[The Regulatory Plan and Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions]
[The Regulatory Plan]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]






[[Page 63891]]

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 continues to 
implement an ongoing program 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. At program conclusion, the Department will have 
eliminated or reinvented 81 percent of its regulatory holdings in the 
CFR.
Positive changes resulting from proposed and completed regulatory 
reform actions 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 are in place to ensure efficient 
and effective program management that makes the best use of taxpayer 
dollars. Farmers, ranchers, and other USDA customers 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, is being 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 and 
animal pests or disease. The Department is also improving the 
regulations that serve rural communities. Several changes are being 
made in rural housing programs that will facilitate access and simplify 
the application process. 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 also 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. USDA continues to work toward the goal of reducing burden 
by an additional 5 percent for fiscal year 2000. Further reductions 
will result from program changes, improved efficiency in the collection 
and management of information, and adjustments in the collection 
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. USDA agencies will use the framework in 
the execution of their paperwork reduction initiatives. Simultaneously, 
the PRIT, working with the Service Center agencies, will continue 
ongoing initiatives to reduce burden as quickly as possible. Business 
process reengineering initiatives are addressing 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
Six 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, the Animal and Plant 
Health Inspection Service, and the Agricultural Marketing Service. This 
document represents summary information on prospective significant 
regulations as called for in Executive Order 12866. A brief comment on 
each of the six agencies appears below, which summarizes the Agency 
mission and its key regulatory

[[Page 63892]]

priorities. The Agency summaries are followed by the regulatory plan 
entries.
Farm Service Agency
Mission: The Farm Service Agency (FSA) administers contract commodity, 
conservation, farm loan, commodity purchase, and emergency loan and 
disaster 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 2000 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 is committed to the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995's goal of reducing the information 
collection burden on the public. FSA has initiated a business process 
reengineering project to streamline its farm loan-making 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.
As part of this project, all Farm Loan Program (FLP) regulations and 
internal Agency directives will be completely rewritten. All 
application processes and information collections will be reviewed, and 
unnecessary or redundant requirements will be eliminated. Under one 
phase of the contract, all forms associated with FLP were reviewed and 
assigned to one of the following categories:
 prepared by the public
 prepared by the Agency, reviewed by the public, or
 internal agency use only.
FLP will concentrate on streamlining forms assigned to the first 
category to reduce public burden. In addition, a database was developed 
listing each field contained on the forms. This information will be 
used to identify duplicate collections and ensure consistency in 
terminology.
FLP is completing three regulation packages under the streamlining 
project. Guaranteed loan program regulations were published in February 
1999. The following changes are being implemented to reduce public 
burden:
 Establish the Certified Lender Program, which reduces 
            documentation and application requirements
 Eliminate requirements that lenders submit copies of leases, 
            contracts, and legal documents
 Reduce the number of years of production and financial records 
            from 5 years to 3 years
 Reduce application requirements for loans under $50,000.
FLP plans to publish regulations for direct loan program and 
administrative regulations as a proposed rule in March 2000, and as a 
final rule in September 2001. While rewriting of the regulations has 
begun, it will be a lengthy process because approximately 37 CFR parts 
are being consolidated into 3 parts and more than 750 CFR pages must be 
rewritten. Revised regulations for special loan programs (including 
Indian land acquisition, boll weevil eradication, drainage and 
irrigation and grazing association loans) are planned for publication 
as a proposed rule in August 2001, and as a final rule in April 2002. 
These programs will be completed last because there are only about 850 
borrowers with outstanding special loans in comparison to almost 
110,000 borrowers with outstanding direct loans.
In addition to the FLP streamlining initiative, FSA is one of the major 
participants in USDA's Service Center Implementation Team (SCIT) along 
with the Natural Resources Conservation Service and the Rural 
Development mission area. Information collections at the service center 
level represent most of FSA's total collection burden. FSA believes 
that SCIT provides a unique opportunity to achieve new levels of 
information collection efficiency because collections across 
organizational boundaries can be consolidated as common service center 
business processes are reengineered. FSA is taking full advantage of 
this opportunity by sponsoring a companion initiative of the Paperwork 
Reduction Implementation Team (PRIT) that brings a paperwork reduction 
focus to the business process reengineering initiative under SCIT. 
Another focus of PRIT is to develop standard methodologies for 
information collection management and to standardize burden 
calculations and reporting processes.
Food and Nutrition Service
Mission: FNS reduces hunger and food insecurity in partnership with 
cooperating organizations by providing children and needy people access 
to food, a healthful diet, and nutrition education in a manner that 
supports American agriculture and inspires public confidence.
Priorities: In addition to responding to provisions of legislation 
authorizing and modifying Federal nutrition assistance programs, FNS's 
2000 regulatory plan supports broad strategic policy goals aimed at 
improving the nutritional well-being of program participants, and 
improving stewardship of Federal resources. These goals, included in 
our strategic plan, are:
 Enhanced food and nutrition security for low-income Americans. 
            This goal reflects the continuation of the Food Stamp 
            Program's traditional role in providing nutrition 
            assistance, as well as improving program administration to 
            meet the future challenges. Our plan supports ongoing 
            implementation of welfare reform legislation that modified 
            the eligibility criteria for food stamp benefits and 
            increased program design options for States, while 
            continuing to meet the overall mission to provide food and 
            nutrition security for low-income Americans participating 
            in the FSP and to enhance program efficiency and integrity.

[[Page 63893]]

 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 education responsibilities for school-age 
            children.
 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 children in day-care settings. 
            This goal reflects our effort to enhance the effectiveness 
            of the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP), by 
            improving the nutritional quality of program meals, 
            improving program access for low-income families and 
            enhanced 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, as well as improved 
            program efficiency through automation, reduced Federal and 
            State inventories, and timely deliveries of commodity 
            foods.
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: On October 13, 1999, the President issued a Memorandum 
directing the Forest Service to develop, and propose for public 
comment, regulations to provide appropriate long-term protection for 
most or all of the currently inventoried ``roadless'' areas and to 
determine whether such protection is warranted for any smaller 
``roadless'' areas not yet inventoried. The President further directed 
that the final regulations should reflect the best available science 
and a careful consideration of the full range of ecological, economic, 
and social values inherent in these lands. A notice of intent to 
prepare an Environmental Impact Statement to analyze and disclose 
various alternatives for meeting the President's directive was 
published in the Federal Register on October 19, 1999.
As an adjunct to this roadless policy, another agency priority is to 
revise its road management rules and policy to reflect reduced funding 
available for road construction and maintenance, the need to better 
inventory and analyze the need for existing forest roads, and thus the 
need to shift the emphasis from building new roads to better 
maintaining and managing those already in use. A proposal is expected 
to be published in November. Finally, the President's environmental 
program also includes incorporation of the principles of ecosystem 
management in natural resource planning for the National Forest System. 
In support of that effort, a proposed rule was published in the Federal 
Register of October 5, 1999 (Part II, 64 FR 54074-54112). Guided by 
recommendations of a Committee of Scientists, the proposed rule 
provides for science-based planning, ecosystem sustainability, use of 
ecoregional and watershed-level assessments, and strengthened 
collaboration with the individuals, organizations, State, local, tribal 
governments and other Federal agencies.
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 to review its regulations to eliminate 
duplication of and inconsistency with its own and other agencies' 
regulations. The Agency's regulatory review efforts are directed, in 
particular, at improving the consistency of the regulations with the 
July 25, 1996, final rule ``Pathogen Reduction; Hazard Analysis and 
Critical Control Points (HACCP) Systems.'' HACCP is a science-based 
process control system for producing safe food products. The final rule 
requires official meat and poultry establishments to develop and 
implement 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 
their particular needs and processes and to take advantage of the 
latest technological innovations.
FSIS must revise its numerous ``command-and-control'' regulations, 
which prescribe the exact means establishments must use to ensure the 
safety of their products. Some of these regulations specify precise 
cooking time-and-temperature combinations. Others require prior 
approval by FSIS of equipment and procedures, in effect assigning to 
the Agency the 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, 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. Following are some of the Agency's recent and planned 
initiatives to convert command-and-control regulations to performance 
standards, to streamline and simplify the regulations and to facilitate 
the continuing implementation of the pathogen reduction and HACCP 
systems final rule:
 FSIS has proposed consolidating the sanitation regulations 
            into a single part of the Code of Federal Regulations that 
            would be applicable to both meat and poultry 
            establishments, eliminating unnecessary differences between 
            the meat and poultry sanitation requirements, and 
            converting many of the highly prescriptive requirements to 
            performance standards.
 FSIS will be proposing to remove most requirements pertaining 
            to partial quality control programs. The Agency will also 
            be proposing to consolidate and streamline the regulations 
            governing the importation of meat, meat food and poultry 
            products. This rulemaking also will implement provisions in 
            recent international agreements, notably that on veterinary 
            equivalence between the United States and the European 
            Union.

[[Page 63894]]

 FSIS has proposed new regulations limiting the amount of 
            processing water that can be retained by raw, single-
            ingredient, meat or poultry products requiring labeling to 
            indicate the amount of water retention.
 FSIS has proposed, in coordination with FDA, amending the 
            regulations to harmonize and improve the efficiency of the 
            procedures used for reviewing, approving and listing food 
            or color additives that are used in the preparation of 
            meat, meat food and poultry products.
 FSIS will be proposing generic Escherichia coli process 
            control criteria, based on the sponge method of sampling, 
            for cattle, swine and geese slaughtering establishments, 
            and for turkey slaughtering establishments based on both 
            the sponge and the whole-bird rinse sampling methods. The 
            Agency also will be proposing updated Salmonella 
            performance standards for all market classes of cattle and 
            swine.
 Finally, FSIS will be proposing to require federally inspected 
            egg product establishments to develop and implement HACCP 
            systems and sanitation standards operating procedures. The 
            Agency will be proposing pathogen reduction performance 
            standards for pasteurizing egg products. Further, the 
            Agency will be proposing to remove current requirements for 
            approval by FSIS of egg-product plant drawings, 
            specifications, and equipment prior to use and to end the 
            system for pre-marketing approval of labels for egg 
            products. The Agency also is planning to propose requiring 
            safe-handling labels on shell eggs and egg products.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Mission: A major part of the mission of the Animal and Plant Health 
Inspection Service (APHIS) is to protect U.S. animal and plant 
resources from destructive pests and diseases. APHIS conducts programs 
to control and eradicate exotic pests and diseases in the United 
States. These activities enhance agricultural productivity and 
competitiveness and contribute to the national economy and the public 
health.
Priority: APHIS is developing a proposal to strengthen restrictions on 
the importation of solid wood packing material (e.g., crates, dunnage, 
wooden spools, pallets, packing blocks) into the United States. 
Imported solid wood packing material (SWPM) has been linked to 
introductions of exotic plant pests such as the pine shoot beetle and 
the Asian longhorned beetle. These and other plant pests that could be 
carried by imported SWPM pose a serious threat to U.S. agriculture and 
to natural, cultivated, and urban forests. SWPM accompanies nearly all 
types of imported commodities, from fruits and vegetables to machinery 
and electrical equipment.
Agricultural Marketing Service
Mission: The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) facilitates the 
marketing of agricultural products in domestic and international 
markets, while ensuring fair trading practices, and promoting a 
competitive and efficient marketplace, to the benefit of producers, 
traders, and consumers of U.S. food and fiber products.
Priorities: AMS' top regulatory priority is to establish the National 
Organic Program (NOP). The NOP will establish national standards for 
the production and handling of organically produced products, including 
a National List of substances approved and prohibited for use in 
organic production and handling.
AMS will also publish the procedures for Mandatory Market News 
Reporting of Livestock and Meat. These regulations will establish a 
program that will provide livestock producers, packers, and other 
market participants with information on pricing, contracting for 
purchase, numbers and quality marketed for cattle, swine, lambs, and 
production of livestock products.
AMS will publish a regulation to update the Federal Seed Act to 
incorporate current seed testing and seed certification procedures. 
This regulation will keep the Federal Seed Act consistent with present 
technology and prevent conflicts between Federal and State regulations 
that could inhibit the free movement of seed.
AMS published an interim final rule that established a voluntary, fee-
for-service program, under the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, 
under which AMS assesses State and private agencies in the United 
States to verify compliance with the requirements of the International 
Organization for Standardization (ISO) Guide 65. This assessment 
facilitates uninterrupted imports of U.S. organic products to countries 
in the European Union (EU) by enabling organic certifying agencies to 
comply with EU requirements. The interim final rule was effective June 
10, 1999. A 60-day period was provided for interested persons to 
comment on the interim rule before the final rule is published in the 
near future.
AMS will continue to review its regulations to keep them up-to-date and 
consistent with industry terminology and to eliminate duplication with 
its own and other agencies' regulations. This includes amending the 
regulations governing the inspection of eggs to delete regulatory 
detail not needed by AMS to administer its responsibilities under the 
Egg Products Inspection Act.
_______________________________________________________________________



USDA--Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

1. NATIONAL ORGANIC PROGRAM
Priority:


Economically Significant


Legal Authority:


PL 101-624, sec 2101 to 2123; 7 USC 6501 to 6522


CFR Citation:


7 CFR 205


Legal Deadline:


Other, Statutory, May 28, 1991.


NPRM, Statutory, May 28, 1992.


Final, Statutory, October 1, 1993, The Organic Foods Production Act 
calls for the Secretary to appoint the National Organic Standards Board 
180 days after enactment and convene it within 60 days thereafter.


Abstract:


The program is proposed under the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 
(title XXI of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade Act, Pub. 
L. 101-624), as amended (OFPA or Act), which requires the establishment 
of national standards governing the marketing of certain agricultural 
products as organically produced to facilitate commerce in fresh and 
processed food that is organically produced and to assure consumers 
that such products meet consistent standards. This program would 
establish national standards for the organic production and handling of 
agricultural products, which would include a national list of synthetic 
substances approved for use in the production and handling of 
organically produced products. It also would establish an accreditation 
program for State officials and private persons who want to be 
accredited to certify farms and handling operations that comply with 
the program's requirements and a

[[Page 63895]]

certification program for farms and handling operations that want to be 
certified as meeting the program's requirements. The program 
additionally would include labeling requirements for organic products 
and products containing organic ingredients and enforcement provisions. 
It further provides for the approval of State organic programs and the 
importation into the United States of organic agricultural products 
from foreign programs determined to have equivalent requirements. On 
December 16, 1997, the proposed rule was published with a public 
comment period that ended on April 30, 1998. Over 275,000 comments were 
received and are currently being reviewed with a subsequent revised 
proposed rule planned for calender year 1999.


Statement of Need:


The purpose of these regulations is to implement the Organic Foods 
Production Act (OFPA). The Act requires the establishment of consistent 
national standards for products labeled as organic; mandatory 
independent, third-party certification of such products; U.S. 
Department of Agriculture (USDA) oversight of the independent 
certifiers and their inspectors; and assurance that imported organic 
food products are produced and processed under practices equivalent to 
USDA standards. Establishment of the National Organic Program is 
necessary to eliminate the confusion that exists among consumers 
because of the variety of standards under which organic foods are 
currently produced, and the irregular and sometimes unsubstantiated 
labeling claims. As required by law, the National Organic Standards 
Board made recommendation on the development of the program. Based on 
recommendations of the Board, the Agency prepared a proposed rule for 
the accreditation of State and private persons to carry out the 
certification procedures and processors of organic foods, and a 
separate proposed rule for defining standards for the production of 
organic crops, livestock, and for processing foods to be labeled as 
organic. The proposed rule for standards will include the national list 
of prohibited substances and allowed synthetic substances to be used in 
organic production and processing. The standards will also include the 
process for the collection of user fees, enforcement provisions, 
determination of equivalency of foreign certification programs (either 
national or private certification programs), and the ongoing functions 
of the Board. The Board submitted recommendations for most of the 
program to the Secretary.


Summary of Legal Basis:


This regulatory action is authorized by statute. The Organic Foods 
Production Act of 1990, which is title XXI--Organic Certification--of 
the 1990 Farm Bill, calls for the Secretary of Agriculture to establish 
an organic certification program that relies on State and private 
agencies to verify that agricultural products are produced according to 
national standards. The Act also authorizes State officials to 
establish State Organic Certification Programs, provided that the 
provisions of each program are first submitted to USDA and approved by 
the Secretary.


