance requirements 
for multi-purpose lighters to reduce risks of death and injury from 
fires ignited by multi-purpose lighters operated by young children;
(2) Establishment of mandatory labeling requirements to warn of the 
risks of death and injury associated with fires ignited by multi-
purpose lighters operated by young children, either instead of, or in 
addition to, a mandatory standard with performance requirements.
(3) Development of a voluntary standard containing performance, 
labeling, or other requirements to address risks of death and injury 
associated with fires ignited by multi-purpose lighters operated by 
young children; and
(4) The Commission could terminate the proceeding and withdraw the 
ANPRM.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Based on available fire incident and sales information, the estimated 
cost to society of fires started by children playing with multi-purpose 
lighters is about $36 million a year. This estimate includes the costs 
associated with loss of life, medical treatment, lost income, pain and 
suffering, and property damage. A safety standard for multi-purpose 
lighters with a required child-resistance of 85 percent would provide 
estimated gross benefits of about $27 million a year. Costs of 
compliance are expected to result in increased consumer expenditures of 
around $16 million per year, resulting in net benefits around $11 
million annually. This annual net benefit will increase if, as 
expected, sales of multi-purpose lighters increase.


Risks:


The Commission has information indicating that from January 1988 
through April 1998, children younger than five years of age started at 
least 158 fires using multi-purpose lighters. These fires resulted in 
23 deaths and 58 injuries. Based on available fire incident and sales 
information, the Commission staff estimates that the total cost to 
society of these fires is about $36 million a year.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM           62 FR 2327                                     01/16/97
ANPRM Comment Period End                                       03/17/97
Staff Briefing Package on NPRM                                 07/15/98
NPRM            63 FR 52397                                    09/30/98
NPRM Comment Period End                                        12/14/98
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Agency Contact:
Barbara Jacobson
Project Manager
Consumer Product Safety Commission
Dir. for Epidemiology & Health Sciences
Washington, DC 20207
Phone: 301 504-0477
RIN: 3041-AB66
BILLING CODE 6355-01-F

[[Page 61408]]

FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE BOARD (FHFB)
Statement of Regulatory and Deregulatory Priorities
The Federal Housing Finance Board (Finance Board) is an independent 
agency that is charged under the Federal Home Loan Bank Act (Bank Act) 
with supervising and regulating the Nation's Federal Home Loan Bank 
(FHLBank) System. The FHLBank System comprises 12 regional FHLBanks 
that are each owned by their member financial institutions and that 
provide wholesale credit to members and certain nonmembers to be used 
for mortgage lending and related community investment activities. The 
FHLBank System also includes the Office of Finance, which issues 
FHLBank System consolidated obligations. The Finance Board is required 
to prepare the following regulatory plan pursuant to section 4 of 
Executive Order 12866.
As always, the Finance Board's highest regulatory priorities during the 
coming year are to ensure the safety and soundness of the FHLBank 
System and to ensure that the FHLBanks fulfill their housing finance 
and community investment mission. In furtherance of these statutory 
mandates, the Finance Board plans four significant regulatory actions 
during 1998-99. The most important of these will be the promulgation of 
proposed and final rules revising the Financial Management Policy for 
the FHLBanks (FMP), which governs the FHLBanks' investments and other 
aspects of their financial management, and codifying its contents into 
one or more regulations (RIN 3069-AA50). As part of its safety and 
soundness responsibilities, the Finance Board intends to address in the 
regulation control of interest rate risk assumed by the FHLBanks. As 
part of its effort to ensure that the FHLBanks fulfill their statutory 
mission, the Finance Board also plans to structure the regulation to 
encourage the FHLBanks to focus their balance sheets away from 
investments that are not related to housing finance and community 
investment and toward a combination of advances and other assets that 
are mission-related.
In addition, the Finance Board plans to finalize two related rules that 
were issued in proposed form during 1998. The first of these, dealing 
with FHLBank Community Investment Cash Advance (CICA) programs (RIN 
3069-AA75), will establish a general framework under which FHLBanks may 
establish CICA programs, in addition to their existing Affordable 
Housing Programs and Community Investment Programs, to provide advances 
to members to fund loans for low- and moderate-income housing finance 
and ``targeted'' (as defined in the regulation) economic development in 
urban and rural areas. The second rule, dealing with FHLBank Standby 
Letters of Credit (RIN 3069-AA61), will codify FHLBank letter of credit 
guidelines into regulatory form and will amend such guidelines to 
permit FHLBanks to issue and confirm letters of credit for a wider 
range of purposes, including the types of targeted economic development 
addressed in the CICA regulation and pursuant to a wider range of 
eligible collateral, than currently is permitted.
Finally, during the coming year, the Finance Board intends to 
promulgate proposed and final rules to amend the collateral provisions 
of the Finance Board's Advances regulation to permit FHLBanks to accept 
as security for advances both federally guaranteed mortgages (to the 
extent of the guarantee), irrespective of such mortgages' delinquency 
status, and eligible collateral held by member-controlled Real Estate 
Investment Trusts (REITs), State security corporations, or other 
similar business structures (RIN 3069-AA77). All of these regulatory 
actions are in harmony with the regulatory philosophy and principles 
set forth by the President in Executive Order 12866 in that they either 
are necessary for the Agency to carry out effectively its statutory 
role as safety and soundness and mission regulator of the FHLBank 
System or are intended to reduce regulatory restrictions now imposed 
upon the FHLBanks and their members.
In addition to these regulatory initiatives, the Finance Board has been 
working, and will continue to work, with members of Congress and their 
staffs to refine and promote pending FHLBank System reform legislation. 
This legislation, if enacted, would devolve further governance 
authorities to the FHLBanks, would correct several technical and 
structural anomalies in the Bank Act, and would position the FHLBank 
System to operate at maximum efficiency and effectiveness in the 
financial world of the 21st century. If legislation is enacted in a 
form similar to that now under consideration, the Agency's regulatory 
priorities and its anticipated program of regulatory actions for the 
coming year will necessarily change.
_______________________________________________________________________
FHFB

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

168. FHLBANK FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
Priority:


Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.


Legal Authority:


 12 USC 1422b(a); 12 USC 1431; 12 USC 1436(a)


CFR Citation:


 Not yet determined


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Finance Board will revise its Financial Management Policy (FMP) for 
the Federal Home Loan Bank System and will issue a proposed rule to 
codify it as a regulation.


