[ 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