Alternatives:


The Board developed recommendations through an open discussion process 
with the interested parties. The Board formed six subcommittees to 
draft recommendations for the following subject areas: crop standards; 
livestock standards; processing, packaging, and labeling standards; 
materials; accreditation of certifying agents; and, international 
(import) requirements. The Board held 14 full board meetings and 11 
subcommittee meetings, during which the Board accepted public comments. 
In addition, the Agency held four public hearings on livestock to 
develop additional input to the development of livestock standards. In 
reviewing the Organic Foods Production Act, the subcommittees 
identified about 25 specific topics requiring recommendation 
development such as an organic plan, pesticide drift, livestock health, 
and materials review. Draft documents were prepared by the 
subcommittees in the specific subject areas and circulated initially to 
known individuals with expertise in these subjects in the organic 
community for comment. Comments were received and documents revised and 
sent out to a mailing list exceeding 1,000 names, for additional public 
comment. Documents were further revised, became committee position 
papers and were sent out to the mailing list for additional public 
comment. If the comments were minimal the documents were then approved 
by the subcommittees and forwarded to the full Board to be approved as 
draft recommendations. These documents were then further revised with 
full board-member input and submitted a final time for public comment. 
Upon receipt of comments, revisions were made, and the document was 
approved as a recommendation to the Secretary. Approximately 25 of 
these recommendations were approved at a Board meeting in June 1994 and 
forwarded to the Secretary (after minor editing in the approval 
process) in August 1994. In all of the documents, the Board committees 
considered alternatives and altered positions based on reasoned public 
comments received. The Board will continue to provide recommendations 
for modification or additions to program recommendations as the program 
is implemented and operating. The allowed synthetic substances and 
prohibited natural substances on the National List are subject to 
review by the Board and the Secretary every 5 years in order for the 
National List to be valid according to section 211(e) of the OFPA. The 
Secretary received the recommendations and used them as the basis for 
developing proposed rules for implementing the program. The Secretary 
may not accept recommendations that are deemed to be inconsistent with 
Department policy or lack a defensible position.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The calculations and research related to the costs and benefits for the 
program are still under development. Because information is not 
collected on organic farmers, as a class, there is a lack of a good 
database to be used in determining the impacts of the program. 
Administrative costs would include staff costs for managing the 
accreditation program, costs for a peer review panel, costs for site 
visits to observe and review certifier program activities, overhead 
and/or indirect costs. If it is determined that income from the 
accreditation program would need to pay for all costs associated with 
the program, additional costs would include staff and indirect costs 
for support for the Board, ongoing materials reviews for the National 
List, enforcement costs, international equivalency costs to determine 
whether to allow organic imports, collection and management of the 
user-fee program, and approval of State programs. The program 
anticipates being funded through user fees. However, we believe that 
full user-fee support will not be possible for at least 3 years 
following implementation; appropriated general funds will be necessary 
to provide support while the organic industry develops a sufficient 
economic base. It is expected that the industry will soon be able to 
financially cover program activities related to accreditation if it 
continues to grow at its current annual rate of 20 percent as reported 
by a private natural foods magazine;

[[Page 63896]]

however, full coverage of costs related to development of State and 
international programs may not be possible for several years. The 
tangible benefits of the program are numerous. The benefits will extend 
to the marketplace, where it is expected that the price of organic food 
will decrease with increasing volume and availability and benefit 
current and potential consumers; all products labeled as organic will 
have been produced from systems certified to a national and consistent 
standard; truthful market information will be developed; access to 
international markets with products from certification programs 
overseen by USDA will be improved; certifying agents will be relieved 
of the financial costs related to standards development, materials 
review, and other endeavors that duplicate activities at the Federal 
level; and manufacturers and processors will be able to buy certified 
organic products from producers certified by different certifying 
agents without requiring the paperwork process in use today. Finally, 
exports will be enhanced by a common natural standard.


Risks:


The program does not purport to directly address either environmental 
problems or food residue issues. Any reduction in risks to public 
health, safety, or the environment are indirect benefits of the 
criteria used by organic producers in choosing materials that serve as 
an adjunct to the preferred methodology of mechanical and biological 
control measures. Organic agriculture is based on management practices 
and materials that enhance ecological activity. Organic producers seek 
to reduce or eliminate practices and materials that do not enhance 
ecological activity. Organic producers seek to reduce or eliminate 
practices and materials that may harm soil life, deplete nonrenewable 
resources, pose a hazard to water and air quality, or threaten 
farmworker health. The Act requires the establishment of a ``National 
List'' of approved synthetic and prohibited natural materials as an 
integral part of the program. Synthetic materials approved for the 
National List must have been determined by the USDA, FDA, and EPA to be 
not harmful to human health or the environment.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Organic Livestoc58 FR 69315                                    12/30/93
Notice - Procedu60 FR 15744t Names of Substances for National L03/27/95
NPRM            62 FR 65850                                    12/16/97
NPRM Comment Period End                                        10/01/98
Reproposal                                                     12/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


State, Tribal


Agency Contact:
Eileen Stommes
Deputy Administrator, Transportation and Marketing Programs
Department of Agriculture
Agricultural Marketing Service
Room 4006
P.O. Box 96456, Room 2748-So. Bldg.
Washington, DC 20090-6456
Phone: 202 720-3252
RIN: 0581-AA40
_______________________________________________________________________



USDA--Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

2. IMPORTATION OF SOLID WOOD PACKING MATERIAL
Priority:


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


Legal Authority:


7 USC 150dd to 150ff; 7 USC 151 to 167; 7 USC 450; 7 USC 2803; 7 USC 
2809; 21 USC 136; 21 USC 136a


CFR Citation:


7 CFR 319.40


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


APHIS is undertaking rulemaking to strengthen restrictions on the 
importation of solid wood packing material (e.g., crates, dunnage, 
wooden spools, pallets, packing blocks) into the United States. 
Imported solid wood packing material (SWPM) has been linked to 
introductions of exotic plant pests such as the pine shoot beetle and 
the Asian longhorned beetle. These and other plant pests that could be 
carried by imported SWPM pose a serious threat to U.S. agriculture and 
to natural, cultivated, and urban forests. SWPM accompanies nearly all 
types of imported commodities, from fruits and vegetables to machinery 
and electrical equipment.


Statement of Need:


Unmanufactured wood articles imported into the United States could pose 
a serious threat of introducing plant pests detrimental to agriculture 
and to natural, cultivated, and urban forests. Regulations in 7 CFR 
319.40-1 through 319.40-11 are intended to mitigate this plant pest 
risk. Introductions into the United States of exotic plant pests such 
as the pine shoot beetle and the Asian longhorned beetle have been 
linked to the importation of solid wood packing material (an 
unmanufactured wood article). Solid wood packing material accompanies 
nearly all types of imported commodities, from fruits and vegetables to 
machinery and electrical equipment. For this reason, we are undertaking 
rulemaking to strengthen the regulations that restrict the importation 
of solid wood packing material in order to reduce the risk that plant 
pests will be introduced into the United States.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is authorized to 
take action under the Federal Plant Pest Act (7 U.S.C. 150aa-150jj).


Alternatives:


APHIS presented three alternatives in an advance notice of proposed 
rulemaking. The alternatives were to apply restrictions on the 
importation of solid wood packing material based on risk assessment of 
regions, apply restrictions on a general basis regardless of origin, 
and prohibit importation of any solid wood packing material. We 
accepted comments on other alternatives to consider. These and other 
alternatives will be considered in analyses prepared in connection with 
further rulemaking.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The costs of proposed regulatory changes will be dependent on the 
option that is chosen. We anticipate that costs will be alleviated by 
utilization of alternative materials, such as nonwood packing material. 
The benefits of increased restrictions will be

[[Page 63897]]

the reduction in the risk of potentially destructive plant pests being 
introduced into the United States and the resulting avoidance of 
economic losses to forest and agricultural resources. For the Asian 
longhorned beetle alone (a pest detected on solid wood packing material 
imported from China), we estimate that, if left unchecked, this pest 
has the potential to cause economic losses of $41 billion, affecting 
the forest products, commercial fruit, maple syrup, nursery, and 
tourist industries in the United States.


Risks:


APHIS will conduct a comprehensive pest risk assessment prior to making 
any regulatory changes.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM           64 FR 3049                                     01/20/99
ANPRM Comment Period End                                       03/22/99
NPRM                                                           01/00/01
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Agency Contact:
Dr. Robert Flanders
Regulatory Coordination Specialist, Regulatory Coordination Staff, PPQ
Department of Agriculture
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Unit 141
4700 River Road
Riverdale, MD 20737-1228
Phone: 301 734-5930
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0579-AA99
_______________________________________________________________________



USDA--Food and Nutrition Service (FNS)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

3. CHILD AND ADULT CARE FOOD PROGRAM: IMPROVING MANAGEMENT AND PROGRAM 
INTEGRITY
Priority:


Other Significant


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Legal Authority:


42 USC 1766; PL 104-193; PL 105-336; PL 103-448


CFR Citation:


7 CFR 226


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rule amends the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) 
regulations. The changes in this rule result from the findings of State 
and Federal Program reviews and from audits and investigations 
conducted by the Office of Inspector General. This rule proposes to 
revise: State agency criteria for approving and renewing institution 
applications; Program training and other operating requirements for 
child care institutions and facilities; State- and institution-level 
monitoring requirements; and criteria for terminating agreements with 
institutions. This rule also includes changes that are required by the 
Healthy Meals for Healthy Americans Act of 1994 (PL 103-448), the 
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunities Reconciliation Act of 
1996 (PL 104-193), and the William F. Goodling Child Nutrition 
Reauthorization Act of 1998 (PL 105-336).


The changes are designed to improve Program operations and monitoring 
at the State and institution levels and, where possible, to streamline 
and simplify Program requirements for State agencies and institutions. 
(95-024)


Statement of Need:


In recent years, State and Federal Program reviews have found numerous 
cases of mismanagement, abuse, and in some instances, fraud by child 
care institutions and facilities in the CACFP. These reviews revealed 
weaknesses in management controls over Program operations, and examples 
of regulatory noncompliance by institutions, including failure to pay 
facilities or failure to pay them in a timely manner; improper use of 
Program funds for non-Program expenditures; and improper meal 
reimbursements due to incorrect meal counts or to mis-categtorized or 
incomplete income eligibility statements. In addition, audits and 
investigations conducted by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) have 
raised serious concerns regarding the adequacy of financial and 
administrative controls in CACFP. Based on its findings, OIG 
recommended changes to CACFP review requirements and management 
controls.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Most of the changes proposed in the rule are discretionary changes 
being made in response to deficiencies found in Program reviews and OIG 
audits. Other proposed changes codify statutory changes made by the 
Healthy Meals for Healthy Americans Act of 1994 (PL 103-448), the 
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunities Reconciliation Act of 
1996 (PL 104-193), and the William F. Goodling Child Nutrition 
Reauthorization Act of 1998 (PL 105-336).


Alternatives:


In developing the proposal, the agency considered various alternatives 
to minimize burden on State agencies and institutions while ensuring 
effective Program operation. Key areas in which alternatives were 
considered include State agency reviews of institutions and sponsoring 
organization oversight of day care homes.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


This rule contains changes designed to improve management and financial 
integrity in the CACFP. When implemented, these changes would affect 
all entities in CACFP, from USDA to participating children and 
children's households. These changes will primarily affect the 
procedures used by State agencies in reviewing applications submitted 
by, and monitoring the performance of, institutions which are 
participating or wish to participate in the CACFP. Those proposed 
changes which would affect institutions and facilities will not, in the 
aggregate, have a significant economic impact.


Data on CACFP integrity is limited, despite numerous OIG reports on 
individual institutions and facilities that have been deficient in 
CACFP management. While Program reviews and OIG reports clearly 
illustrate that there are weaknesses in parts of the Program 
regulations, and that there have been weaknesses in oversight, neither 
Program reviews, OIG reports, nor any other data sources illustrate the 
prevalence and magnitude of CACFP fraud and abuse. This lack of 
information precludes USDA from estimating the amount of money lost due 
to fraud and abuse or the reduction in fraud and abuse the changes in 
this rule will realize.


Risks:


Continuing to operate the CACFP under existing provisions of the 
regulations

[[Page 63898]]

that do not sufficiently protect against fraud and abuse in CACFP puts 
the Program at significant risk. This rule includes changes designed to 
strengthen current program regulations to reduce the risk associated 
with the Program.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           12/00/99
NPRM Comment Period End                                        03/00/00
Final Action                                                   08/00/01
Final Action Effective                                         09/00/01
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


Organizations


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local


Agency Contact:
Sheri Ackerman
Agency Regulatory Officer
Department of Agriculture
Food and Consumer Service
Room 322
3101 Park Center Drive
Alexandria, VA 22302
Phone: 703 305-2246
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0584-AC24
_______________________________________________________________________



USDA--FNS
4. 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. (96-019)


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


No


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, State, Local


Agency Contact:
Sheri Ackerman
Agency Regulatory Officer
Department of Agriculture
Food and Consumer Service
Room 322
3101 Park Center Drive
Alexandria, VA 22302
Phone: 703 305-2246
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0584-AC39
_______________________________________________________________________



USDA--FNS
5. 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

[[Page 63899]]

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, 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.


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, 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. (96-020)


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


No


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, State, Local


Agency Contact:
Sheri Ackerman
Agency Regulatory Officer
Department of Agriculture
Food and Consumer Service
Room 322
3101 Park Center Drive
Alexandria, VA 22302
Phone: 703 305-2246
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0584-AC40
_______________________________________________________________________



USDA--FNS
6. 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. (96-025)


Statement of Need:


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


Summary of 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 Cost 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                                                           12/00/99
NPRM Comment Period End                                        02/00/00
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local


Agency Contact:
Sheri Ackerman
Agency Regulatory Officer
Department of Agriculture
Food and Consumer Service
Room 322
3101 Park Center Drive
Alexandria, VA 22302
Phone: 703 305-2246
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0584-AC45
_______________________________________________________________________



USDA--FNS

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

7. 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:


NPRM, Statutory, March 1, 1999.


Final, Statutory, March 31, 2000.

[[Page 63900]]

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 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 has issued a second proposed rule 
addressing WIC food delivery systems and requirements. This second rule 
addresses many of the provisions contained in the previous rulemaking, 
and contains 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. See also RIN 0584-AC50 for related 
provisions that fulfill the statutory deadline.


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 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 issued a second proposed rule addressing 
WIC food delivery systems integrity and procedural requirements. This 
second rule addresses many 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 
is intended to provide for more cost effective and efficient management 
of WIC vendors by State agencies. A 120-day public comment period is 
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 2000.


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 Cost 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 88 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            64 FR 32308                                    06/16/99
NPRM Comment Period End                                        09/14/99
Final Action                                                   03/00/00
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local, Tribal


Agency Contact:
Sheri Ackerman
Agency Regulatory Officer
Department of Agriculture
Food and Consumer Service
Room 322
3101 Park Center Drive
Alexandria, VA 22302
Phone: 703 305-2246
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0584-AA80
_______________________________________________________________________



USDA--FNS
8. FOOD STAMP PROGRAM: FOOD STAMP RECIPIENT CLAIM ESTABLISHMENT AND 
COLLECTION STANDARDS
Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.

[[Page 63901]]

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 1998 show that overissuances to recipients totaled 
over $1.3 billion, 7.63 percent of the $16.9 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 Cost and Benefits:


Nationwide, as of October 1, 1998, 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, 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                                                   01/00/00
Final Action Effective                                         01/00/01
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local


Agency Contact:
Sheri Ackerman
Agency Regulatory Officer
Department of Agriculture
Food and Consumer Service
Room 322
3101 Park Center Drive
Alexandria, VA 22302
Phone: 703 305-2246
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0584-AB88
_______________________________________________________________________



USDA--FNS
9. 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. (95-003)


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

[[Page 63902]]

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.''


Anticipated Cost 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            64 FR 35082                                    06/30/99
NPRM Comment Period End                                        08/30/99
Final Action                                                   08/00/00
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 Consumer Service
Room 322
3101 Park Center Drive
Alexandria, VA 22302
Phone: 703 305-2246
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0584-AB90
_______________________________________________________________________



USDA--FNS
10. 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, For provisions effective upon enactment, the 
statutory implementation date is August 22, 1996.


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 eight 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. (96-021)


Statement of Need:


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


Summary of 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 Cost 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            64 FR 37454                                    07/12/99
NPRM Comment Period End                                        09/10/99
Final Action                                                   08/00/00
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 Consumer Service
Room 322
3101 Park Center Drive
Alexandria, VA 22302
Phone: 703 305-2246
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0584-AC41
_______________________________________________________________________



USDA--Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

11.  REFORM OF REGULATIONS ON IMPORTED LIVESTOCK AND POULTRY 
PRODUCTS
Priority:


Other Significant

[[Page 63903]]

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 327; 9 CFR 381


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


As part of its continuing regulatory reform effort, FSIS is proposing 
to consolidate and streamline the regulations governing the importation 
of livestock and poultry products to make them consistent with the 
regulatory approach the Agency has taken in its Pathogen Reduction/
Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (PR/HACCP) regulations and 
related rulemakings. FSIS is proposing to eliminate obsolete provisions 
and, where appropriate, to replace command-and-control provisions with 
performance standards. The Agency is proposing to require 
establishments where import inspection is conducted to have documented 
process controls that parallel in some respects the HACCP and other 
documented systems that establishments where inspection of domestic 
products is conducted must have. The rulemaking stems from the Agency's 
commitment to its regulatory reform, reinventing government, effort to 
eliminate duplication and inconsistency in the regulations and 
especially to make the regulations PR/HACCP consistent.