Statement of Need:


In December 1993, the Finance Board adopted the FMP to provide guidance 
to and establish limits for the FHLBanks in their implementation of 
financial programs and strategies. The Finance Board intends to amend 
the policy to more thoroughly address FHLBanks' assumption of interest 
rate risk and to direct FHLBank funds toward investments that are more 
closely related to their housing finance and community investment 
mission. The Finance Board intends for the first time to promulgate the 
FMP as a regulation.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


Sections 11(h) and 16(a) of the Bank Act authorize the FHLBanks to make 
certain types of investments. Section 11 generally authorizes the 
FHLBanks to seek various sources of funding for their operations. 
Section 2B(a) of the Bank Act authorizes the Finance Board to supervise 
the FHLBanks and to promulgate such regulations as are necessary to 
carry out the provisions of the Act.


Alternatives:


The Finance Board is considering various alternative methods for 
controlling FHLBank interest rate risk and encouraging investment in 
mission-related assets. In addition, the agency will consider all 
alternatives suggested by the public during the notice and comment 
process.

[[Page 61409]]

Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The Finance Board anticipates that the new FMP provisions may result in 
slightly lower investment income for the FHLBanks to the extent that 
the interest rate risk controls and mission-related investment 
requirements may narrow the range of high-income assets in which the 
FHLBanks may invest. However, these costs are likely to be 
counterbalanced by FHLBanks' assumption of less interest rate risk and 
by the FHLBanks' greater support for the mortgage markets. The 
regulation would not otherwise impose any direct financial costs upon 
the FHLBanks or their member institutions.


Risks:


Although FHLBank interest rate risk is already well-managed under the 
current FMP, the proposed regulation will attempt to further minimize 
such risk by incorporating state-of-the-art models and methods for 
monitoring and controlling the risk. The Finance Board is considering 
whether there are any circumstances under which there should be reserve 
requirements against interest rate risk exposure. Because the 
regulation is in its preliminary stages of preparation, the agency 
cannot now quantify the amount by which such risk will be reduced.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Proposed Stateme62 FR 13146y                                   03/19/97
Comment Period End                                             04/18/97
NPRM                                                           12/00/98
NPRM Comment Period End                                        02/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
James Bothwell
Director, Office of Policy
Federal Housing Finance Board
1777 F Street NW.
Washington, DC 20006
Phone: 202 408-2821
Fax: 202 408-2850
RIN: 3069-AA50
_______________________________________________________________________
FHFB
169.  COLLATERAL ELIGIBLE TO SECURE FHLBANK ADVANCES
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


 12 USC 1430


CFR Citation:


 12 CFR 935


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Finance Board plans to issue a proposed rule to amend its Advances 
regulation to permit FHLBanks to accept as security for advances both 
federally-guaranteed mortgages (to the extent of the guarantee), 
irrespective of such mortgages' delinquency status, and eligible 
collateral held by member-controlled Real Estate Investment Trusts 
(REITs), State security corporations, or other similar business 
structures.


Statement of Need:


An increasing number of FHLBank member institutions are opting to 
transfer mortgage assets that were previously held directly by such 
members to REITs, security corporations, or other similarly structured 
subsidiaries, in order to gain certain tax advantages. Because many of 
these mortgage assets are eligible to secure FHLBank advances and, in 
fact, are currently being used to secure such advances, it is important 
that the Finance Board establish a regulatory structure under which 
FHLBanks will continue to be able to accept this transferred 
collateral--which will still be under the ultimate control of the 
member--as security for advances. It is anticipated that the rule will 
establish such a structure. In addition, through this rulemaking, the 
Finance Board plans to make clear that FHLBanks are permitted by 
statute to accept as collateral for advances federally-guaranteed 
mortgages (to the extent of the guarantee), irrespective of their 
delinquency status, although FHLBanks may not normally accept as 
collateral mortgages that are more than 90 days delinquent.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


Section 10 of the Bank Act sets forth requirements for FHLBank advances 
to members and specifies the types of member collateral that are 
eligible to secure such advances. While, under section 10, FHLBank 
members are required to assume a primary, unconditional obligation to 
repay any advance, such advances may be secured by pledges of 
collateral by affiliates of members. In addition, under section 10, 
FHLBanks are not precluded from obtaining an interest in eligible 
collateral by accepting pledges of shares of corporations or trusts 
whose assets comprise only eligible assets. Regarding federally-
guaranteed mortgages, although section 10(a)(1) of the Bank Act 
requires that whole mortgage loans be not more than 90 days delinquent 
in order to constitute eligible collateral, section 10(a)(2) permits 
FHLBanks to accept any federally-guaranteed securities as collateral. 
Because, to the extent that it is federally-guaranteed, the delinquency 
status of a mortgage loan is immaterial as a matter of safety and 
soundness, the Finance Board may permit FHLBanks to accept delinquent 
federally-guaranteed mortgages as collateral for advances under section 
10(a)(2) of the Bank Act. Section 2B(a) of the Bank Act authorizes the 
Finance Board to supervise the FHLBanks and to promulgate such 
regulations as are necessary to carry out the provisions of the Act. 
This regulatory action is not required by statute or court order.


Alternatives:


As an alternative to this rulemaking, the Finance Board could choose to 
prohibit FHLBanks from accepting as security for advances delinquent 
federally-guaranteed mortgages, or collateral held by member-controlled 
REITs, security corporations, or similar structures. Also, the Finance 
Board could decide to permit the FHLBanks to accept such collateral 
pursuant only to a staff legal interpretation of the statute and the 
existing Advances regulation, or to decide these issues on a case-by-
case basis. The agency will consider all alternatives suggested by the 
public during the notice and comment period.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


Although the Finance Board cannot quantify precisely the costs and 
benefits of this rulemaking at this time, the agency anticipates that 
the regulatory amendments will benefit both FHLBanks and their members 
by expressly permitting the FHLBanks to accept as security for advances 
collateral that might not appear to be eligible under a technical 
reading of the current text of the Advances regulation.


Risks:


Regarding eligible collateral held by member-controlled REITs, State 
security corporations, or other similar business structures, the 
Finance Board is considering ways to minimize or eliminate any risk 
that a FHLBank would have more difficulty in

[[Page 61410]]

foreclosing upon such third-party collateral upon the default of a 
member than if the same assets were to be pledged by the member 
directly. Regarding delinquent federally-guaranteed mortgages, the 
Finance Board seeks to ensure that the guarantee attached to each such 
mortgage is sufficient to negate the credit risks associated with the 
delinquency status of the mortgage. The control of these risks is of 
paramount concern to the Finance Board, which is charged by statute 
with ensuring that the FHLBanks operate in a safe and sound manner.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           10/00/98
NPRM Comment Period End                                        12/00/98
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Eric M. Raudenbush
Attorney-Adviser
Federal Housing Finance Board
1777 F Street NW.
Washington, DC 20006
Phone: 202 408-2932
Fax: 202 408-2580
RIN: 3069-AA77
_______________________________________________________________________
FHFB

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

170. FHLBANK LETTER OF CREDIT ISSUANCE
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


 12 USC 1430(a); 12 USC 1431


CFR Citation:


 12 CFR 938


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Finance Board will publish a final rule codifying policies 
governing issuance of standby letters of credit by FHLBanks.


Statement of Need:


The issuance and confirmation of standby letters of credit by FHLBanks 
currently is governed by the Finance Board's Interim Policy Guidelines 
for FHLBank Standby Letters of Credit (Interim Guidelines), which were 
adopted in 1993. After a thorough review of these Interim Guidelines, 
the Finance Board determined that many of the restrictions imposed upon 
FHLBank letters of credit thereunder are not required by statute and, 
in addition, limit the usefulness of such letters of credit to member 
institutions. As a result, the Finance Board issued a proposed rule to 
add to its regulations a new part 938, addressing FHLBank standby 
letters of credit, that would permit the FHLBanks to issue letters of 
credit for a broader range of purposes and upon the security of a 
broader range of collateral.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


The Bank Act does not address directly the power of FHLBanks to issue 
letters of credit. In the past, the Finance Board has permitted 
FHLBanks to issue letters of credit as part of their authority to make 
advances under section 10(a) of the Bank Act. In addition, the Finance 
Board recently has determined that the FHLBank authority to issue 
letters of credit is also a part of, and incidental to, the FHLBanks' 
deposit-taking and payment processing powers set forth in section 11(e) 
of the Bank Act, and part of the FHLBanks' incidental authority to 
enter into commitments to make advances under sections 10 and 11(a) of 
the Bank Act. Section 2B(a) of the Bank Act authorizes the Finance 
Board to supervise the FHLBanks and to promulgate such regulations as 
are necessary to carry out the provisions of the Act. This regulatory 
action is not required by statute or court order.


Alternatives:


The Finance Board is considering various alternatives regarding both 
the purposes for which FHLBanks may issue letters of credit and the 
types of collateral that may be accepted to secure FHLBank letters of 
credit. The agency will consider all alternatives suggested by the 
public during the notice and comment period.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


It is not possible to quantify precisely the expected costs and 
benefits of the new FHLBank letter of credit regulation. In general, 
the Finance Board expects that, under the new regulation, the FHLBanks 
will issue a greater number of letters of credit than in the past and, 
therefore, are likely to experience a slight increase in revenues. The 
new regulation is likely to benefit member institutions (and, 
indirectly, their customers), who will be able to obtain FHLBank 
letters of credit for a wider range of purposes and will be permitted 
to secure FHLBank letters of credit with a wider range of collateral.


Risks:


The proposed letter of credit regulation addresses the credit risk 
assumed by a FHLBank, as issuer of a letter of credit, by requiring 
that all FHLBank letters of credit be secured fully for their face 
amount at the time of issuance. The proposed rule requests comment on 
whether there are any circumstances under which the FHLBanks could 
safely and soundly issue letters of credit that are not fully 
collateralized. All such comments will be considered carefully by the 
Finance Board in drafting the final rule.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            63 FR 25726                                    05/08/98
NPRM Comment Period End                                        08/08/98
Final Action                                                   11/00/98
Final Action Effective                                         12/00/98
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Eric M. Raudenbush
Attorney-Adviser
Federal Housing Finance Board
1777 F Street NW.
Washington, DC 20006
Phone: 202 408-2932
Fax: 202 408-2580
RIN: 3069-AA61
_______________________________________________________________________
FHFB
171.  COMMUNITY INVESTMENT CASH ADVANCE PROGRAMS
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


 12 USC 1426; 12 USC 1429; 12 USC 1430; 12 USC 1430b; 12 USC 1431

[[Page 61411]]

CFR Citation:


 12 CFR 935; 12 CFR 970


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Finance Board plans to issue a final rule establishing a general 
framework under which the FHLBanks may establish community investment 
cash advance (CICA) programs in addition to their Affordable Housing 
Programs (AHP) and Community Investment Programs (CIP). The proposed 
rule does not require a FHLBank to establish CICA programs, but merely 
provides the FHLBanks with an outline of the types of FHLBank lending 
that the Finance Board has determined will meet the statutory 
requirement that CICA programs support community investment.


Statement of Need:


The Bank Act authorizes the FHLBanks to establish CICA programs in 
addition to the CIP and AHP to support ``community investment.'' The 
Finance Board has not previously promulgated regulations or other 
specific guidance on the types of FHLBank lending that are permitted 
under this authority. The proposed rule is intended to provide the 
FHLBanks with such guidance and to encourage the FHLBanks to fulfill 
needs for long-term financing for economic development in urban and 
rural areas that are not being met through the AHP and the CIP.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


Section 10(j)(10) of the Bank Act authorizes the FHLBanks to establish 
CICA programs to support ``community investment.'' Section 2B(a) of the 
Bank Act authorizes the Finance Board to supervise the FHLBanks and to 
promulgate such regulations as are necessary to carry out the 
provisions of the Act. This regulatory action is not required by 
statute or court order.