Statement of Need:


The rulemaking stems from the Agency's commitment to its regulatory 
reform, reinventing government, effort to eliminate duplication and 
inconsistency in the regulations and especially to make the regulations 
consistent with PR/HACCP.


Summary of Legal Basis:


This rulemaking is proposed under the authorities of the Federal Meat 
Inspection Act, as amended (21 U.S.C. 601-695) and the Poultry Products 
Inspection Act, as amended (21 U.S.C. 451-470).


Alternatives:


FSIS considered the following alternative courses of action with 
respect to the regulation of imported products: (1) no rulemaking; (2) 
combining and streamlining the current regulations into a single body 
of regulations covering imported livestock and poultry products; (3) 
combining and streamlining the import regulations and requiring 
establishments to have documented process controls for imported 
product.


(1) The first alternative would preserve the status quo. Leaving the 
current regulations unchanged would preserve the inconsistencies 
between these regulations and the PR/HACCP regulations. Obsolete, 
duplicative, and command-and-control provisions would not be amended or 
removed.


(2) The second alternative, to combine and streamline the current 
regulations, would provide the opportunity for FSIS to remove the 
obsolete. command-and-control provisions of the current regulations.


(3) The third alternative, combining and streamlining the current 
regulations and requiring importing establishments to have documented 
process controls, would provide a more flexible system of imported 
product controls than that furnished by the current regulations. Both 
FSIS and the imported products industry would gain with improved 
flexibility and efficiency. FSIS chose the third alternative.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


This proposed rule would affect about 125 import inspection 
establishments. These would have to develop, maintain, and carry out 
documented process control systems. These costs would primarily be 
those associated with system development, i.e., paperwork or 
information collection costs. FSIS estimates that the development costs 
to the establishments would be, in the aggregate, about $55,000. The 
on-going costs would be incidental to the operation of the 
establishments, a number of which already have documented process 
control systems.


FSIS is likely to gain some flexibility in its administration of import 
inspection. The proposed requirement for official import inspection 
establishments to have documented process control systems will benefit 
some establishments by introducing more efficient to assess the 
establishments and products for compliance because the Agency would be 
verifying controls managed by the establishments rather than, in 
effect, carrying out some checks that should be a normal part of 
establishment operations.


The proposal would potentially have a positive effect on international 
trade. The listing of additional European Union (E.U.) countries 
eligible to export product to the United States, with reciprocal 
actions by those countries in favor of the U.S., would potentially 
expand trade in livestock products and poultry products. The amount by 
which such trade would increase would depend, in part, on the number of 
livestock and poultry products establishments listed respectively by 
the U.S. or the E.U. as eligible to have their products imported into 
the U.S. or the E.U.


Risks:


None.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           07/00/00
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Daniel L. Engeljohn
Director, Regulations Development and Analysis Division
Department of Agriculture
Food Safety and Inspection Service
Washington, DC 20250
Phone: 202 720-5276
RIN: 0583-AC56
_______________________________________________________________________



USDA--FSIS
12.  EGG PRODUCTS INSPECTION REGULATIONS
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:


21 U.S.C. 1031-1056


CFR Citation:


9 CFR 590.570; 9 CFR 590.575; 9 CFR 590.146; 9 CFR 590.10; 9 CFR 
590.411;

[[Page 63904]]

9 CFR 590.502; 9 CFR 590.504; 9 CFR 590.580; 9 CFR 591; ...


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is proposing to require 
egg products plants to develop and implement Hazard Analysis and 
Critical Control Point (HACCP) Systems and Sanitation Standard 
Operating Procedures (SOP's). FSIS also is proposing pathogen reduction 
performance standards that would be applicable to pasteurized egg 
products. Plants would be expected to develop HACCP systems that ensure 
processed egg products meet the pathogen reduction performance 
standards. Finally, FSIS is proposing to amend the Federal shell egg 
and egg products inspection regulations by removing current 
requirements for prior approval by FSIS of egg products plant drawings, 
specifications, and equipment prior to their use in official plants. 
The Agency also plans to eliminate the prior label approval system for 
egg products, as well as require safe handling labels on shell eggs and 
egg products.


The actions being proposed are part of FSIS's regulatory reform effort 
to improve FSIS's shell egg and egg products food safety regulations, 
better define the roles of Government and the regulated industry, 
encourage innovations that will improve food safety, remove unnecessary 
regulatory burdens on inspected egg products plants, and make the shell 
egg and egg products regulations as consistent as possible with the 
Agency's livestock and poultry products regulations. FSIS is also 
taking these actions in light of changing inspection priorities and 
recent findings of Salmonella in pasteurized egg products.


Statement of Need:


The actions being proposed are part of FSIS's regulatory reform effort 
to improve FSIS's shell egg and egg products food safety regulations, 
better define the roles of Government and the regulated industry, 
encourage innovations that will improve food safety, remove unnecessary 
regulatory burdens on inspected egg products plants, and make the shell 
egg and egg products regulations as consistent as possible with the 
Agency's livestock and poultry products regulations. FSIS is also 
taking these actions in light of changing inspection priorities and 
recent findings of Salmonella in pasteurized egg products.


Summary of Legal Basis:


This rulemaking is proposed under the authority of the Egg Products 
Inspection Act, as amended, 21 U.S.C. 1031-1056.


Alternatives:


FSIS is engaged in a thorough review of its current regulations and, 
where possible, will eliminate overly prescriptive regulations and 
replace them with regulations that embody performance standards. 
Performance standards establish requirements in terms of the objective 
to be achieved. They specify, the ends, but do not detail the means to 
achieve those ends. Performance standards allow food processing 
establishments to develop and employ innovative and more effective 
sanitation or processing procedures customized to the nature and volume 
of their production.


To address hazards that can be presented by egg products, FSIS now is 
considering (1) requiring all inspected egg products plants to develop, 
adopt, and implement written Sanitation SOP's and HACCP plans; and (2) 
converting to a lethality-based pathogen reduction performance standard 
many of the current highly prescriptive egg products processing 
requirements. The implementation of HACCP and Sanitation SOP 
requirements by egg products plants would reduce the occurrence and 
numbers of pathogenic microorganisms in egg products. Further, with 
HACCP and Sanitation SOP's in place, FSIS would be better able to 
allocate its inspection resources to the areas of greatest risk; FSIS 
inspection program personnel, therefore, would be better able to ensure 
that egg products processing would grant plants the flexibility needed 
to properly implement HACCP and Sanitation SOP's, and encourage 
innovation in egg products processing. In addition, such a performance 
standard for egg products processing would provide FSIS inspection 
program employees an objective measure of performance useful in 
processing, inspection, and enforcement.


The Agency will also propose to require that egg products plants adopt 
sanitation SOP and HACCP plans. Plants will have significant latitude 
in identifying the sanitation SOP and HACCP plan suitable for their 
process. The egg products industry has indicated its desire to adopt 
HACCP on an industry-wide basis. About 30 percent of egg products 
plants have already implemented HACCP or HACCP-like programs. The 
pathogen reduction performance standard that egg product plants will 
have to achieve under their HACCP plans would likely have a more 
economically significant impact than the requirement of Sanitation 
SOP's or HACCP plans.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Costs


The expected costs of the proposal will depend on a number of factors, 
including the following:


Required Lethality. The level of lethality required in the pathogen 
reduction performance standard will have a significant impact on the 
cost of the proposal. The expected type performance standard may 
specify a uniform level of pathogen reduction for a target organism. 
Alternatively, different reduction levels may be specified for white, 
yolk, and whole egg products, or production processes, reflecting the 
relative level of risk. As the level of lethality increases, the 
ability to utilize the egg for different products and formulations is 
diminished. The Agency will investigate the level of lethality that 
provides an acceptable balance between risk and egg utilization.


HACCP and Sanitation Standard Operating Procedures. Implementing a 
HACCP plan and Sanitation SOP's requires the preparation of a plan, 
employee training, documentation and record keeping, and testing 
procedures. The costs associated with HACCP implementation are reduced 
by the extent to which quality assurance or similar programs are 
utilized by egg products firms and the availability of off-the-shelf 
HACCP plans. The types of Sanitation SOP's being considered are 
essentially the same as those for meat and poultry, and costs would be 
similar.


Plant Compliance/Enforcement. FSIS costs for monitoring and enforcement 
are expected to be lower than those for current comparable activities 
as the program moves from continuous inspection (inspector on duty 
throughout the entire shift) to being monitored on a patrol assignment. 
We are not aware of any estimates of FSIS costs for verifying process 
control and pathogen reduction for egg products. They would probably be 
similar in costs to those for meat and poultry inspection. The 
monitoring costs for some plants may increase, especially those reliant 
on the inspector to be the quality control expert.

[[Page 63905]]

Benefits


The types of potential benefits associated with this rule are: 
Improvements in human health due to pathogen reduction; improved 
utilization of FSIS inspection program resources; and cost savings 
resulting from the flexibility of egg products plants in achieving a 
lethality-based pathogen reduction performance standard. Once specific 
alternatives are identified, economic analysis will identify the 
quantitative and qualitative benefits associated with each.


Human health benefits are based on changes from a baseline level of 
illnesses and the health cost per illness. FSIS egg products testing 
results indicate either some pasteurization processes are inadequate, 
or that egg products are being contaminated with Salmonella after 
pasteurization, prior to, or during packaging. The results indicate a 
very low level of contamination. Pasteurized egg products have not been 
identified/associated with any known outbreaks; however, unpasteurized 
egg products have been implicated in foodborne outbreaks. Salmonella 
would principally be found in unpasteurized product. However, there 
have been a few instances when SE has been isolated from egg products 
found to be positive for the presence of Salmonella. In the majority of 
these cases, the Salmonella contamination can be attributed to post-
pasteurization product contamination. Sanitation SOP and HACCP 
requirements could remedy this problem by enhancing the effectiveness 
of pasteurization by minimizing microbiological hazards before and 
after pasteurization.


Two recent studies have raised questions about the efficacy of the 
current regulatory requirements for egg products pasteurization (9 CFR 
590.570). The research suggests that for certain formulations of egg 
products, the required time/temperature combinations are not sufficient 
to destroy high numbers of Salmonella (5 log 10), as originally 
projected by USDA research completed in the 1960s. A pathogen reduction 
performance standard requiring a specific reduction of Salmonella in 
egg products would assist plants in ensuring that pasteurization of egg 
products is effective.


FSIS has established an Egg Products Risk Management Analysis Team to 
better assess the information available on potential human health risks 
associated with egg products. The team is comprised of technical 
personnel from FSIS and other Federal agencies. The primary task is to 
fully characterize the hazard and identify potential risk mitigation 
alternatives for further analysis. The USDA Salmonella Enteritidis Risk 
Assessment and the CDC Salmonella surveillance data provide estimates 
of the baseline level of risk. The Egg Products component of the risk 
assessment is being used to identify the expected reduction in illness 
attributed to the alternative identified in the proposed rule. Any new 
scientific or epidemiological information will be incorporated into the 
risk assessment model. The analysis will identify a range of estimated 
annual illnesses prevented. A standard methodology employed by the 
Economic Research Service will be used to calculate the health cost per 
illness, taking into account the severity of the illness.


Sanitation SOP's would improve the utilization of FSIS inspection 
program resources by refocusing FSIS sanitation inspection on the 
oversight of establishment prevention and correction of conditions that 
cause direct product contamination or adulteration. If Sanitation SOP's 
are put in place, Agency inspection personnel will spend less time 
enforcing detailed sanitation requirements and directing the correction 
of problems after they occur. Instead, FSIS inspection program 
personnel will focus on oversight of an establishment's implementation 
of Sanitation SOP's and on taking appropriate regulatory action when an 
establishment's Sanitation SOP's are not properly executed, or when 
product contamination or adulteration is imminent, directly observed, 
or probably had occurred.


Under the current command-and-control based system, the inspector 
assumes responsibility for ``approving'' production-associated 
decisions. Under HACCP, industry would assume full responsibility for 
production decisions and execution. FSIS would monitor establishments' 
compliance with the pathogen reduction performance standard and HACCP 
requirements. The number of inspection tasks will be reduced, so 
inspection program personnel can focus more attention on areas of 
greatest risk in the production system within each establishment.


Performance standards set forth requirements in terms of what is to be 
achieved by a given regulatory requirement. They represent a shift in 
focus from ``command-and-control'' regulations in that they specify the 
ends to be achieved, but not the means to achieve those ends. The 
command-and-control provisions in the current regulations prescribe the 
means for producing safe egg products and do not account for the 
uniqueness of individual processing procedures and needs within 
different plants. FSIS command-and-control regulations require all 
establishments to produce egg products in the same manner. Such 
prescriptive regulations are burdensome and often conflict with HACCP 
and the new FSIS food safety strategy.


As a general matter, command-and-control regulations are incompatible 
with HACCP and the new food safety strategy because they deprive plants 
of the flexibility to innovate-adopt new, more cost-effective 
production technologies, or develop new egg products. Potential 
technical innovations in improving product safety can be expected with 
the introduction of Sanitation SOP's and HACCP. In addition, with the 
elimination of prior approval requirements, the industry would be able 
to utilize computer integrated process controls and other technologies 
(currently used for other types of food processing). There is potential 
for the development of shelf-stable product which does not require 
refrigeration. Similarly, command-and-control regulations are 
incompatible with the proposed Sanitation SOP requirements because they 
often prescribe the exact means by which egg product plants must 
maintain sanitary conditions and do not allow the plant to assume 
responsibility for sanitation. Command-and-control regulations undercut 
the clear delineation of responsibility on which the food safety 
strategy is based. Analysis of the gains in resource productivity, 
technological change, and consumer choice will be largely qualitative.


Risks:


None.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           06/00/00
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions


Government Levels Affected:


None

[[Page 63906]]

Agency Contact:
Daniel L. Engeljohn
Director, Regulations Development and Analysis Division
Department of Agriculture
Food Safety and Inspection Service
Washington, DC 20250
Phone: 202 720-5276
RIN: 0583-AC58
_______________________________________________________________________



USDA--FSIS
13.  PATHOGEN REDUCTION; HAZARD ANALYSIS AND CRITICAL CONTROL 
POINT (HACCP) SYSTEMS; ADDITIONS TO E. COLI CRITERIA AND SALMONELLA 
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


21 U.S.C. 601 to 695; 21 U.S.C. 451 to 470


CFR Citation:


9 CFR 310; 9 CFR 381


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


FSIS is proposing to add generic E. coli criteria and Salmonella 
performance standards to the regulations. In addition, FSIS is 
proposing to revise the terms used to identify and define certain 
classes of product listed in the Salmonella tables.


Statement of Need:


To further enhance its Pathogen Reduction/HACCP implementation, the 
Agency is proposing to add generic Eschericha coli (E. coli) criteria 
for cattle, swine, and goose carcasses based on the sponging method of 
sample collection and for turkey carcasses by the sponging and rinse 
methods of sample collection. FSIS is also proposing new Salmonella 
performance standards for cattle, swine, young turkey, and goose 
carcasses by the sponging method and fresh pork sausage by direct 
sampling. The new cattle performance standard replaces the existing 
Salmonella performance standards for steers/heifers and cows/bulls. The 
new swine standard replaces the existing standard for hogs. These new 
standards apply to all market classes of cattle and swine, 
respectively. In addition, FSIS is proposing to revise the terms used 
to identify and define certain classes of product listed in the 
Salmonella tables to more accurately reflect the products sampled in 
the baseline studies that are the basis for the standards. The Agency 
also intends to correct some errors in the E. coli and Salmonella 
tables and to change the footnotes to the tables for greater clarity. 
This rulemaking stems from the Agency's commitment to increase the use 
of science-based methodology in meat and poultry inspection.


Summary of Legal Basis:


This rulemaking was proposed under the authorities of the Federal Meat 
Inspection Act, as amended (21 U.S.C. 601-695), and the Poultry 
Products Inspection Act, as amended (21 U.S.C. 451-470).