Alternatives:


In the proposed rule, the Finance Board has requested comment on 
whether it should establish CICA standards, in whole or in part, in a 
form other than a regulation. Substantively, in developing the final 
rule, the Finance Board is considering several alternatives regarding 
the types of ``targeted'' economic development that will fall within 
the scope of the CICA guidelines. The agency will consider all 
alternatives suggested by the public during the notice and comment 
period.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


It is not possible to quantify precisely the expected costs and 
benefits of the final FHLBank CICA Programs regulation. Because the 
regulation would merely encourage, but would not require, FHLBanks to 
establish CICA programs, any costs imposed upon, or benefits provided 
to, the FHLBanks or their members thereunder would be assumed at the 
discretion of each FHLBank. To the extent that a FHLBank chooses to 
establish CICA programs, such programs would likely benefit individuals 
and businesses in low- and moderate-income urban and rural areas by 
providing them, through FHLBank member institutions, with long-term 
credit that might not be available otherwise, or might not be available 
under such favorable terms and conditions. The implementation of CICA 
programs might also benefit the FHLBanks themselves by providing the 
FHLBanks with additional sources of revenue.


Risks:


By statute, the Finance Board is charged with ensuring the safe and 
sound operation of the FHLBanks. As with any type of loan program, 
there would be credit, interest rate and other types of risks involved 
in CICA lending. Such risks would be managed pursuant to the collateral 
and other provisions of the Finance Board's existing Advances 
regulation, as is the case with all FHLBank advances.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            63 FR 25722                                    05/08/98
NPRM Comment Period End                                        08/08/98
Final Action                                                   11/00/98
Final Action Effective                                         12/00/98
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Neil R. Crowley
Deputy General Counsel
Federal Housing Finance Board
1777 F Street NW.
Washington, DC 20006
Phone: 202 408-2990
Fax: 202 408-2580
RIN: 3069-AA75
BILLING CODE 6725-01-F

[[Page 61412]]

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION (FMC)
Statement of Regulatory and Deregulatory Priorities
The Federal Maritime Commission's (Commission) regulatory objectives 
are guided by the Agency's basic mission. The Commission's mission is 
to administer the shipping statutes as effectively as possible to 
provide an efficient, economic, and nondiscriminatory ocean 
transportation system in an environment free of unfair foreign maritime 
trade practices. Commission regulations are designed to implement each 
of the various statutes the Agency administers in a manner consistent 
with this mission and in a way that minimizes regulatory costs, fosters 
economic efficiencies, and promotes international harmony.
Proposed legislation pending in Congress could alter significantly the 
Federal regulatory scheme regarding international ocean shipping. The 
Commission is monitoring this legislation closely as it obviously would 
affect the Agency's regulatory planning and priorities and, depending 
on the effective date(s) of its provisions, could require regulatory 
action during the coming year. If enacted in its current proposed 
version, this legislation will require review and rewrite of many of 
the Commission's substantive regulations. One of the most significant 
changes would be to the treatment of common carrier tariffs, the 
publications which contain the rates and charges for their 
transportation services. Currently, such tariffs are required to be 
filed with the Commission's Automated Tariff Filing and Information 
System. Under the proposed legislation, carriers no longer will have to 
file with the Commission, but will be required to publish their rates 
in private, automated tariff systems, to be made available 
electronically to any person. The Commission would be charged with 
prescribing the requirements for the ``accessibility and accuracy'' of 
these automated tariff systems. Against this background, the Commission 
has initiated an inquiry to solicit comments from the ocean 
transportation industry and the general public on how best to establish 
requirements for carriers' automated tariff systems, to assist the 
Commission in formulating proposed rules in this area.
Until any such legislation is enacted and an implementation schedule is 
determined, the principal objective or priority of the Agency's current 
regulatory plan will be to continue to assess its major existing 
regulations for continuing need, effectiveness, burden on the regulated 
industry, fairness, and clarity.
The Commission continues to have under review, inter alia, regulations 
regarding passenger vessel operator financial responsibility and co-
loading arrangements between non-vessel-operating common carriers.
The Commission's review of existing regulations exemplifies its 
objective to regulate fairly and effectively while imposing a minimum 
burden on the regulated entities, following the principles stated by 
the President in Executive Order 12866.
Description of the Most Significant Regulatory Actions
The Commission currently has no actions under consideration that 
constitute ``significant regulatory actions'' under the definition in 
Executive Order 12866.
BILLING CODE 6730-01-F

[[Page 61413]]

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION (FTC)
Statement of Regulatory Priorities
Regulatory Priorities
Background
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC or Commission) is an independent 
agency charged 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 free markets work--that competition among 
producers and information in the hands of consumers brings the best 
products at the lowest prices for consumers, spurs efficiency and 
innovation, and strengthens the economy.
The Commission pursues its goal of promoting competition in the 
marketplace through two different, but complementary, approaches. 
First, for competition to thrive, curbing deception and fraud is 
critical. Through its consumer protection activities, the Commission 
seeks to ensure that consumers receive accurate, not false or 
misleading, information in the marketplace. At the same time, for 
consumers to have a choice of products and services at competitive 
prices and quality, the marketplace must be free from anticompetitive 
business practices. Thus, the second part of the Commission's basic 
mission--antitrust enforcement--is to prohibit anticompetitive mergers 
or other anticompetitive business practices without unduly interfering 
with the legitimate activities of businesses. These two complementary 
parts of its mission make the Commission the Nation's only Federal 
agency to be given this combination of statutory authority to protect 
consumers.
The Commission is, first and foremost, a law enforcement agency. It 
pursues its mandate primarily through case-by-case enforcement of the 
Federal Trade Commission Act and other statutes. The Commission, 
however, is also charged with the responsibility of issuing and 
enforcing regulations under a number of statutes. In addition, under 
the FTC Act, the Commission currently has in place 13 trade regulation 
rules. The Commission also has adopted a number of voluntary industry 
guides. Most of the regulations and guides pertain to consumer 
protection matters and are generally intended to ensure that consumers 
receive the information necessary to evaluate competing products and 
make informed purchasing decisions.
Ten-Year Review Program
In 1992, the Commission implemented a 10-year review program to review 
its rules and guides. The Commission's review program is patterned 
after provisions in the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 5 U.S.C. 601 et 
seq. Under the Commission's program, however, rules are continually 
reviewed at least every 10 years, not just once as usually required by 
section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Thus, this program 
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.'' The program's goal is to ensure that all of 
the Commission's rules and guides remain beneficial and in the public 
interest.
As part of the 10-year plan, the Commission examines the effect of 
rules and guides on small businesses and on the marketplace in general. 
These reviews often 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. As a result of the review program, the Commission has 
repealed 48 percent of its trade regulation rules and 40 percent of its 
guides since 1992.
Calendar Year 1998 Reviews
The CY 1998 reviews, discussed below, are part of the Commission's 10-
year plan to review and seek information about all of its regulations 
and guides, their costs and benefits, and their regulatory and economic 
impact. These reviews may also address other matters or issues. This 
year, the Commission has initiated reviews of a Trade Regulation Rule, 
three guides, and one exemption: (1) The Funeral Industry Practices 
Rule, 16 CFR part 453; (2) Used Auto Parts Industry Guides, 16 CFR part 
20; (3) Adhesive Compositions Guides, 16 CFR part 235; (4) Decorative 
Wall Paneling Guides, 16 CFR part 243; and (5) Procedures for State 
Application for Exemptions from the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 
16 CFR part 901.
All of these matters pertain to consumer protection and are intended to 
ensure that consumers receive the information necessary to evaluate 
competing products and make informed purchasing decisions. For example, 
the Funeral Industry Practices Rule, 16 CFR part 453, requires that 
funeral service providers give price lists to consumers who visit a 
funeral home and provide price and other information in response to 
telephone inquiries. An amendment in 1994 prohibits funeral providers 
from charging a ``casket handling'' fee in addition to any 
nondeclinable basic-service fee. The Commission has moved the review of 
this Rule from CY 1999 to CY 1998 in response to requests that it 
examine emerging issues in the funeral industry.
The Commission reviews its rules to determine, among other things, the 
continuing need for the rule; possible conflicts between each rule and 
State, local, and other Federal laws; and the effect on each rule of 
any technological, economic, or other industry changes. For example, 
the Commission has determined to retain the rules and regulations 
issued under the Hobby Protection Act in their current form, 63 FR 
36555 (July 7, 1998); determined to retain the Trade Regulation Rule 
Concerning Power Output Claims for Amplifiers Utilized in Home 
Entertainment Products with technical modifications, 63 FR 37234 (July 
9, 1998); and recognized a potential need for substantive amendment of 
the same rule by issuing an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 63 
FR 37238 (July 9, 1998).
The Commission has begun a review of the Guides for the Rebuilt, 
Reconditioned, and Other Used Automobile Parts Industry (Used Auto 
Parts Guides), 16 CFR 20. The Used Auto Parts Guides, effective since 
1962, advise industry members not to misrepresent the age of the 
product, the condition of the product, the extent of the rebuilding of 
the product, or that the rebuilder was the original manufacturer. 
Industry members must also conspicuously disclose in advertising and 
packaging that the products include used parts, if that is the case. 
The Commission's review will examine, among other things, the overall 
costs and benefits of the Used Auto Parts Guides and whether there is a 
continuing need for them. The Commission has published a Federal 
Register notice seeking comment on several questions concerning the 
Used Auto Parts Guides' provisions. See 63 FR 17132 (Apr. 8, 1998).

[[Page 61414]]

Also as part of its 10-year regulatory review, the Commission has 
requested comments on its Guides Against Deceptive Labeling and 
Advertising of Adhesive Compositions, 16 CFR part 235 (Adhesive 
Guides). See 63 FR 17348 (Apr. 9, 1998). Effective since 1967, the 
Adhesive Guides are designed to prevent deceptive labeling and 
advertising of adhesive products by addressing specific 
misrepresentations about the properties and effectiveness of adhesives. 
The Commission is requesting comments on the benefits and costs, the 
effect of changes in technology, industry, marketplace, and economic 
conditions, as well as the continuing need for the Adhesive Guides in 
their present form or with modifications.
In addition, the Commission has sought comments on its Guides for the 
Decorative Wall Paneling Industry (Wall Paneling Guides), 16 CFR part 
243, effective since 1972. The Wall Paneling Guides are designed to 
protect consumers from being misled by the appearance of a product or 
by deceptive descriptions, depictions, designations, or representations 
in advertisements. The Wall Paneling Guides also provide examples and 
advise consumers that it is the seller's responsibility to provide 
detailed disclosures regarding the composition of the products. As with 
the other Guides, the Commission's Federal Register notice requests 
comments on whether there is a continuing need for the Guides, their 
costs and benefits, whether changes in technology, the marketplace or 
the industry suggest that the Guides should be modified, and whether 
they overlap or conflict with other Federal, State, or local laws or 
regulations. See 63 FR 14865 (Mar. 27, 1998).
The Commission has requested comments concerning Procedures for State 
Application for Exemption from the Provisions of the Fair Debt 
Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 16 CFR part 901. See 63 FR 19859 
(Apr. 22, 1998). Under part 901, a State may apply for an exemption 
from the provisions of sections 803 through 812 of the FDCPA if its 
laws provide substantially similar or greater protection for consumers 
than that afforded by the FDCPA and there is adequate provision for 
State enforcement of the requirements. These procedures have been in 
effect since 1979. The Commission seeks comments on several questions, 
including whether there is a continuing need for the exemption 
procedures, whether the procedures should be modified or eliminated, 
and the costs and benefits of the current procedures. Id.
Final Actions and Continuing Reviews
Since the 1997 Regulatory Plan was published, the Commission has 
completed the following actions:
The Commission has repealed the Dry Cell Battery Rule, 16 CFR part 403, 
which prohibited industry representations that dry cell batteries will 
not leak. In repealing the Rule, the Commission noted that changes in 
industry practice, and general voluntary compliance by the industry 
with the requirements of the American National Standards Institute 
Standard, effectively rendered the Rule no longer necessary or in the 
public interest. See 62 FR 61225 (Nov. 17, 1997).
The Commission amended the rules and regulations under the Textile 
Fiber Products Identification Act, the Wool Products Labeling Act, and 
the Fur Products Labeling Act. See 63 FR 7508 (Feb. 13, 1998). The 
Commission simplified the labeling requirements and modified 
definitions of covered publications to include those generated and 
disseminated electronically through the Internet or e-mail. The 
Commission also included more examples of country of origin disclosures 
that comply with both the FTCs and U.S. Customs Service origin-
disclosure requirements. Also, the Commission increased the exemption 
from the labeling requirements for fur trim from $20 to $150.
In 1998, the Commission completed its review of the rules and 
regulations issued under the Hobby Protection Act, 16 CFR part 304, and 
decided to retain the rules in their current form. 63 FR 36555 (July 7, 
1998). The Commission determined that the rules successfully protect 
consumers from those who would try to pass off reproductions as 
originals and that the costs of compliance are not significant to 
either small entities or others.
The Commission has decided to retain the Trade Regulation Rule 
Concerning Power Output Claims for Amplifiers Utilized in Home 
Entertainment Products, 16 CFR part 432. Specifically, the Commission 
issued a final rule retaining the Rule with a nonsubstantive technical 
amendment clarifying that the Rule applies to self-powered speakers 
used with home computer systems because they perform the same functions 
as the other amplification equipment listed in the Rule. 63 FR 37234 
(July 9, 1998). The Commission has also issued an Advance Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking proposing to modify the testing procedures and to 
eliminate certain disclosures required in advertisements, 63 FR 37238 
(July 9, 1998). The Commission concluded that there was no reason to 
extend the Rule's requirements to automobile sound systems. Based on 
its review, staff found that consumers currently are able to make 
meaningful comparisons in the automotive sound reproduction market. Id. 
at 37240-41.
After completing its review of the Trade Regulation Rule Concerning the 
Use of Negative Option Plans by Sellers in Commerce (Negative Option 
Rule), 16 CFR 425, the Commission decided to retain the Rule in its 
present form with minor technical changes. 63 FR 44555 (Aug. 20, 1998). 
The Negative Option Rule, promulgated in 1973, applies to sellers of 
prenotification subscription plans who ship merchandise such as books, 
compact discs, or tapes automatically to their subscribers on a 
periodic basis. It requires, among other things, that the companies 
notify subscribers in advance of shipping to allow them the option of 
declining the merchandise. The comments received in the rulemaking 
suggest that the Rule is working effectively. The Commission concluded 
that there was presently an insufficient basis to consider amending the 
Rule to include sales techniques and practices not presently covered by 
the Rule.
The Commission issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) seeking 
public comment on proposed amendments to the Trade Regulation Rule on 
Care Labeling of Textile Wearing Apparel and Certain Piece Goods (Care 
Labeling Rule), 16 CFR 423, 63 FR 25417 (May 8, 1998). The Commission 
proposed amending the Care Labeling Rule to require home washing 
instructions (rather than dry cleaning instructions, except as 
voluntarily disclosed additional instructions) for garments for which 
home washing is appropriate. Through the NPRM, the Commission also 
seeks to clarify ``what can constitute a reasonable basis for care 
instructions'' and requests comment on whether to allow a garment that 
can be professionally wet cleaned to be labeled with instructions for 
professional wet cleaning and whether to change the definitions of 
``cold,'' ``warm,'' and ``hot'' water to match those used by an 
independent standards and testing association.
The Commission amended section 802.70 of the rules adopted pursuant to 
the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act's Premerger Notification Amendments to the 
Clayton