Alternatives:


No action.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The Pathogen Reduction/HACCP final rule included a Final Regulatory 
Impact Assessment (FRIA) (61 FR 38945). Except for the proposed 
performance standard for goose carcasses, the cost and benefit 
estimates and impact assessments were already presented in the FRIA. 
The final rule estimated that a small percentage of firms would have to 
make process modifications in order to meet the standards based on 
national prevalence levels. The ongoing compliance-testing program has 
basically validated the FRIA estimates. Approximately ten percent of 
establishments must take corrective actions to meet existing standards. 
The final rule noted that benefits would accrue from reductions in 
pathogen levels, which, in turn, would lead to reductions in foodborne 
illness.


In the preamble to the Pathogen Reduction/HACCP final rule, the Agency 
acknowledged that the initial performance standards were based on the 
current national prevalence and not on a quantitative assessment of the 
risk posed by any particular incidences of Salmonella contamination or 
the determination of a safe incidence level. This policy was based on 
the public health judgement that reducing the percentage of carcasses 
with Salmonella will reduce the risk of foodborne illness and on the 
regulatory judgement that the pathogen reduction performance standards 
implemented in conjunction with HACCP would lead to significant 
reductions in contamination rates. Preliminary evidence indicates that 
these judgements were correct. The revised and new standards proposed 
now are based on the same original judgements supported by preliminary 
data showing reductions in both contamination rates and foodborne 
illness.


Also in the preamble of the Pathogen Reduction/HACCP final rule, FSIS 
stated that the scientific basis for establishing food safety 
performance standards needs to be improved. However, as noted in the 
preamble and it is still true today, there is no scientific basis for 
setting pathogen standards based on a quantitative assessment of risk.


As noted above, the FRIA prepared for the Pathogen Reduction/HACCP 
final rule did not address the cost of complying with a performance 
standard for geese. In Fiscal Year 1998 only 7 federally inspected 
establishments slaughtered more than 100 geese. Based on past 
experience it is likely that one or two of these establishments will 
have to make some process modification to meet the proposed standard. 
The adjustments could range from having to make minor adjustments to 
spray nozzles used for the final carcass wash to having to install a 
trisodium phosphate rinse system (estimated at $40,000 in the FRIA).


Risks:


None.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           05/00/00
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Daniel L. Engeljohn
Director, Regulations Development and Analysis Division
Department of Agriculture
Food Safety and Inspection Service
Washington, DC 20250
Phone: 202 720-5276
RIN: 0583-AC63
_______________________________________________________________________



USDA--FSIS

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

14. SUBSTANCES APPROVED FOR USE IN THE PREPARATION OF MEAT AND POULTRY 
PRODUCTS
Priority:


Other Significant

[[Page 63907]]

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 318; 9 CFR 381


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rule will amend the Federal meat and poultry products inspection 
regulations to simplify the procedures by which FSIS approves food 
additives and Generally Recognized as Safe substances to be used as 
ingredients in meat food products and poultry products. The final rule 
will be developed in cooperation with the Food and Drug Administration 
to make the Federal regulation of food additives and other substances 
that may be used as ingredients in meat food and poultry products more 
efficient and uniform.


Statement of Need:


This rule is a response to longstanding requests by industry 
representatives for FSIS the procedures for approving and listing in 
the Agency's regulations food additives and other substances used in 
the preparation of meat, meat food, and poultry products. The industry 
representatives have argued that the FSIS rulemakings to permit the use 
of FDA-approved additives in meat, meat food, and poultry products have 
been largely duplicative of the FDA procedures.


FSIS adopted a final rule in July 1983 under which the Agency could 
amend its regulations on a ``fast track'' basis to provide for the use 
in livestock products or poultry products, at appropriate levels and 
for appropriate purposes, of FDA-approved substances. The Agency 
discontinued this procedure in 1988, however, because of concerns it 
might not satisfy the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act.


Comments submitted in response to USDA's February 25, 1992, notice 
requesting public comments on how Department regulations can be 
improved, updated, or streamlined, supported the Agency's decision to 
initiate this rulemaking project in coordination with FDA. This 
rulemaking has been included among the Administration's proposals for 
reinventing food regulations.


Summary of Legal Basis:


This rulemaking was proposed under the authorities of the Federal Meat 
Inspection Act, as amended (21 U.S.C. 601-695), and the Poultry 
Products Inspection Act, as amended (21 U.S.C. 451-470).


Alternatives:


No action.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The public benefits conferred by this rulemaking include, principally, 
those associated with the more timely regulatory approval of food and 
color additives added to foods and those associated with having the 
food and color additives themselves available for use more quickly. The 
benefits of food and color additives added to meat, meat food, and 
poultry products include the technical effects on the characteristics 
of food products, the uses of the food and color additives in food 
processing, and a greater variety of foods in the marketplace. Public 
health benefits include the greater availability of food through 
preservation techniques and improved food safety through, for example, 
antimicrobial treatments of raw product and the use of curing solutions 
in processed products. The benefits conferred by the availability of 
food and color additives and this rulemaking will marginally increase 
the food and color additives' use.


The public benefits of regulating food and color additives generally 
will not change. These include, principally, the prevention of 
adulteration or misbranding of food products. Consumers are provided 
assurances that the products they buy do not contain food and color 
additives whose use ought, for various reasons, to be prohibited, and 
food and color additives that have been approved have not been used 
improperly in foods. This final rulemaking will not affect such 
benefits because FDA will continue to conduct safety reviews of food 
and color additives proposed for use in foods, including--in 
consultation with FSIS--meat, meat food, and poultry products, and FSIS 
will continue to exercise its in-plant inspection and other regulatory 
authorities to prevent the marketing of adulterated or misbranded meat, 
meat food, and poultry products. Therefore, elimination of the 
duplicative FSIS rulemaking process involved in listing or approving 
food and color additives for use in meat, meat food, and poultry 
products will probably save the regulated industry between $400,000 and 
$600,000 a year over and above the savings the Government itself will 
realize in administrative costs. (According to industry 
representatives, the cost of filing one food or color additive is 
approximately $100,000. This includes research and administrative 
costs.)


Other less calculable benefits arise through the removal of a 
disincentive to innovative. With the potential expansion of uses of 
approved food additives and other new food and color additives that 
will result from the easing of the current regulatory burden, new 
product development and marketing are encouraged.


This final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. Obtaining approval for the use in 
meat, meat food, and poultry products of new food and color additives 
or for new uses of previously listed or approved food and color 
additives will be simpler, faster, and less costly for both industry 
and the Federal Government than under the current system.


FSIS now may authorize for use in meat, meat food, or poultry products 
only those food and color additives that have been previously reviewed 
for safety and approved for such use by FDA. Under the final rule, 
separate petitions to FSIS will no longer have to be submitted. FSIS 
will permit food and color additives to be used in products under its 
jurisdiction based on FDA's title 21 regulations permitting such uses. 
Those food and color additives not approved for meat, meat food, or 
poultry product use under current FDA regulations will require only one 
petition for rulemaking--to FDA.


FSIS currently receives approximately four to six petitions per year 
for the listing or approval of food and color additives for use in 
livestock products and poultry products. Approximately 75 percent of 
these petitions are from large commercial entities.


Risks:


As mentioned, potential public health benefits of this rule include the 
greater availability of food through preservation techniques and 
improved food safety through, for example, antimicrobial treatments of 
raw product and the use of curing solutions in processed products. A 
more timely and efficient approval process would make these benefits 
available sooner than

[[Page 63908]]

they can be under the current approval process. However, FSIS has no 
way of forecasting how many food and color additives that yield health 
and safety benefits will be submitted to FDA in any given future year. 
The Agency therefore does not have a basis for quantifying the future 
health and safety benefits of this rule.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            60 FR 67459                                    12/29/95
NPRM Comment Period End                                        05/06/96
Final Action                                                   01/00/00
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Daniel L. Engeljohn
Director, Regulations Development and Analysis Division
Department of Agriculture
Food Safety and Inspection Service
Washington, DC 20250
Phone: 202 720-5276
RIN: 0583-AB02
_______________________________________________________________________



USDA--FSIS
15. 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 requirements concerning the design of such 
programs.


Summary of 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

[[Page 63909]]

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 Cost 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            64 FR 26892                                    05/18/99
NPRM Comment Period End                                        07/19/99
Final Rule                                                     03/00/00
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, State


Agency Contact:
Daniel L. Engeljohn
Director, Regulations Development and Analysis Division
Department of Agriculture
Food Safety and Inspection Service
Washington, DC 20250
Phone: 202 720-5276
RIN: 0583-AC35
_______________________________________________________________________



USDA--Forest Service (FS)

                              -----------

                             PRERULE STAGE

                              -----------

16.  NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM ROADLESS AREAS
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


16 USC 472; 16 USC 551; 16 USC 1604; 42 USC 4321


CFR Citation:


36 CFR 294


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


On October 13, 1999, the President directed the Forest Service to begin 
an open and public dialogue about the future of inventoried roadless 
areas within the National Forest System. As the first step in carrying 
out the President's direction, the Forest Service published a Notice of 
Intent to prepare an environmental impact statement in the Federal 
Register on October 19, 1999 (64 FR 56306). The Notice of Intent 
initiates the scoping process, whereby the Forest Service is soliciting 
public comment on the nature and scope of the environmental, social, 
and economic issues related to roadless areas. The public has been 
asked to provide comments by December 20, 1999. Additionally, the 
agency is holding scoping meetings in every Forest Service Region to 
facilitate public comment on the scope of an environmental analysis and 
alternatives. This initiative responds to strong public sentiment for 
protecting roadless areas and the public benefits those areas provide, 
including clean water, biological diversity, wildlife habitat, forest 
health, dispersed recreational opportunities, and other benefits. It 
also responds to budgetary concerns about the National Forest road 
system. The public has long questioned the logic of building new roads 
in roadless areas when the Forest Service receives insufficient funding 
to maintain its existing road system. To assist in determining the 
scope and content of a proposed rule, the agency will prepare an 
environmental impact statement to analyze (1) the effects of 
eliminating certain activities such as road construction in the 
remaining unroaded portions of inventoried roadless areas on the 
National Forest System; and (2) the effects of establishing criteria 
and procedures to ensure that the social and ecological values are 
considered and protected through the forest planning process. The draft 
environmental impact statement (EIS) and a proposed rule that embodies 
the preferred alternative identified in the draft EIS are expected to 
be available for public review and comment in the spring of 2000.


Statement of Need:


Areas that are without roads have inherent values that are increasingly 
scarce and highly desirable. Under present management policies, the 
maintenance of areas with these values cannot be guaranteed. At the 
same time, present and foreseeable funding for road maintenance is 
expected to be only a small fraction of the total needed to meet 
environmental and safety standards. Therefore, it is necessary for the 
agency to change its policies and practices for roadless area 
management to reflect different resource priorities and realistic 
funding levels.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The Forest Service's proposal to initiate a rulemaking process to 
protect roadless areas comes under applicable administrative and 
environmental laws, including the Organic Act, the Multiple-Use 
Sustained-Yield Act, the National Forest Management Act, and the 
National Environmental Policy Act.


Alternatives:


The agency could either continue under existing regulations or propose 
regulations to address the protection of roadless areas.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


As part of the development of a proposed rule, the agency will assess 
the environmental impacts, as well as the costs and benefits of 
promulgating a rule for the protection of roadless areas. The benefits 
of publishing the rule are to preserve the value of areas without 
roads, including biological diversity, clean water, and other social, 
economic, and ecological values. Without this protection, the cost to 
the taxpayer in the future may be considerable, in terms of the loss of 
desirable aesthetic qualities that are becoming increasingly scarce.


Risks:


The planned regulatory action addresses the protection of roadless 
areas and would not directly cause specific risks to public health, 
safety, or the environment.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM           64 FR 56306                                    10/19/99
ANPRM Comment Period End                                       12/20/99
NPRM                                                           04/00/00
NPRM Comment Period End                                        06/00/00

[[Page 63910]]

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Agency Contact:
Marian P. Connolly
Regulatory Officer
Department of Agriculture
Forest Service
P.O. Box 96090
Washington, DC 20090-6090
Phone: 703 605-4533
Fax: 703 605-5111
Email: mconnoll/[email protected]
RIN: 0596-AB77
_______________________________________________________________________



USDA--FS

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

17. NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM LAND AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLANNING
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:


16 USC 1600 et seq; 5 USC 301


CFR Citation:


36 CFR 219


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


On October 5, 1999, the Forest Service published a proposed rule to 
guide land and resource management planning for the National Forest 
System. The proposed planning framework makes sustainability the 
foundation for National Forest System planning and management and 
establishes requirements for implementation, monitoring, evaluation, 
amendment, and revision of land and resource management plans. The 
intended effects are to simplify, clarify, and otherwise improve the 
planning process to reduce burdensome and costly procedural 
requirements; and to strengthen collaborative relationships with the 
public and other government entities. The comment period ends on 
January 4, 2000.


Statement of Need:


The need for the rule arises from having completed the first round of 
forest plans as required by the National Forest Management Act. The 
Forest Service contracted with the Conservation Foundation and Purdue 
University to conduct a comprehensive critique of the planning process 
and plan decisions. The critique involved both agency employees and 
external participants--state and local governments, businesses, 
environmental organizations, and others--and resulted in several 
volumes of findings and recommendations. Key recommendations were to 
strengthen the emphasis on ecosystem sustainability and health; to 
incorporate ecoregional and watershed-level assessments; and to 
strengthen opportunities for public participation in the planning 
process and for greater interaction and dialog with Federal, State, 
local and Indian tribal governments. Building on those recommendations, 
the agency published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and a 
proposed rule in 1995. The proposed rule was controversial. There was a 
strong concern that the agency had not chartered a Committee of 
Scientists as was required by the statute for the initial planning 
regulations. In response, the Secretary of Agriculture decided to 
appoint a Committee of Scientists to provide advice in the development 
of a science-based approach to the planning process. The proposed rule 
is built on the Committee's recommendations for achieving more 
collaborative, dynamic, science-based planning that fosters 
collaboration among Forest Service officials, state, local, and Indian 
governments, organizations, and the public at large.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The legal basis for the planned regulatory action is the National 
Forest Management Act, which requires that regulations be promulgated. 
This final action will revise the existing regulation which was 
finalized in 1982.


Alternatives:


Alternatives to this rule that were considered include continuing under 
existing regulations or staying with the concepts in the embodied 1995 
rulemaking effort. The agency determined that the Committee's 
recommendations should be the basis for a new proposed rule.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


A cost-benefit analysis has been completed as part of an Environmental 
Assessment. Based on that analysis, it is anticipated that streamlined 
planning procedures will result in a reduction in the cost of amending 
and revising forest plans relative to the same procedures under the 
existing regulation. Other benefits should include improved 
communication and coordination with the public and other agencies and 
governments, better understanding of the planning process, improved 
procedures for resource decisionmaking, and improved on-the-ground 
results as those decisions are implemented.


Risks:


The planned regulatory action addresses agency planning procedures and 
would not directly cause specific risks to public health, safety, or 
the environment.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM           56 FR 6508                                     02/15/91
NPRM            60 FR 18886                                    04/13/95
NPRM Comment Per60 FR 36767                                    08/17/95
Second NPRM     64 FR 54074                                    10/05/99
Second NPRM Comment Period End                                 01/04/00
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Marian P. Connolly
Regulatory Officer
Department of Agriculture
Forest Service
P.O. Box 96090
Washington, DC 20090-6090
Phone: 703 605-4533
Fax: 703 605-5111
Email: mconnoll/[email protected]
RIN: 0596-AB20
BILLING CODE 3410-90-F




[[Page 63911]]

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 (DOC) 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 this mission statement, 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 DOC 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; and we support environmental and economic health for the 
communities in which Americans live.
 The DOC 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 that 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, while ensuring that they are being delivered in 
the most cost-effective ways. We seek to function in close concert with 
other agencies having complementary responsibilities so that our 
collective impact can be most powerful. We seek to meet the needs of 
our customers quickly and efficiently, with 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 programmatic 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 has 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. 
President Clinton, in the 1999 State of the Union message, said If we 
... invest in our people, our communities, our technology, and lead in 
the global economy--then we will begin to meet our historic 
responsibility to build a 21st century prosperity for America.
 These words embody the mission of the DOC: 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 safeguard the public 
from the adverse impacts of undesirable environmental changes; and to 
provide information, which is vital to ensuring sound business and 
policy decisions.
 Commerce promotes and expedites American exports, helps nurture 
business contacts abroad, protects U.S. firms from unfair foreign 
competition, and makes how-to-export information accessible to small 
and mid-sized companies throughout the Nation, thereby ensuring that 
U.S. market opportunities span the globe.
 Commerce encourages development in every community, 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 its industries and communities, 
Commerce works as a partner with private entities to build America with 
an eye on the future. Through technology, research and development, and 
innovation, we are making sure America continues to prosper in the 
short-term, while also

[[Page 63912]]

helping industries prepare for long-term success.
 Commerce's considerable information capacities help businesses 
understand clearly where our national and world economies are going, 
and take advantage of that knowledge by 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.
 The DOC has instituted programs and policies that lead to cutting-
edge, competitive, and better paying jobs. We work every day 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 DOC 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 five--the Bureau of Export Administration (BXA), the International 
Trade Administration (ITA), the Economic Development Administration, 
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the 
Patent and Trademark Office--plan significant preregulatory or 
regulatory actions for this Regulatory Plan year. Only two of these 
operating units, BXA 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 DOC 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 DOC 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 seven 
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 downsized, 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.
Improving the Regulatory Environment for Small Business
 The DOC remains committed to its goal of providing small businesses 
with the least burdensome regulatory environment possible. While we 
believe small business should remain free from the constraints of 
regulation whenever possible, the Department realizes that there are 
times where these entities must be subject to regulation of some kind. 
But in all cases where small businesses will be affected by DoC 
regulations, we make every effort to provide them with all relevant and 
necessary information at the earliest possible time, while making 
representatives of the Department available to discuss any problems or 
questions that may arise in complying with these regulations. 
Additionally, the Department remains committed to providing small 
businesses with the greatest amount of warning prior to the issuance of 
any regulation that could affect them directly or indirectly.
 Within the Department, the two agencies that regulate activities of 
small business are the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
(NOAA) and the Bureau of Export Administration (BXA). Both NOAA and BXA 
have taken numerous actions to comply with the Departmental goal of 
providing small businesses with the least burdensome regulatory 
environment, while working with small business to ensure that when 
regulations are issued, small businesses are informed as early as 
possible and prepared to meet regulatory requirements.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
 When NOAA issues regulations that impact small business, NOAA Special 
Agents and officers begin an information outreach campaign to educate 
the regulated community on the new or amended regulations. This 
outreach campaign involves boarding vessels and visiting fish dealers 
to explain the new regulations and answer questions regarding 
compliance. Special Agents and officers educate the regulated community 
on the technical aspects of the regulations and the conservation value 
of the management plan and regulations.
 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 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.
 NOAA also issues written warnings rather than penalties for many minor 
violations. Since March 1996, NOAA has issued approximately 1,216 
written warnings. In addition, NOAA has a Summary Settlement System 
that 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 708 Summary Settlement offers 
were extended by NOAA.

[[Page 63913]]

 NOAA has also 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 that are of a technical nature and do 
not have a direct natural resource impact, receive a FIN, which allows 
the violation to be corrected in lieu of a penalty. The FIN 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. Since 
March 1996, approximately 348 Fix-It Notices were issued in lieu of 
penalties, many to small entities. The FIN program has helped NOAA 
achieve compliance and has elicited a positive response from the 
regulated community, which includes small entities.
Bureau of Export Administration
 BXA administers a classification and advisory opinion program. Under 
the Export Administration Regulations (EAR), which set the criteria for 
export of dual-use items, commercial items with potential military or 
weapons proliferation applications, an exporter has the responsibility 
of classifying 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.
 BXA has continually used technological advances in order to provide 
information and customer service to those entities that may be affected 
by BXA activities. Through its Fax-on-Demand system, BXA enables 
exporters to access useful information by facsimile 24 hours a day, and 
this service has been expanded to provide over 60 documents, including 
recent regulatory changes, upcoming workshops, useful points of 
contact, and a wide variety of other competitiveness and trade-related 
information. BXA also uses its broadcast subscription and broadcast e-
mail services, known as netFacts, combined with its longstanding 
facsimile service, First Facts, to provide regular and timely updates 
regarding regulatory and policy changes and other items of interest to 
exporters.
 In addition, BXA spends a great deal of time educating industry about 
the export control provisions of the EAR. BXA has an extensive outreach 
program, conducting seminars throughout the United States and overseas. 
For example, as a standard part of the seminar, BXA provides a set of 
guidelines, 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.
 The BXA Web site offers those with Internet access to a wide range of 
export control information, including frequently asked questions, free 
access to the full text of Export Administration Regulations, and links 
to other government sites. BXA's Simplified Network Application Process 
(SNAP) allows submission of license applications and classification 
requests through the Internet.
Description of Agency Regulations
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
 The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) establishes 
and administers Federal policy for the conservation and management of 
the Nation's oceanic, coastal, and atmospheric resources. It provides a 
variety of essential environmental 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 by providing assessments of the global 
environment.
 Recognizing 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 
fisheries, protects marine mammals, and promotes economic development 
of the U.S. fishing industry. NOS assists the coastal states in their 
management of land and ocean resources in their coastal zones, 
including estuarine research reserves; manages the 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 DOC, through NOAA, has a unique 
role in promoting stewardship of the global environment through 
effective management of the Nation's marine and coastal resources and 
in monitoring and predicting changes in the Earth's environment, thus 
linking trade, development, and technology with environmental issues. 
NOAA has the primary Federal responsibility for providing sound 
scientific observations, assessments, and forecasts of environmental 
phenomena on which resource management 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

[[Page 63914]]

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. Once a rulemaking is triggered by an FMC, the Magnuson-Stevens 
Act places stringent deadlines upon NMFS by 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, overfished stocks, gear conflicts, and foreign 
fishing. One of the problems that FMPs may address is preventing 
overcapitalization (preventing excess fishing capacity) of fisheries. 
This may be resolved 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 sound 
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, 
which accompany 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 overfishing, 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 ten 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. 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 a second proposed rule to revise its 
existing 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 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.

[[Page 63915]]

 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 ten 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 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 their 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 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 could not 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. NOAA received 18 sets of substantive comments on the 
proposed regulations. As a result of the extensive public comments 
received on the November 3, 1997, proposed rule and at the April 1, 
1998, public hearing, NOAA has determined it appropriate to revise its 
proposal and seek further public comment.
Bureau of Export Administration
 The Bureau of Export Administration (BXA) promotes U.S. national and 
economic security and foreign policy interests by managing and 
enforcing the Department's security-related trade and competitiveness 
programs. BXA plays a key role in challenging issues involving national 
security and nonproliferation, export growth, and high technology. The 
Bureau's continuing major challenge is combating the proliferation of 
weapons of mass destruction while furthering the growth of U.S. 
exports, which are critical to maintaining our leadership in an 
increasingly competitive global economy. BXA strives to be the leading 
innovator in transforming U.S. strategic trade policy and programs to 
adapt to the changing world.
Major Programs and Activities
 The Export Administration Regulations (EAR) provide for export 
controls on dual use goods and technology (primarily commercial goods 
that have potential military applications) not only to fight 
proliferation, but also to pursue other national security, short 
supply, and foreign policy goals (such as combating terrorism). 
Simplifying and updating these controls in light of the end of the Cold 
War has been a major accomplishment of BXA.
BXA is also responsible for:
Enforcing the export control and antiboycott provisions of the Export 
Administration Act (EAA), as well as other statutes such as the 
Fastener Quality Act. The EAA is enforced through a variety of 
administrative, civil, and criminal sanctions.

[[Page 63916]]

Analyzing and protecting the defense industrial and technology base, 
pursuant to the Defense Production Act and other laws. As the Defense 
Department increases its reliance on dual-use high technology goods as 
part of its cost-cutting efforts, ensuring that we remain competitive 
in those sectors and sub-sectors is critical to our national security.
Helping Ukraine, Kazakstan, Belarus, Russia, and other newly emerging 
countries develop effective export control systems. The effectiveness 
of U.S. export controls can be severely undercut if ``rogue states'' or 
terrorists gain access to sensitive goods and technology from other 
supplier countries.
Working with former defense plants in the Newly Independent States to 
help make a successful transition to profitable and peaceful civilian 
endeavors. This involves helping remove unnecessary obstacles to trade 
and investment and identifying opportunities for joint ventures with 
U.S. companies.
Assisting U.S. defense enterprises to meet the challenge of the 
reduction in defense spending by converting to civilian production and 
by developing export markets. This work assists in maintaining our 
defense industrial base as well as preserving jobs for U.S. workers.
 BXA's two principal operating units, Export Administration and Export 
Enforcement, as well as its Office of Administration, have undergone 
significant reorganization and downsizing in recent years in order to 
meet the goals of reforming and streamlining the export control system, 
as recommended by the National Performance Review (NPR) and the Trade 
Promotion Coordinating Committee. BXA is also an NPR Reinvention 
Laboratory.
Chemical Weapons Convention
 BXA plans to issue a final rule that will make effective the proposed 
rule published July 21, 1999. The purpose of the regulation is to 
implement the provisions of the Convention on the Prohibition of the 
Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on 
their Destruction (Chemical Weapons Convention) and the Chemical 
Weapons Convention Implementation Act of 1998, requiring private 
facilities to submit information on certain activities involving toxic 
chemicals, and to make certain private facilities subject to periodic 
inspection by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons 
(OPCW), the international organization created to administer the 
Convention and to monitor compliance by States Parties.
 On April 25, 1997, the United States ratified the Chemical Weapons 
Convention, just prior to the entry into force of the Convention on 
April 29, 1997. The Convention bans the development, production, 
stockpiling, or use of chemical weapons and prohibits States Parties 
from assisting or encouraging anyone to engage in a prohibited 
activity. The Convention provides for declaration and inspection of all 
States Parties' chemical weapons and facilities. To fulfill its arms 
control and non-proliferation objectives, the Convention also 
establishes a comprehensive verification scheme and requires the 
declaration and inspection of facilities that produce, process, or 
consume certain lists or Scheduled chemicals, some of which have 
significant commercial applications. The United States has declared its 
chemical weapons and chemical weapons production and storage facilities 
to the OPCW, and is in the process of destroying its chemical weapons 
stockpiles. In order to be in compliance with its obligations as a 
State Party to the Convention, the United States also must establish 
the declaration and inspection program for private facilities engaged 
in activities involving Scheduled chemicals.
 The Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act of 1998, enacted on 
October 21, 1998, authorized the United States to require the U.S. 
chemical industry and other private entities to submit declarations, 
notifications, and other reports and also to provide access for on-site 
inspections, in order that the United States may comply with its 
obligations under the Convention. On June 25, 1999, the President 
issued Executive Order 13128, which directs the Commerce Department to 
issue regulations.
 The BXA's discretion in drafting the declaration forms and formulating 
the reporting requirements is limited by the Convention requirements. 
The OPCW issued forms for States Parties to use in submitting 
declarations.
 In drafting the declaration forms and the CWCR, BXA has consistently 
made the reporting requirements as narrow as possible to ensure that 
only information required to be declared to the OPCW or necessary to 
ensure that U.S. aggregate Schedule 1 activities are below the one 
metric ton limit set forth in the Convention is to be reported to BXA. 
For certain reporting requirements that are currently subject to 
national discretion, BXA has adopted the minimum requirements 
consistent with a reasonable reading of the Convention, keeping in mind 
its purposes and objectives.
_______________________________________________________________________



DOC--Bureau of Export Administration (BXA)

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

18. CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION REGULATIONS
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


22 USC 6701 et seq; EO 13128


CFR Citation:


15 CFR 710 et seq


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The final rule will make effective the proposed rule published July 21, 
1999. The purpose of the regulation is to implement the provisions of 
the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, 
Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction 
(Chemical Weapons Convention) and the Chemical Weapons Convention 
Implementation Act of 1998, requiring private facilities to submit 
information on certain activities involving toxic chemicals, and to 
make certain private facilities subject to periodic inspection by the 
Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), the 
international organization created to administer the Convention and to 
monitor compliance by States Parties.


Statement of Need:


On April 25, 1997, the United States ratified the Chemical Weapons 
Convention, just prior to the entry into force of the Convention on 
April 29, 1997. The Convention bans the development, production, 
stockpiling, or use of chemical weapons and prohibits States Parties 
from assisting or encouraging anyone to engage in a prohibited 
activity. The Convention provides for declaration and inspection of all 
States Parties' chemical weapons and chemical weapons production 
facilities, and oversees the destruction

[[Page 63917]]

of such weapons and facilities. To fulfill its arms control and non-
proliferation objectives, the Convention also establishes a 
comprehensive verification scheme and requires the declaration and 
inspection of facilities that produce, process, or consume certain 
lists or ``Schedules'' chemicals, some of which have significant 
commercial applications. The United States has declared its chemical 
weapons and chemical weapons production and storage facilities to the 
OPCW, and is in the process of destroying its chemical weapons 
stockpiles. In order to be in compliance with its obligations as a 
State Party to the Convention, the United States also must establish 
the declaration and inspection program for private facilities engaged 
in activities involving ``Scheduled'' chemicals.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act of 1998, enacted on 
October 21, 1998, authorized the United States to require the U.S. 
chemical industry and other private entities to submit declarations, 
notifications and other reports and also to provide access for on-site 
inspections, in order that the United States may comply with its 
obligations under the Convention. On June 25, 1999, the President 
issued Executive Order 13128, which directs the Commerce Department to 
issue regulations.


Alternatives:


The Bureau of Export Administration's (BXA) discretion in drafting the 
declaration forms and formulating the reporting requirements is limited 
by the Convention requirements. The OPCW has issued forms for States 
Parties to use in submitting declarations.


In drafting the declaration forms and the CWCR, BXA has consistently 
made the reporting requirements as narrow as possible to ensure that 
only information required to be declared to the OPCW or necessary to 
ensure that U.S. aggregate Schedule 1 activities are below the one 
metric ton limit set forth in the Convention is to be reported to BXA. 
Other States Parties, such as Canada, have imposed much broader 
reporting requirements on their industries, with the government taking 
on the responsibility of determining the information that must be 
forwarded to the OPCW.


In addition, there are certain declaration requirements of the 
Convention that are subject to interpretation. Until the Conference of 
States Parties establishes clear rules for these requirements, States 
Parties may use their national discretion to implement them. National 
discretion generally means a reasonable interpretation of the 
requirement. For such reporting requirements currently subject to 
national discretion, BXA has adopted the minimum requirements 
consistent with a reasonable reading of the Convention, keeping in mind 
its purposes and objectives.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Benefits from the regulation include increased national security and 
economic growth and stability in a safe and secure environment. State 
Party obligations under the Convention include imposition of 
restrictions on trade with non-States Parties. Over 120 countries, 
including the United States' major trading partners accounting for most 
of U.S. chemical exports, are States Parties to the Convention. The 
U.S. chemical industry, therefore, will also benefit from the United 
States' ratification of the Convention and compliance with its 
requirements because its trade with other States Parties will not be 
subject to CWC trade restrictions. The costs of the regulation will 
include: (1) the cost to industry of preparing data declarations and 
reports and preparing for and receiving inspections; and (2) the cost 
to government of processing the declarations and reports, assisting 
industry to prepare for inspections, and escorting OPCW inspection 
teams.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Proposed Rule   64 FR 39193                                    07/21/99
Final Rule                                                     10/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions


Government Levels Affected:


Federal


Agency Contact:
Hillary Hess
Director, Regulatory Policy Division
Department of Commerce
Bureau of Export Administration
2096/MS 2705
14th & Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Washington, DC 20230
Phone: 202 482-2440
Fax: 202 482-3355
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0694-AB06
_______________________________________________________________________



DOC--National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

19. LICENSING OF PRIVATE REMOTE-SENSING SATELLITE SYSTEMS
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


15 USC 5601 et seq


CFR Citation:


15 CFR 960.1 et seq


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The proposed 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 facilitate the 
development of the U.S. commercial remote-sensing industry and thus 
promote the collection and widespread availability of Earth remote-
sensing data, while preserving essential U.S. national security 
interests and international obligations. 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 filed a Petition for Rulemaking 
requesting NOAA to reopen these regulations in light of the President's 
January 5, 1988,

[[Page 63918]]

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.


On November 3, 1997, NOAA issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) 
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.


NOAA received 24 sets of public comments to the November 3, 1997, NPRM 
from a wide range of interests in industry, the media, academia, 
government, and the foreign policy community. The major substantive 
issues raised can be summarized under the following categories: (1) 
control, ownership, and investment; (2) national security concerns and 
international obligations concerns; (3) review of foreign agreements; 
(4) confidentiality of information; and (5) the interagency memorandum 
of understanding.


As a result of the extensive public comments received on the November 
3, 1997, proposed rule and at the April 1, 1998, public hearing, NOAA 
has determined it appropriate to revise its proposal and seek further 
public comment. This revised NPRM incorporates changes in each of the 
areas addressed by the comments, with the most significant changes in 
the area of foreign ownership, control, and investment. Specifically, 
the revised rule focuses more closely on ``control'' over the 
operations of the system. The revised rule has also been harmonized 
with existing regulations addressing foreign ownership and control. 
This revised NPRM also incorporates and facilitates NOAA's enforcement 
program, which will be key to protecting vital national security 
interests once the high-resolution systems become operational.