[[Page 61415]]

Act, 15 U.S.C. 18a (HSR Rules). This amendment to the HSR Rules reduces 
burden on parties by exempting from the HSR filing requirements 
divestitures included in consent agreements that are not final orders 
if the agreements are (1) accepted by the Commission or filed by the 
Commission or the Department of Justice with the District Court and (2) 
are subject to public comment, 63 FR 34592 (June 25, 1998). Comments on 
the final rule were due by July 27, 1998.
The Commission issued final amendments to the Guides for the Use of 
Environmental Marketing Claims, 16 CFR part 260, regarding compostable 
and recyclable claims. These Guides were first announced in 1992 and 
revised in October 1996. The 1998 revision to the Guides expanded the 
terms ``recyclable'' and ``recycled content'' and clarified that an 
unqualified compostable claim can be made if a product or package is 
compostable at home, even if municipal or institutional composting 
facilities are not available locally. 63 FR 24240 (May 1, 1998).
The Commission has taken final action on its review of the Guides for 
Private Vocational and Home Study Schools (Vocational School Guides), 
16 CFR part 254, by deciding to retain the Vocational School Guides 
with modifications, under the new title Guides for Private, Vocational, 
and Distance Education Schools. See 63 FR 42570 (Aug. 10, 1998). The 
amendments to the Vocational Guides delete a number of provisions found 
to be unnecessary and address deceptive claims about future employment 
but do not create new requirements for vocational schools.
The Commission also rescinded the Guides for the Feather and Down 
Products Industry (Down Guides), 16 CFR part 253. See 63 FR 44553 (Aug. 
20, 1998). These Guides, in effect since 1971, addressed claims for the 
advertising, labeling, and sales of products that are wholly or 
partially filled with feathers or down and all bulk stocks of processed 
feathers or down intended for use or used in the manufacture of such 
products. After extensive review of the Guides and their effect on the 
feather and down industry, the Commission has decided that the Guides 
have not promoted compliance with section 5 of the FTC Act. The 
Commission's Federal Register notice announcing the decision to rescind 
the Down Guides noted, however, that its rescission action does not 
signal an FTC withdrawal from its law enforcement efforts to prevent 
deception in the labeling and advertising of these products.
Calendar Year 1999 Reviews
In CY 1999, the Commission expects to initiate reviews of one rule, 
three industry guides, and one statement of interpretation. The rule 
scheduled for review in 1999 is the regulation under the Comprehensive 
Smokeless Tobacco Health Education Act of 1986, 16 CFR part 307. The 
guides scheduled for review in 1999 are: (1) Guides for Advertising 
Allowances and Merchandising Payments, 16 CFR part 240; (2) Guides for 
the Law Book Industry, 16 CFR part 256; and (3) Guide Concerning Fuel 
Economy Advertising for New Automobiles, 16 CFR part 259. The 
Commission also plans to begin a review of Statements of General Policy 
or Interpretations at 16 CFR part 600. See 63 FR 1802 (Jan. 12, 1998).
Summary
With regard to both content and process, the FTC's ongoing and proposed 
regulatory actions are compatible with the President's priorities. The 
actions under consideration inform and protect consumers and reduce the 
regulatory burden on business. The Commission will continue working 
toward these goals. The Commission's 10-year review program is 
patterned after provisions in the Regulatory Flexibility Act and 
complies with the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 
1996. The Commission's 10-year program also is consistent with 
President Clinton's National Regulatory Reinvention Initiative, which, 
among other things, urges agencies to eliminate obsolete or unnecessary 
regulations. The program corresponds as well to section 5(a) of 
Executive Order 12866, 58 FR 51735 (Sept. 30, 1993), which directs 
executive branch agencies to develop a plan to reevaluate periodically 
all of their significant existing regulations.
As set forth in Executive Order 12866, the Commission continues to 
identify and weigh the costs and benefits of proposed actions and 
possible alternative actions and to receive the broadest practicable 
array of comments from affected consumers, businesses, and the public 
at large. As stated above, since 1992, the Commission has repealed more 
than 40 percent of its industry guides and more than 48 percent of its 
trade regulation rules that were in existence in 1992 because they had 
ceased to serve a useful purpose. 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.
Regulatory Actions
The Commission has no actions that constitute ``significant regulatory 
actions'' under the definition in Executive Order 12866.
BILLING CODE 6750-01-F