Summary of 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 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. 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 Cost 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 that 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

_______________________________________________________________________
Notice of Inquir60 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
Revised NPRM                                                   11/00/99
Final Rule                                                     04/00/00
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
RIN: 0648-AC64
BILLING CODE 3510-BW-F




[[Page 63919]]

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, 14 Defense agencies, and 7 DoD field 
activities. It has over 1,360,000 military personnel and 700,000 
civilians assigned as of May 31, 1999, 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 63920]]

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.
The Department of Defense has made a commitment to the Vice President, 
as a high impact agency under the National Partnership for Reinventing 
Government, to reduce paper transactions by 50 percent by the year 
2000. The composite of all paperless contracting transactions must be 
increased to 64 percent in Fiscal Year 2000 in order to meet the 50 
percent reduction goal. As of August 1999, DoD's composite of all 
paperless contracting is 67 percent.
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. One significant 
reduction in the burden imposed on the public is planned 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 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) clearance. DoD 
reviewed the information being collected under this requirement and 
reduced the number of respondents, as well as the number of actions, to 
reflect fiscal year 1998 data available in the DoD database. As a 
result of these reviews, DoD plans to reduce the burden hours imposed 
on the public under this information collection requirement by an 
estimated 18.4 million hours per year.
Another significant decrease is planned for the Department's largest 
information collection and will result from a reduction in contractor 
data requirements. This program change will decrease the burden in 
excess of 7.3 million hours. The combined total burden reduction in the 
Department's two largest information collections will decrease DoD's 
burden on the public by 21 percent from the actual FY 1998 year end 
total. This is the first time that the Department's total burden has 
dropped below 100 million hours. 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

[[Page 63921]]

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 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 2000, 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 2000, 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 Corps jurisdiction 
determination decisions. This regulation was proposed on July 19, 1995, 
with a similar regulation on permit denials and declined permits. The 
permit denial appeal regulation was finalized on March 9, 1999, and 
became effective on August 6, 1999. The administrative appeal process 
will increase fairness to applicants and landowners in the permitting 
process by establishing a recourse to Corps permit denials, declined 
permits, and jurisdiction determined decisions without pursuing 
litigation. The process will also provide for interested party 
involvement when the Corps reconsiders a previous denial or declined 
permit.
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. In addition to the need to integrate commercial and 
military facilities, the Department must expand the use of commercial 
procedures. Acquisition Reform's Commercial Practices Initiative is 
geared to providing learning opportunities on key techniques, 
strategies and negotiating/pricing tools used in the commercial 
business environment. Modern, technology-based learning methods and 
enterprise models of change management are available to meet the needs 
for both individual and team training. Based on the knowledge gained, 
the workforce will be enabled to adopt best practices, implement 
reforms, and understand better how to work with commercial businesses, 
including ones that are not themselves accustomed to doing business 
with DoD.
DoD continuously reviews its supplement to the Federal Acquisition 
Regulation (FAR) 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 $5,000 or less during contract performance; to 
            eliminate oversight for items valued under $1,000,000 where 
            the contractor assumes liability for loss, damage, or 
            destruction of property; to replace five inventory 
            schedules with a single inventory disposal schedule; and to 
            shorten screening times prior to disposal. The FAR part 45 
            rewrite also encourages the dual use of Government property 
            introducing commercial rental practices and reducing 
            property rental costs.
 Rewrite 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.
 Review of FAR guidance pertaining to progress payments and 
            other related financing policies. The goal of this 
            initiative is to simplify the progress payments process; to 
            minimize the burdens imposed on contractors and

[[Page 63922]]

            contracting officers; and to expand the use of performance-
            based payments or commercial financing payments.
 Rewrite FAR part 25, International Acquisition. The goal of 
            this initiative is to clarify and simplify the complex, 
            interrelated laws and agreements which govern international 
            trade.
 Revise policy on the applicability of cost accounting 
            standards. The goal of this initiative is to modify and 
            streamline the applicability of the Federal cost accounting 
            standards.
 Revise policy on the use of the Governmentwide commercial 
            purchase card. The goal of this initiative is to increase 
            the use of the purchase card for small dollar purchases.
 Revise policy to expand the use of the procedures in FAR part 
            12, Acquisition of Commercial Items. The goal of this 
            initiative is to expand the use of streamlined procedures 
            for the acquisition of commercial items.
 Develop FAR and DFARS guidance on the use of price based 
            acquisition. The goal of this initiative is to move away 
            from the use of cost as a basis for contracting to 
            acquisition on the basis of price, to the maximum extent 
            practicable. The use of price will reduce the 
            administrative burden for both Government and industry and 
            result in lower overhead rates.
Improve Health Care Delivery in the Defense Department
The Department of Defense is able to meet its dual mission of wartime 
readiness and peacetime health care by operating an extensive network 
of medical treatment facilities. This network includes DoD's own 
military treatment facilities supplemented by civilian health care 
providers, facilities, and services under contract to DoD through the 
TRICARE program. TRICARE is a major health care initiative designed to 
improve the management and integration of DoD's health care delivery 
system. The program's goal is to increase access to health care 
services, improve health care quality, and control health care costs. 
TRICARE builds upon the original CHAMPUS program by offering two 
additional options, Prime and Extra. The Prime enrollment offers an 
HMO-like option; and two options that do not require enrollment: Extra 
is a preferred provider-like option while Standard is a fee for service 
option (formally known as CHAMPUS). Like the old CHAMPUS program, under 
TRICARE, DoD continues to share the cost of civilian health care with 
its eligible beneficiaries when services are not available in the 
military medical treatment facility.
DoD will be testing a variety of alternative health care delivery 
approaches to providing care for our over-65 beneficiaries. In addition 
to the ongoing TRICARE Senior Prime demonstration project allowing 
beneficiaries over the age of 65 the ability to enroll in the TRICARE 
HMO option, the Department plans to test additional approaches 
including a limited pharmacy demonstration, a Federal Employees Health 
Benefits Program (FEHBP) demonstration, and a TRICARE Senior Supplement 
demonstration. These demonstration projects are conducted under the 
authority of title 10, chapter 55, section 1092.
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 
health care 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 TRICARE Prime enrollment for 
families of E-4 and below; modifications to reimbursement for 
beneficiaries who have other health insurance that is primary to 
TRICARE; implementing a TRICARE incentive payment program modeled after 
the Medicare Incentive payment program; and modifying payment rates for 
providers who practice in remote locations in Alaska.
BILLING CODE 5001-10-F




[[Page 63923]]

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (ED)

Statement of Regulatory and Deregulatory Priorities
The Department supports States, local communities, and 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 this initiative, the Department has 
eliminated or simplified most of its regulations--including the 
elimination of 2/3 of the regulations applicable to elementary and 
secondary education programs. 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 by more than 5 
percent in FY 1998. Our goal for FY 1999 is a further 5 percent 
reduction.
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
Higher Education Amendments of 1998
Legislation reauthorizing the Higher Education Act has been a 
Department priority in 1999. To the extent regulations were determined 
to be necessary, they were developed through regulatory negotiation 
with the participation of interested parties. Three of the most 
significant regulations

[[Page 63924]]

needed to implement the new legislation are listed as the Department's 
priorities in the 1999 Regulatory Plan.
The State Vocational Rehabilitation Services Program
The State Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) Services Program is a $2.5 
billion program that provides funds to State VR agencies to assist 
individuals with disabilities to achieve employment. These regulations 
would amend the existing program regulations in 34 CFR part 361 to 
implement various changes in recently enacted statutes.
_______________________________________________________________________



ED--Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

20.  GAINING EARLY AWARENESS AND READINESS FOR UNDERGRADUATE 
PROGRAMS (GEAR UP)
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


20 USC 1070a-21 et seq


CFR Citation:


34 CFR 694


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


These regulations are needed to implement section 403 of the Higher 
Education Amendments of 1998 (Pub. L. 105-244, enacted October 7, 
1998), establishing GEAR UP, a program designed to give more low-income 
students the skills, encouragement, and preparation needed to pursue 
postsecondary education, and to strengthen academic programs and 
student services at participating schools.


Statement of Need:


These regulations are necessary to implement new legislation. In 
developing the regulations, the Department will seek to minimize 
regulatory burden and maximize flexibility.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Pub. L. 105-244, enacted October 7, 1998.


Alternatives:


In implementing the legislation, the Department will consider whether 
there are any appropriate alternatives.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The Department will consider anticipated costs and benefits in 
developing these regulations.


Risks:


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


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           11/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
David Condon
Department of Education
Office of Postsecondary Education
400 Maryland Avenue, SW.
Washington, DC 20202
Phone: 202 502-7676
RIN: 1840-AC82
_______________________________________________________________________



ED--Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

21.  THE STATE VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION SERVICES PROGRAM 
(SECTION 610 REVIEW)
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


29 USC 711(C)


CFR Citation:


34 CFR 361


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


These regulations are needed to implement changes made by the 
Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1998, the Reading Excellence Act, and 
the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and applied Technology Education Act 
Amendments of 1998.


Statement of Need:


These regulations are necessary to implement new legislation. The 
Department is also completing its review of these regulations under 
section 610(c) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. In developing the 
regulations, the Department will seek to reduce regulatory burden and 
increase flexibility to the extent possible.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Pub. L. 105-220, enacted August 7, 1998.


Alternatives:


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


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


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


Risks:


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


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           12/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Beverlee Stafford
Director, Planning, Policy, and Evaluation Services
Department of Education
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services
Room 3014
Switzer Building
400 Maryland Ave. SW
Washington, DC 20202-2531
Phone: 202 205-8299
RIN: 1820-AB50
BILLING CODE 4000-01-F




[[Page 63925]]

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 mission is to:
 Enhance the Nation's energy security by developing and 
            deploying clean and affordable energy supplies and by 
            improving the energy efficiency of our economy;
 Ensure a safe and reliable nuclear weapons stockpile and 
            reduce the global nuclear danger;
 Clean up former nuclear weapons sites and address the complex 
            challenge of disposing of nuclear wastes; and
 Leverage science and technology to advance fundamental 
            knowledge and our country's competitiveness with stronger 
            partnership with the private sector.
The Department of Energy's 1999 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.
Energy Efficiency Program for Consumer Products and Commercial 
Equipment
During fiscal year 1999, the Department made substantial progress with 
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). In November 
1998, the Department published a supplemental advance notice of 
proposed rulemaking for clothes washers. A proposed rule for 
distribution transformer test procedures was published in November 
1998.
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 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 2000, the Department expects to publish final rules 
for clothes washer, fluorescent lamp ballast, and residential water 
heater efficiency standards, and to propose efficiency standards for 
residential central air conditioners and residential heat pumps. The 
Department expects to begin preparation of efficiency standards for 
commercial air conditioners and commercial heat pumps, furnaces and 
boilers, and commercial water heaters. Proposed rules for test 
procedures for these commercial products should be published by the 
early part of fiscal year 2000. Additional information and timetables 
for these actions are presented below. Information concerning the 
medium priority and low priority standards rulemakings and the test 
procedures rulemakings can be found in the Department's regulatory 
agenda, which appears elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.
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 of 1954 
(AEA) provide for the imposition of civil and criminal penalties for 
violations of DOE nuclear safety requirements. 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 (10CFR Part 820) were published 
as a final rule in 1993. Substantive DOE nuclear safety requirements 
were issued as 10 CFR Parts 830 and 835 (Parts 830 and 835) in 1994 and 
1993, respectively. On November 4, 1998, DOE published an amendment to 
10 CFR Part 835 to revise Part 835 based on a comprehensive evaluation 
of the Department's radiation protection program.
In August 1995, the Department published a notice of limited reopening 
of the comment period to request public comments on the remaining Part 
830 and 10 CFR Part 834 (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 and is engaged in a dialog with the Environmental 
Protection Agency concerning its comments on Part 834.
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 environment, safety and health are integrated into all 
phases of work. The Department intends to ensure that its nuclear 
safety regulations (1) are consistent with the integrated safety 
management process and (2) avoid duplication and counterproductive 
efforts. The Department expects to complete an interim final rulemaking 
to accomplish this goal on Parts 830 and 834 by January 1, 2000.
Chronic Beryllium Disease Protection Program
The AEA gives the Department the authority to prescribe regulations as 
it deems necessary to govern any activity authorized by the AEA, 
specifically including standards to protect health and minimize danger 
to life or property (42 U.S.C. 2201(i)(3) and (p)). In addition, 
section 19 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 
668) and Executive Order 12196, ``Occupational Safety and Health 
Programs for Federal Employees,'' (5 U.S.C. 7902 note), require Federal 
agencies to establish comprehensive occupational safety and health 
programs for their employees.
The Department has a long history of beryllium use because of the 
element's broad application to many nuclear operations and processes. 
Beryllium metal and ceramics are used in nuclear weapons, as nuclear 
reactor moderators or reflectors, and as nuclear reactor fuel element 
cladding. Inhalation of beryllium dust or particles may cause chronic 
beryllium disease (CBD) and beryllium sensitization. CBD is a chronic, 
often debilitating, and potentially fatal lung condition. Beryllium 
sensitization is a condition in which a person's immune system becomes 
highly responsive (allergic) to the presence of beryllium in the body.

[[Page 63926]]

Based on the number of confirmed cases of CBD and the expected future 
increase in the number of workers potentially exposed to beryllium 
during decontamination and decommissioning activities, the Department 
has concluded that there is a compelling need for a chronic beryllium 
disease prevention program rule to meet its obligation to establish and 
maintain an effective occupational safety and health program to protect 
its employees and other workers at DOE facilities.
In 1996, the Department surveyed its contractors to characterize the 
extent of beryllium usage, the types of tasks involving beryllium 
usage, the controls in place for each task, the estimated number of 
workers exposed during each task, and the estimated exposure levels 
associated with each task. To supplement the data obtained from the 
survey, the Department published a Federal Register notice on December 
30, 1996, requesting scientific data, information, and views relevant 
to a new Departmental beryllium health standard (61 FR 68725). This was 
followed by two Beryllium Public Forums held in Albuquerque, New Mexico 
and Oak Ridge, Tennessee in January 1997.
The Department established the Beryllium Rule Advisory Committee (BRAC) 
in June 1997, to advise the DOE on issues pertinent to the proposed 
rulemaking. The BRAC, which consisted of a diverse set of stakeholders 
and recognized experts from DOE, other Federal agencies, industry, 
labor, medicine, and academia, explored issues and generated 
recommendations for consideration in the development of a chronic 
beryllium disease prevention rule. As an interim measure to protect 
workers from the hazards of beryllium, the Department issued an 
administrative directive in July 1997, to establish a chronic beryllium 
disease prevention program (CBDPP) that enhances the existing worker 
protection program.
On December 3, 1998, the Department published a notice of proposed 
rulemaking (NPRM) for public comment in the Federal Register (63 FR 
66940) proposing regulations for a CBDPP, at10 CFR Part 850. This 
proposed regulation is expected to reduce the number of workers at DOE 
facilities exposed to beryllium, minimize the levels of and potential 
for exposure to beryllium, and establish medical surveillance 
requirements to ensure early detection and treatment of disease. The 
Department is now considering the comments and data from interested 
parties submitted to the beryllium docket and other information 
relevant to the development of the final CBDPP rule. The Department 
expects to complete final action on Part 850 rulemaking by December 
1999.
Polygraph Examination Program
In Presidential Decision Directive (PDD) 61, Department of Energy 
Counterintelligence Program, dated February 11, 1998, the President 
instructed DOE to develop and implement specific measures to enhance 
protection of the highly sensitive and classified information at its 
facilities, including implementation of a polygraph program.
A counterintelligence-scope polygraph examination both serves as a 
means to deter unauthorized disclosures of classified information and 
provides a means for possible early detection of disclosures to enable 
DOE to take steps promptly to prevent further harm to the national 
security. Although the Employee Polygraph Protection Act (EPPA) 
generally prohibits the use of polygraph examinations in private 
employment settings, it specifically allows for DOE, in the performance 
of its counterintelligence function, to administer polygraph 
examinations to expert, consultant or contractor employees of DOE in 
connection with atomic energy defense activities.
As an initial step toward developing and implementing a polygraph 
examination program, the Department issued an internal directive, DOE 
Notice 472.2, Use of Polygraph Examinations, that establishes a 
polygraph requirement for Federal employees who occupy or seek to 
occupy certain sensitive positions at DOE. As a second step, the 
Department issued a notice of proposed rulemaking on August 18, 1999, 
(64 FR 45062) to expand the polygraph examination program to cover all 
employees, contractors as well as Federal employees, who are in 
positions with access to the most sensitive categories of classified 
information and materials. Applicants for such positions would be 
covered as well. The Department expects to issue a final rule this 
November.
Regulatory Reform
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 has conducted training on the elements of 
plain language to its major regulatory offices. The Department's rule 
that protects whistleblowers at our facilities was rewritten in plain 
language and published on March 15, 1999 (64 FR 12861, Contractor 
Employee Protection Program, 10 CFR Part 708). The Department is also 
using plain language in drafting new rules and major revisions to 
existing rules.
_______________________________________________________________________



DOE--Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EE)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

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


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Unfunded Mandates:


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:


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

[[Page 63927]]

the second review of the standard for clothes washers.