[[Page 61416]]

NATIONAL INDIAN GAMING COMMISSION (NIGC)
Statement of Regulatory Priorities
The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA or the Act), 25 U.S.C. 2701 et 
seq., was signed into law on October 17, 1988. The Act established the 
National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC or the Commission). The stated 
purpose of the Commission is to regulate the operation of gaming by 
Indian tribes as a means of promoting tribal economic development, 
self-sufficiency, and strong tribal governments. It is the Commission's 
intention to provide regulation of Indian gaming to adequately shield 
it from organized crime and other corrupting influences, to ensure that 
the Indian tribe is the primary beneficiary of the gaming operation, 
and to assure that gaming is conducted fairly and honestly by both the 
operator and players.
The NIGC's regulatory priorities for the next fiscal year are to:
1. Establish regulations to implement the issuance of certificates of 
self-regulation for class III gaming operations.
2. Establish minimum internal control standards for tribal gaming 
operations, including standards for auditing, debt collection, 
accounting, and security.
3. Develop regulations to establish processes for the classification, 
review, and approval of games and devices used in tribal gaming.
_______________________________________________________________________
NIGC

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

172. GAME CLASSIFICATION
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


 25 USC 2703; 25 USC 2706


CFR Citation:


 Not yet determined


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rule will establish processes for the classification, review, and 
approval of games and devices used in tribal gaming.


Statement of Need:


Over the course of the past couple of years, the NIGC has received 
numerous requests for advisory opinions on the classification of a 
particular game or device. The Commission has through an informal 
process issued several advisory opinions. However, given the growing 
number of requests and the need for some degree of predictability and 
certainty in the industry regarding the classification of games or 
devices, the Commission believes it is necessary to develop a formal 
process. Consequently, the Commission will use the rulemaking process 
to promulgate regulations in this area.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act specifically defines both Class II and 
Class III gaming (25 USC section 2703). The Act also expressly 
authorizes the Commission to ``promulgate such regulations and 
guidelines as it deems appropriate to implement the provisions of this 
Act (25 USC section 2706 (b)(10)).'' The Commission relies on these 
sections of the statute to authorize the development by regulation of a 
process of formal classification of particular games and devices.


Alternatives:


At this time, the only identified alternative is to continue with the 
informal process of issuing advisory opinions regarding particular 
games.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The potential benefits to this regulatory action are to bring more 
clarity and predictability to the industry regarding classification. 
Those engaged in Indian gaming need to have some degree of certainty 
regarding the legal consequences of playing a particular game. For 
those tribes without tribal-State compacts, the need is even greater to 
know with as much certainty as possible the classification of a 
particular game or device. The anticipated costs of implementing a 
classification system are unknown at this time.


Risks:


The only identifiable risk at this time is the ability to pay for a 
formal classification process. The Commission is trying to expand its 
budget by lifting the statutory fee cap. These actions may be connected 
because without an increase in funding, it is highly unlikely that the 
Commission could afford to develop a formal classification system.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           02/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


State, Tribal


Agency Contact:
Penny Coleman
Acting General Counsel
National Indian Gaming Commission
1441 L Street NW.
Suite 9100
Washington, DC 20005
Phone: 202 632-7003
Fax: 202 632-7066
RIN: 3141-AA12
_______________________________________________________________________
NIGC
173. SELF-REGULATION CERTIFICATION FOR CLASS III GAMING OPERATIONS
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


 25 USC 2706(b)(10); 25 USC 2717(note)


CFR Citation:


 25 CFR 518 (New)


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


These regulations will implement the issuance of certificates of self-
regulation for class III gaming operations.


Statement of Need:


Congress recently authorized the NIGC to collect fees from Class III 
gaming operations. Congress also declared that self-regulating tribes 
are exempt from the payment of these fees. Regulations establishing the 
criteria for self-regulation are therefore necessary to implement this 
new exemption.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


IGRA authorizes the Commission to ``promulgate such regulations and 
guidelines as it deems appropriate to implement the provisions of this 
Act (25 USC 2706(b)(10)).'' Furthermore, PL 105-83 created an exemption 
from the payment of fees on Class III gaming revenues for self-
regulating tribes.


Alternatives:


The Commission has no alternative but to promulgate these regulations, 
which

[[Page 61417]]

will be used to determine whether a tribe is self-regulating and 
therefore entitled to the fee exemption.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The potential benefits to this regulatory action are to establish and 
define for the regulated community what criteria must be met in order 
to be deemed self-regulating and therefore entitled to a fee exemption 
on Class III gaming revenues. The anticipated costs of implementing 
these regulations are unknown at this time.


Risks:


There are no known risks.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM           63 FR 12323                                    03/12/98
ANPRM Comment Period End                                       05/11/98
NPRM                                                           11/00/98
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Tribal


Agency Contact:
Maria Getoff
Staff Attorney
National Indian Gaming Commission
1441 L Street NW.
Suite 9100
Washington, DC 20005
Phone: 202 632-7003
Fax: 202 632-7066
RIN: 3141-AA22
_______________________________________________________________________
NIGC

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

174. MINIMUM INTERNAL CONTROL STANDARDS FOR TRIBAL GAMING OPERATIONS
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


 25 USC 2702; 25 USC 2706(b)(10)


CFR Citation:


 25 CFR 542; 25 CFR 573


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rule establishes minimum internal control standards for tribal 
gaming operations, including standards for auditing, debt collection, 
accounting, and security.