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 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 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 Cost 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 11/14/1994 (59 FR 56423)
Supplemental ANPRM 11/18/1998 (63 FR 64343)
Workshop 12/15/1998
NPRM 12/00/1999
Final Action 07/00/2000
1904-AA75 (Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts)
ANPRM 09/28/1990 (55 FR 39624)
NPRM 03/04/1994 (59 FR 10464)
Impact Workshop 03/18/1997
Reissue NPRM 11/00/1999
Final Action 06/00/2000
1904-AA76 (Water Heaters)
ANPRM 09/28/1990 (55 FR 39624)
NPRM 03/03/1994 (59 FR 10464)
Workshop 07/23/1999
Reissue NPRM 12/00/1999
Final Action 07/00/2000
1904-AA77 (Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps)
ANPRM 09/08/1993 (58 FR 47326)
Screening Workshop 06/30/1998
Supplemental ANPRM 11/00/1999
NPRM 04/00/2000
Final Action 12/00/2000
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:
Edward Pollock
Acting Director, Office of Codes and Standards
Department of Energy
Conservation and Renewable Energy
1000 Independence Avenue SW.
Washington, DC 20585
Phone: 202 586-9127
RIN: 1904-AA67
_______________________________________________________________________



DOE--Defense and Security Affairs (DSA)

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

23.  POLYGRAPH EXAMINATION PROGRAM
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


42 USC 2201; 42 USC 7254


CFR Citation:


10 CFR 709; 10 CFR 710; 10 CFR 711


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This action would establish regulations for the use of polygraph 
examinations for certain DOE and contractor employees, applicants for 
employment, and other individuals assigned or detailed to Federal 
positions at DOE. The regulations would describe the categories of 
individuals who would be eligible for polygraph testing and controls 
for the use of such testing and for the prevention of unwarranted 
intrusion into the privacy of individuals.


Statement of Need:


The Department has broad responsibilities to direct the development, 
use, and control of atomic energy. This includes the responsibility to 
protect sensitive and classified information and materials involved in 
the design, production, and maintenance of nuclear weapons. A 
counterintelligence-scope polygraph examination program would deter 
unauthorized disclosure of classified information. It would also 
provide a means for early detection of disclosures allowing the 
Department to act promptly to prevent further harm to the national 
security.

[[Page 63928]]

Summary of Legal Basis:


The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (AEA), as amended, assigns to DOE certain 
atomic energy defense production and clean-up obligations that are 
discharged at various DOE-owned, contractor-operated installations 
around the country. Section 161 of the AEA authorizes DOE to adopt 
rules necessary to carry out those functions.


Alternatives:


The Department could continue to rely on purely subjective evaluations 
of random interviews.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


It is estimated that the polygraph examination program would cost 
approximately one million dollars annually. The use of polygraph 
testing would strengthen the Department's ability to protect against 
the disclosure of information and materials that could harm national 
defense and security.


Risks:


By acting as a deterrent, this program would reduce the risk of 
unauthorized disclosure of information that could harm national 
security.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            64 FR 45062                                    08/18/99
Final Action                                                   11/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Douglas Hinckley
Program Director
Department of Energy
Office of Counterintelligence
1000 Independence Avenue SW.
Washington, DC 20585
Phone: 202 586-5901
RIN: 1992-AA24
_______________________________________________________________________



DOE--Departmental and Others (ENDEP)

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

24. 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. 
Quality assurance requirements were issued in 1994. Additional nuclear 
safety management requirements are expected to be issued by January 1, 
2000.


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 imposition 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 nuclear 
safety requirements using notice and comment rulemaking.


Summary of 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 Cost 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            56 FR 64316                                    12/01/91
Second NPRM     60 FR 45381                                    08/31/95
Final Action                                                   01/00/00
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Richard L. Black
Director, Office of Nuclear Safety and Policy Standards
Department of Energy
1000 Independence Avenue SW.
Washington, DC 20585
Phone: 301 903-3465
RIN: 1901-AA34
_______________________________________________________________________



DOE--ENDEP
25. 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 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.

[[Page 63929]]

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 imposition 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 nuclear 
safety requirements using notice and comment rulemaking.


Summary of 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 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 Cost 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
Second NPRM     60 FR 45381                                    08/31/95
Final Action                                                   12/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Federal


Agency Contact:
Andrew Wallo III
Director, Air, Water and Radiation Division
Department of Energy
Office of Environmental Guidance
1000 Independence Avenue SW.
Washington, DC 20585
Phone: 202 586-4996
RIN: 1901-AA38
_______________________________________________________________________



DOE--ENDEP
26. 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 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 Cost 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            63 FR 66940                                    12/03/98
Final Action                                                   12/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
C. Rick Jones
Director, Office of Worker Protection Programs and Hazards Management
Department of Energy
19901 Germantown Road
Germantown, MD 20874-1290
Phone: 301 903-6061
RIN: 1901-AA75
BILLING CODE 6450-01-F




[[Page 63930]]

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES (HHS)

Statement of Regulatory and Deregulatory Priorities
The Department of Health and Human Services is the United States 
Government's principal agency for protecting the health of all 
Americans and for providing essential human services, especially for 
those who are least able to help themselves. To carry out its multiple 
responsibilities, the Department works through ten major operating 
divisions which manage over 300 programs. This spectrum of activities 
includes:
 Medicare (health insurance for elderly and disabled Americans)
 Medicaid (health insurance for low-income people)
 Medical and social science research
 Preventing outbreaks of infectious disease, including 
            immunization services
 Assuring food and drug safety
 Financial assistance for low-income families
 Child support enforcement
 Improving maternal and infant health
 Head Start (pre-school education and services)
 Preventing child abuse and domestic violence
 Substance abuse treatment and prevention
 Services for older Americans, including home-delivered meals
 Comprehensive health services delivery for American Indians 
            and Alaska Natives
HHS is the largest grant-making agency in the Federal Government, 
providing some 60,000 grants per year. The Medicare program is the 
nation's largest health insuror, handling more than 900 million claims 
per year. The Department works closely with State and local 
governments, and many HHS-funded services are provided by State- or 
local-government agencies, or through private-sector grantees. HHS 
programs, in addition to the services they deliver, provide for 
equitable treatment of beneficiaries nationwide, and they enable the 
collection of national health and other data.
For the foreseeable future, the Department's regulatory priorities, as 
reflected in the specific Plan entries that follow, involve: Continuing 
implementation of Medicare-restructuring provisions of the Balanced 
Budget Act of 1997; new measures reflecting the President's food-safety 
initiative; several undertakings to assure the safety and efficacy of 
prescription drugs, biologics and medical devices; and persisting 
efforts to assure an equitable organ-donation system in the Nation.
Underlying the Department's efforts to move forward in these areas in 
FY 2000 and beyond, there endures the policy framework instituted by 
the President's Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review. 
Under the principles set out in this Order, and in the context of the 
Administration's subsequent regulatory reform initiatives, the 
Department assures that its rulemakings emphasize performance standards 
and market incentives over prescriptive, command-and-control 
requirements; reflect the use of benefit-cost and risk assessment 
analyses, to achieve policy objectives in the most efficient manner 
possible; 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, avoiding 
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 bulk of HHS's regulatory activity emanates from programs of the 
Food and Drug Administration and the Health Care Financing 
Administration. There follow statements of regulatory priorities 
pertaining to these two HHS components, followed by their Regulatory 
Plan entries.
Food and Drug Administration
The Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) 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. The following 
illustrative examples reflect the agency's efforts to carry out this 
strategy.
On November 6, 1998, FDA published a final rule amending its 
regulations pursuant to an international agreement between the United 
States and the European Community. Under the terms of that agreement, 
the importing country authority may normally endorse good manufacturing 
practice (GMP) inspection reports for pharmaceuticals provided by the 
exporting authority determined by the importing authority to have an 
equivalent regulatory system. Likewise, the importing country authority 
may normally endorse medical device quality system evaluation reports 
and certain medical device product evaluation reports provided by 
conformity assessment bodies determined by the importing country 
authority to have equivalent assessment procedures. The Agency took 
this action to enhance its ability to ensure the safety and 
effectiveness of pharmaceuticals and medical devices through more 
efficient and effective utilization of its regulatory resources.
On December 1, 1998, FDA issued regulations establishing requirements 
for the distribution of patient labeling for selected prescription 
human drug and biological products used primarily on an outpatient 
basis. The agency is requiring the distribution of patient labeling, 
called Medication Guides, for certain products that pose a serious and 
significant public health concern requiring distribution of FDA-
approved patient medication information. The intent of this action is 
to improve public health by providing information necessary for 
patients to use their medications safely and effectively. FDA believes 
that this program will result in direct improvements in the safe and 
effective use of prescription medications.
FDA promulgated new regulations on December 2, 1998, requiring 
pediatric studies of certain new and marketed drug and biological 
products. Most drugs and biologics have not been adequately tested in 
the pediatric subpopulation. As a result, product labeling frequently 
fails to provide directions for safe and effective use in pediatric 
patients. This rule will partially address the lack of pediatric use 
information by requiring that manufacturers of certain products provide 
sufficient data and information to support directions for pediatric use 
for the claimed indications.
In a January 21, 1999 publication, the Agency proposed to permit the 
use on dietary supplements of health claims based on authoritative 
statements under the notification procedures in the Food and Drug 
Administration Modernization Act of 1997 (FDAMA). FDAMA permits 
nutrient content claims based on authoritative statements for both 
conventional foods and dietary supplements.
In another rulemaking, the Agency has proposed to require safe handling 
statements on labels of shell eggs that have not been treated to 
destroy Salmonella microorganisms (July 6, 1999). FDA has also proposed 
to require that, when held by retail establishments,

[[Page 63931]]

shell eggs be stored and displayed under refrigeration at a temperature 
of 7.2 degrees C (45 degrees F) or less. FDA is taking these actions 
because of the number of outbreaks of foodborne illnesses and deaths 
caused by Salmonella Enteritidis that are associated with the 
consumption of shell eggs that have not been treated to destroy this 
pathogen.
FDA, as directed by the Animal Drug Availability Act of 1996, has 
amended its new animal drug regulations to further define the term 
``substantial evidence'' (July 28, 1999). The purpose of this final 
rule is to encourage the submission of new animal drug applications 
(NADAs) and supplemental NADAs for single ingredient and combination 
new animal drugs. The final rule also encourages dose range labeling.
In multiple rulemakings on August 19, 1999, FDA proposed to amend the 
biologics regulations by removing, revising, or updating specific 
regulations applicable to blood and blood derivatives to be more 
consistent with current practices and to remove unnecessary or outdated 
requirements. These actions are part of FDA's ``Blood Initiative,'' in 
which FDA is reviewing and when appropriate revising its regulations, 
policies, guidances, and procedures related to blood and blood 
products, including blood derivatives.
Health Care Financing Administration
The Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) has worked, and 
continues to work diligently, to provide guidance on the many 
provisions of the Balanced Budget Act legislation. We are developing 
additional appropriate regulations to address provisions that have not 
yet been implemented in their entirety. HCFA's focus during this coming 
fiscal year is diverse, encompassing payment issues, program integrity, 
the children's health insurance program, and managed care.
Payment Issues
Ambulance Fee Schedule
The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA) requires the establishment of a 
fee schedule for ambulance services under the Medicare program. 
Policies are being developed through negotiated rulemaking. The 
negotiated rulemaking committee, representing varied public and private 
interests related to ambulance services, is scheduled to conclude in 
February 2000, after taking into account such factors as cost control, 
geographic and operational differences. We anticipate publication of 
the proposed rule as soon as practical thereafter.
Prospective Payment Systems
Home Health Agencies are currently being paid under an interim payment 
system in accordance with requirements of the BBA. As also required by 
the BBA, HCFA is in the process of developing a final rule to establish 
requirements for the new Home Health prospective payment system. The 
same legislation requires that we develop a prospective payment system 
for rehabilitation facilities, now being formulated as a proposed rule. 
We published a notice of proposed rulemaking on September 8, 1998 for a 
hospital outpatient prospective payment system, and are in the process 
of drafting a final rule that takes into consideration the comments 
that we received on the September 1998 document.
Program Integrity
Surety Bonds
In addressing BBA requirements for certain providers and suppliers to 
furnish surety bonds in order to participate in the Medicare and 
Medicaid programs, we issued several Federal Register documents. Some 
dealt with surety bond submissions for home health agencies, and a 
notice of proposed rulemaking considered requirements for suppliers of 
durable medical equipment. Based on public response, we have decided to 
propose new, less burdensome regulations, and we are developing notices 
of proposed rulemaking to address the related issues. Plans include 
finalizing these rules during the fiscal year.
Qualifications for Establishing and Maintaining Medicare Billing 
Privileges
BBA and other laws require the furnishing of information and the 
identification of individuals or entities who furnish medical services 
to beneficiaries before payment can be made. We are particularly 
interested in ensuring that those who provide services to our 
beneficiaries are qualified to do so. In addition, we are responsible 
for protecting the Trust Funds by ensuring that any duplicate or 
overpayments are recouped. Through the gathering of information, and 
the use of unique identifiers for those that furnish services for which 
Medicare payment may be made, we can better protect our beneficiaries 
and public funds. We are developing a notice of proposed rulemaking to 
address the use of an information collection instrument that would 
provide to us the necessary information before we make a determination 
of whether a provider or supplier should be granted billing privileges.
Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP)
Under this optional program, created as title XXI of the Social 
Security Act, under BBA, States may initiate and expand child health 
assistance to uninsured, low-income children. Because of the short 
timeframe between the enactment of the BBA and the effective date of 
the legislation, and our interest in ensuring that States could take 
advantage of the opportunity to better serve their vulnerable youthful 
populations, we developed guidance that permitted 54 States and 
territories to have approved CHIP plans. Thus, operation of the CHIP 
program has begun, prior to the completion of regulations, which are 
now nearing publication.
Managed Care
Medicare+Choice
We published an interim final regulation implementing the 
Medicare+Choice program on June 26, 1998, and a final rule on February 
17, 1999, addressing selected issues raised by commenters on the June 
regulation. The next final rule under development will be more 
comprehensive and will respond to all comments and implement other 
necessary changes.
Medicaid Managed Care
We published a notice of proposed rulemaking on September 29, 1998, 
addressing the BBA modifications of the Medicaid managed care programs. 
The publication proposed enhanced enrollee protections and emphasized 
the quality of health care delivered to Medicaid enrollees. The final 
rule, under development, will respond to public comments and make any 
appropriate revisions necessary to finalize the Medicaid Managed Care 
programs.
Additional Regulations
We continue to focus on the importance of updating physician payments. 
We published a final rule on November 2, 1999, addressing the updating 
of physician payments by Medicare, including a provision to change the 
method of determining malpractice insurance relative value units (RVUs) 
from the current charge-based system to a resource-based system. The 
rule continues the refinement of the practice expense RVUs that are 
transitioning from charge-based to resource-based, and addresses

[[Page 63932]]

new and revised procedure codes for the year 2000.
_______________________________________________________________________



HHS--Office of the Secretary (OS)

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

27.  STANDARDS FOR PRIVACY OF INDIVIDUALLY INDENTIFIABLE HEALTH 
INFORMATION
Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Unfunded Mandates:


State, Local or Tribal Governments


Legal Authority:


42 USC 1320d-2; 42 USC 1320d-4; PL 104-191, sec 264


CFR Citation:


45 CFR 160; 45 CFR 164


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, February 21, 2000.


Abstract:


The proposed rule would implement part of the Administrative 
Simplification requirements of Public Law 104-191 by establishing 
standards for health plans, health care clearinghouses and certain 
health care providers to protect the privacy of individually 
identifiable health information.


Statement of Need:


The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) 
(PL 104-191) requires the Department to issue final standards for the 
privacy of individually identifiable health information by February 21, 
2000. The confidentiality of such information is currently unprotected. 
The standards will establish protections applicable to medical records 
created by health care providers, hospitals, health plans and health 
care clearinghouses that are either transmitted or maintained 
electronically, and the paper printouts created from these records.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) 
(PL 104-191) directed the Department to issue several standards to 
facilitate the electronic exchange of information with respect to 
financial and administrative transactions. It also directed the 
Department to develop and submit to the Congress recommendations for 
privacy legislation. In addition, if Congress did not enact legislation 
governing privacy standards with respect to individually identifiable 
health information by August 21, 1999, HIPAA directed the Department to 
promulgate final regulations containing such standards by February 21, 
2000. This proposed rule will enable the Department to solicit public 
comment and issue final regulations in order to satisfy the statutory 
requirement.