Statement of Need:


In response to the inherent risks and the need for effective controls 
in tribal gaming operations, the Commission developed this rule to 
establish Minimum Internal Control Standards. The Commission has 
determined that it is appropriate and necessary to promulgate 
regulations on minimum internal control standards to implement one of 
the stated purposes of IGRA which is ``to ensure that the Indian tribe 
is the primary beneficiary of the gaming operation, and to assure that 
gaming is conducted fairly and honestly by both the operator and 
players.'' 25 USC 2702(2).


Summary of the Legal Basis:


IGRA authorizes the Commission to ``promulgate such regulations and 
guidelines as it deems appropriate to implement the provisions of this 
Act (25 USC 2706(b)(10)).'' The Commission relies on this section of 
the statute to authorize the establishment of minimum internal control 
standards for tribal gaming operations.


Alternatives:


The Commission has no alternative but to promulgate these minimum 
internal control standards for tribal gaming operations.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The start-up cost is estimated to be an average of 35 million per 
gaming operation. The annual recurring costs are estimated to be an 
average of 1-15 million per gaming operation. The benefit of the 
regulations is that the MICS will help protect against loss of revenues 
by preventing theft by employees, patrons and other persons.


Risks:


There are no determined risks to this regulatory action.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM           63 FR 10798                                    03/05/98
ANPRM Comment Period End                                       04/05/98
Final Action                                                   10/00/98
Final Action Effective                                         11/00/98
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Tribal


Agency Contact:
Mai Dinh
Staff Attorney
National Indian Gaming Commission
1441 L Street NW.
Suite 9100
Washington, DC 20005
Phone: 202 632-7003
Fax: 202 632-7066
RIN: 3141-AA11
BILLING CODE 7565-01-F

[[Page 61418]]

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (NRC)
Statement of Regulatory Priorities
Under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and 
the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulates the possession and use of source, 
byproduct, and special nuclear material. The NRC's regulatory mission 
is to ensure that civilian uses of nuclear materials and facilities are 
carried out in a manner that will protect public health and safety and 
the environment and that will not be inimical to the common defense and 
security of the United States. The NRC regulates the operation of 
nuclear power plants and fuel cycle plants; the safeguarding of nuclear 
materials from theft and sabotage; the safe transportation of nuclear 
materials; the decommissioning and return to safe use of licensed 
facilities that are no longer in operation; and the medical, 
industrial, and research applications of nuclear material.
The NRC's regulatory priority for the next fiscal year is to ensure 
that nuclear power plants and other licensed facilities are operated 
safely and that nuclear materials are possessed and used in a manner 
that will adequately protect public health and safety.
The NRC is addressing its regulatory initiatives in a manner that is 
consistent with the President's regulatory philosophy. The NRC 
routinely conducts comprehensive regulatory analyses that examine the 
costs and benefits of proposed regulations as part of its regulatory 
process. The NRC has developed internal procedures and programs to 
ensure that only necessary requirements are imposed on its licensees 
and to review existing regulations to determine whether the 
requirements imposed are still necessary.
Additionally, the NRC will continue to recover approximately 100 
percent of its budget authority, less the amount appropriated from the 
Nuclear Waste Fund and the General Fund, as required by the Omnibus 
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, as amended.
_______________________________________________________________________
NRC

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

175.  REVISION OF FEE SCHEDULES; 100 PERCENT FEE RECOVERY, FY 
1999
Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Reinventing Government:


This rulemaking is part of the Reinventing Government effort. It will 
revise text in the CFR to reduce burden or duplication, or streamline 
requirements.


Legal Authority:


 42 USC 2201(w); 42 USC 2213; 42 USC 2214; 42 USC 5841; 31 USC 9701


CFR Citation:


 10 CFR 170; 10 CFR 171


Legal Deadline:


 Other, Statutory, September 30, 1998.


Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990


Abstract:


The rulemaking would amend the licensing, inspection, and annual fees 
charged to NRC licensees and applicants for an NRC license. The 
amendments would be necessary to recover approximately 100 percent of 
the NRC budget authority for fiscal year 1999 less the amounts 
appropriated from the Nuclear Waste Fund and the General Fund.


Statement of Need:


This rulemaking would amend the licensing, inspection, and annual fees 
charged to NRC licensees and applicants for an NRC license. The 
amendments would be necessary to recover approximately 100 percent of 
the NRC budget authority for fiscal year 1999 less the amounts 
appropriated from the Nuclear Waste Fund and the General Fund. The 
OBRA-90 requires that the NRC accomplish the 100 percent recovery 
through the assessment of fees and recover the full cost to the NRC of 
all identifiable regulatory services that each applicant or licensee 
receives. The NRC assesses two types of fees to recover its budget 
authority. License and inspection fees (10 CFR part 170) are assessed 
under the authority of the Independent Offices Appropriation Act to 
recover the costs of providing individually identifiable services to 
specific applicants and licensees. Annual fees (10 CFR part 171) are 
assessed under the authority of OBRA-90 to recover generic and other 
regulatory costs not recovered from fees imposed under 10 CFR part 170. 
Annual fee charges are consistent with the guidance in the Conference 
Committee Report on OBRA-90 that the NRC assess the annual charge under 
the principle that licensees who require the greatest expenditure of 
the agency's resources should pay the greatest annual fee.


Summary of the Legal Basis:


The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, as amended, (OBRA-90) 
requires that the NRC recover approximately 100 percent of its budget 
authority, less the amount appropriated from the Nuclear Waste Fund, 
for fiscal years 1991 through 1998. Legislation has been proposed to 
extend OBRA-90. The Act requires that the fees be collected during the 
fiscal year. Therefore, the final rule is to become effective by June 
30, 1999.


Alternatives:


Because this action is mandated by statute and the fees must be 
assessed through rulemaking, the NRC did not consider alternatives to 
this action.


Anticipated Costs and Benefits:


The cost to NRC licensees will be approximately 100 percent of the NRC 
FY 1999 budget authority less the amount appropriated from the Nuclear 
Waste Fund and the General Fund. Based on the President's budget 
submission to Congress, the amount to be recovered from NRC applicants 
and licensees for FY 1999 would be approximately $467 million.


Risks:


Not applicable.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           02/00/99
Final Action                                                   04/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, Organizations


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local

[[Page 61419]]

Agency Contact:
Glenda Jackson
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Office of the Chief Financial Officer
Washington, DC 20555-0001
Phone: 301 415-6057
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 3150-AG08
BILLING CODE 7590-01-F