Alternatives:


The Department is required by statute to issue final regulations by 
February 21, 2000. Therefore, no alternatives to regulatory action have 
been considered.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Estimates of the economic impact that will stem from this rule will be 
made available after all public commentary has been received and 
analyzed.


Risks:


This proposed rule provides an important opportunity for interested 
parties to comment on many complex privacy policies prior to 
implementation of a significant new set of regulatory requirements. 
Failure to publish this proposed rule would jeopardize the Department's 
ability to meet the statutory deadline.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            64 FR 59967                                    11/03/99
Final Action                                                   02/00/00
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, Organizations


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local, Tribal, Federal


Agency Contact:
Roxanne Gibson
Senior Administrative Assistant
Department of Health and Human Services
Office of the Secretary
Room G-322A, Attention: Privacy-P
200 Independence Avenue SW.
Washington, DC 20201
Phone: 202 260-5083
RIN: 0991-AB08
_______________________________________________________________________



HHS--Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

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


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


Unfunded Mandates:


State, Local or Tribal Governments


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.


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 Legal Basis:


Under 21 USC 360j(e), FDA has the authority to restrict the sale,

[[Page 63933]]

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 Cost 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
ANPRM Comment Period End                                       01/10/94
NPRM                                                           03/00/00
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
HFZ-215
Center for Devices and Radiological Health
1350 Piccard Drive
Rockville, MD 20850
Phone: 301 827-2974
RIN: 0910-AA39
_______________________________________________________________________



HHS--FDA
29. 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 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 and 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 principal 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.

[[Page 63934]]

The proposed rule attempts to establish format and content requirements 
for prescription drug labeling that incorporate information and ideas 
gathered during this process.


Summary of 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 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 Cost 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                                                           01/00/00
NPRM Comment Period End                                        04/00/00
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:
Lee D. Korb
Regulatory Counsel, Regulatory Policy Staff
Department of Health and Human Services
Food and Drug Administration
Suite 3037 (HFD-7)
Center for Drug Evaluation and Research
1451 Rockville Pike
Rockville, MD 20852
Phone: 301 594-2041
Fax: 301 827-5562

Nancy M. Ostrove
Division of Drug Marketing, Advertising, and Communications
Department of Health and Human Services
Food and Drug Administration
HFD-40
Center for Drug Evaluation and Research
5600 Fishers Lane
Rockville, MD 20857
Phone: 301 827-2828
RIN: 0910-AA94
_______________________________________________________________________



HHS--FDA
30. PHARMACY AND PHYSICIAN COMPOUNDING OF DRUG PRODUCTS
Priority:


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


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Legal Authority:


21 USC 331; 21 USC 351; 21 USC 352; 21 USC 353a; 21 USC 355; 21 USC 
360; 21 USC 371


CFR Citation:


21 CFR 216


Legal Deadline:


None

[[Page 63935]]

Abstract:


Section 503A of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 
U.S.C. 353a) describes the circumstances under which compounded drugs 
may qualify for exemption from three requirements of the act: (1) That 
a drug be manufactured according to current good manufacturing 
practice, (2) that a drug have adequate directions for use, and (3) 
that a marketing application be approved by FDA before a new drug 
product is introduced for sale (i.e., sections 501(a)(2)(B), 502(f)(1), 
and 505 of the act (21 U.S.C. 351(a)(2)(B), 352(f)(1), and 355)).


To qualify for the exemption, a pharmacist or physician must meet the 
following statutory conditions for compounding: (1) There usually must 
be a prescription for an identified individual patient before 
compounding. (2) Compounding before receiving a prescription is allowed 
only under limited circumstances. (3) Prescriptions may not be 
solicited and certain types of advertising are not permitted. (4) The 
quantity of drugs that may be shipped out of state is limited and may 
vary depending on whether the compounder is located in a state that has 
entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with FDA. (5) Drug 
products may only be compounded using a bulk drug substance (which is 
essentially the active ingredient) that is listed in the United States 
Pharmacopoeia (USP) or National Formulary (NF); or a bulk drug 
substance that is a component of an FDA-approved drug product; or a 
bulk drug substance that is listed in the regulation as one that FDA 
has found to be suitable for compounding. (6) The bulk drug substance 
must be made in a facility registered with FDA and the bulk drug 
substance must be accompanied by a certificate of analysis. (7) Limited 
quantities of copies of commercially manufactured drug products may be 
compounded in special circumstances. (8) Drug products may not be 
compounded if they are listed in a regulation as having been removed 
from the market or had their FDA-approval withdrawn because they were 
found to be not safe or not effective. (9) Drug products that are 
listed in the regulations as ``demonstrably difficult to compound'' may 
not be compounded.


The regulations will amplify and explain the statutory requirements as 
well as execute tasks Congress assigned FDA in section 503A.


This proposed rule will be one of several rulemakings implementing 
section 503A. Related regulatory initiatives are described below:


FDA has issued a final rule listing drug products that may not be 
compounded because they were found to be not safe or not effective and 
were removed from the market or had their FDA approval withdrawn.


FDA has also issued a proposed rule and is preparing a final rule 
listing drugs that are not the subject of a USP or NF monograph, and 
are not components of an FDA-approved drug product but are suitable for 
compounding.


FDA is currently preparing a proposed rule listing those drugs that are 
demonstrably difficult to compound and are not allowed to be 
compounded.


FDA has published a Federal Register notice announcing the availability 
of a draft MOU between FDA and state boards of pharmacy.


Statement of Need:


Pharmacy compounding can provide substantial benefits to the public 
health. It can give to patients, who are allergic to inactive 
ingredients found in commercially available drug products, versions of 
those drug products from which the allergenic ingredient has been 
omitted. Patients who have difficulty taking a commercially available 
drug product may obtain a compounded version of the drug product in a 
different dosage form. Pharmacy compounding can also enable physicians 
to access certain drugs that are not commercially available.


Just as compounded drugs may present significant benefits to health, 
they can also present significant risks. Compounded drugs are generally 
not evaluated by FDA for safety or effectiveness. They are not made 
according to current good manufacturing practices and have generally 
not been tested for strength, quality, or purity. Stability testing, to 
establish the useful shelf life of the products, has generally not been 
performed on compounded drug products. Compounders have made illicit 
copies of FDA-approved drug products, threatening the integrity of the 
drug approval process. FDA is attempting to maximize the public health 
benefits of pharmacy compounding, while minimizing the potential threat 
to the public health.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Section 127 of the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 
1997 (FDAMA) adds section 503A to the act. Sections 
503A(b)(1)(A)(i)(III) and (d)(2) direct FDA to publish regulations 
establishing a list of drugs that are suitable for compounding. Section 
503A(b)(1)(C) directs FDA to publish in the Federal Register a list of 
drug products that have been withdrawn or removed from the market 
because such drug products or components of such drug products have 
been found to be unsafe or not effective. Section 503A(b)(1)(D) directs 
FDA to define the term ``compound regularly or in inordinate amounts'' 
relating to compounding drug products that are essentially copies of a 
commercially available drug product. Section 503A(b)(3)(A) directs FDA 
to develop a list of drug products that may not be compounded because 
they are demonstrably difficult to compound. Efficient enforcement of 
section 503A would benefit from publication of a substantive rule that 
interprets and applies the statutory language.


Alternatives:


Section 127 of FDAMA directs FDA to develop regulations, so no 
alternatives to regulations have been considered. FDA has considered a 
wide range of options and approaches within the framework of a 
regulation. FDA has convened and consulted the Pharmacy Compounding 
Advisory Committee, which consists of representatives of the United 
States Pharmacopoeia, the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy, 
and a consumer organization, as well as members of the pharmacy and 
pharmaceutical manufacturing industries, physicians and academics.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


FDA has not yet quantified the costs and benefits of any regulatory 
approach. FDA has not been significantly involved in the regulation of 
pharmacy compounding, and does not have any economic data on the 
industry at this time. Responses to the NPRM will be important in 
determining the costs and benefits of any regulation.


Risks:


None.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           03/00/00
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes

[[Page 63936]]

Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, State


Additional Information:


See RINs 0910-AB57, 0910-AB5


Agency Contact:
Wayne H. Mitchell
Regulatory Counsel, Regulatory Policy Staff
Department of Health and Human Services
Food and Drug Administration
Suite 3057 (HFD-7)
Center for Drug Evaluation and Research
1451 Rockville Pike
Rockville, MD 20852
Phone: 301 594-2041
Fax: 301 827-5562
RIN: 0910-AB58
_______________________________________________________________________



HHS--FDA
31. CGMPS FOR BLOOD AND BLOOD COMPONENTS: NOTIFICATION OF CONSIGNEES 
AND TRANSFUSION RECIPIENTS RECEIVING BLOOD AND BLOOD COMPONENTS AT 
INCREASED RISK OF TRANSMITTING HCV INFECTION
Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


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, and 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 pose an increased risk for transmitting 
hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection because they 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 October 23, 1998 (63 FR 56198), FDA 
announced the availability of guidance, which updated previous 
guidance, providing recommendations for donor screening and further 
testing for antibodies 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 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 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 have been transfused with such blood components are 
notified so that they 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 Cost 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                                                           02/00/00
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
Suite 200N (HFM-17)
Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research
1401 Rockville Pike
Rockville, MD 20852-1448
Phone: 301 827-6210
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0910-AB76


_______________________________________________________________________


[[Page 63937]]

HHS--FDA
32.  CURRENT GOOD MANUFACTURING PRACTICE IN MANUFACTURING, 
PACKING, OR HOLDING DIETARY SUPPLEMENTS
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


21 USC 342; 21 USC 371; 21 USC 374; 42 USC 264


CFR Citation:


21 CFR 111


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced in an advance notice 
of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) of February 6, 1997, its plans to 
consider developing regulations establishing current good manufacturing 
practice (CGMP) for dietary supplements and dietary supplement 
ingredients. The ANPRM was published in order for FDA to solicit 
comments on whether it should initiate action to establish CGMP 
regulations and if so, what constitutes CGMP for these products. FDA 
announced that this effort was in response to the section of the 
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) that provides authority 
to the Secretary of Health and Human Services to promulgate CGMP 
regulations and to a submission from the dietary supplement industry 
asking that FDA consider an industry-proposed CGMP framework as a basis 
for CGMP regulations. The ANPRM also responds to concerns that such 
regulations are necessary to ensure that consumers are provided with 
dietary supplement products which are not adulterated or misbranded, 
which have the identity and provide the quantity of dietary ingredients 
declared in labeling, and which meet the quality specifications that 
the supplements are represented to meet.


Statement of Need:


FDA is considering whether to develop regulations establishing current 
good manufacturing practice (CGMP) for dietary supplements and dietary 
supplement ingredients for several reasons. First, FDA is concerned 
that some firms may not be taking appropriate steps during the 
manufacture of supplement products to ensure that products are properly 
formulated and not adulterated. There have been cases of misidentified 
ingredients harming consumers using dietary supplements. FDA is also 
aware of products or ingredients that contain potentially harmful 
contaminants or ingredients because of apparently inadequate 
manufacturing controls and quality control procedures. The agency 
believes that a system of CGMP or other preventive manufacturing 
controls may be the most effective and efficient way to ensure that 
these products will not be adulterated during the manufacturing 
process.


Summary of Legal Basis:


If CGMP regulations were adopted by FDA, failure of a manufacturer to 
implement and follow CGMP would render the dietary supplement or 
dietary supplement ingredients of that manufacturer adulterated under 
section 402(g) of the act.


Alternatives:


The two principal alternatives to comprehensive CGMP are end-product 
testing and Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points (HACCP). In the 
ANPRM, FDA asked for public comment on approaches to ensuring that 
dietary supplements and dietary supplement ingredients are not 
adulterated during the manufacturing process. The agency asked whether 
HACCP may be a more effective approach than a comprehensive CGMP, and 
whether different approaches may be better able to address the needs of 
the broad spectrum of firms that conduct one or more distinct 
operations, such as the manufacture of finished products, or solely the 
distribution and sale of finished products at the wholesale or retail 
level. FDA will consider the information it received in response to the 
ANPRM and from other sources, such as public meetings and small 
business outreach meetings, in its consideration of whether CGMP or 
other approaches are most appropriate.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


A comprehensive CGMP (or other system of ensuring the safety of dietary 
supplements and dietary supplement ingredients) would permit more 
effective and efficient oversight by Federal, State, and local 
governments. It would place primary responsibility for ensuring that 
these products are not adulterated on the manufacturer/distributor by 
requiring that they develop and implement a rational, scientific-based 
system to control their manufacturing process. FDA anticipates that 
costs to industry generated by implementing a comprehensive 
manufacturing process, whether CGMP or other plan, would be offset in 
four ways: (1) by reducing the amount of supplement-associated 
illnesses or adverse events; (2) by increasing public confidence in 
dietary supplements marketed in the United States; (3) by enabling U.S. 
supplements companies to compete more effectively in the world market; 
and (4) by decreasing the number of future product recalls.


Risks:


Any potential for consumers to be provided adulterated (contaminated 
with industrial chemicals, pesticides, microbial pathogens, or 
dangerous misidentified ingredients or toxic components of ingredients) 
products 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. Dietary supplements are used by a large segment 
of the American public. Moreover they are often used by segments of the 
population that are particularly vulnerable to adulterated products, 
such as the elderly, young children, pregnant and nursing women, and 
persons who may have serious illnesses or are taking medications that 
may adversely interact with dietary supplement components. FDA has 
adopted or proposed manufacturing controls for a number of foods and 
commodities that present potential health hazards to consumers if not 
processed properly, including seafood, juice products, and fruits and 
vegetables and it is appropriate that FDA consider whether 
manufacturing controls are necessary to assure consumers that dietary 
supplements are not adulterated during the manufacturing process.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM           62 FR 5700                                     02/06/97
ANPRM Comment Period End                                       06/06/97
NPRM                                                           09/00/00
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined

[[Page 63938]]

Agency Contact:
Karen Strauss
Consumer Safety Officer
Department of Health and Human Services
Food and Drug Administration
200 C Street, S.W. (HFS-456)
Washington, DC 20204
Phone: 202 205-5372
Fax: 202 260-8957
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0910-AB88
_______________________________________________________________________



HHS--FDA

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

33. 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 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. FDA proposed on April 24, 1998 to adopt a 
HACCP regulation for the processing of juice. The agency simultaneously 
proposed to require a warning statement 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 would serve 
to reduce the risk of food-borne illness, pending development of a 
final HACCP rule for juice. As part of the development of the HACCP 
proposal, 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 the warning statement requirement. FDA held two 
technical scientific workshops, one November 12, 1998, in Lake Alfred, 
Florida and the other November 29, 1998, in Irvine, California, to 
discuss and clarify issues related to the implementation of the 
agency's rule requiring a warning statement for certain juice products. 
The workshops addressed citrus juice production and the methods for 
measuring and validating such systems. On December 8 and 9, 1998, the 
National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods 
(NACMCF) met to consider performance criteria for fresh juice. FDA 
specifically requested the NACMCF to make recommendations about the 
efficacy of surface treatments in ensuring the safety of citrus juices.


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 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.


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 Cost 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

[[Page 63939]]

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 05/01/1998 (63 FR 24254)
PRIA Comment Period End 06/22/1998
HACCP for Juice
NPRM 04/24/1998 (63 FR 20450)
NPRM Comment Period End 08/07/1998
NPRM Comment Period Reopened 12/17/1998 (63 FR 69579)
NPRM Reopened Comment Period End 01/19/1999
Final Action 04/00/2000
Label Warning Statements for Juice
Notice of Intent 08/28/1997 (62 FR 45593)
NPRM 04/24/1998 (63 FR 20496)
NPRM Comment Period End 06/21/1998
Final Action 07/08/1998 (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:
Shellee Anderson
Consumer Safety Officer
Department of Health and Human Services
Food and Drug Administration
HFS-306
Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition
200 C Street SW.
Washington, DC 20204
Phone: 202 205-5023
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0910-AA43
_______________________________________________________________________



HHS--FDA
34. SHELL EGGS: WARNING, NOTICE AND SAFE HANDLING LABELING STATEMENTS 
AND REFRIGERATION REQUIREMENTS
Priority:


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


Legal Authority:


21 USC 321; 42 USC 264


CFR Citation:


21 CFR 101.17(g); 21 CFR 115.50; 21 CFR 16.5


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


There have been numerous foodborne outbreaks of salmonellosis, 
principally due to Salmonella Enteritidis (SE), that have been traced 
to the consumption of temperature abused and/or undercooked shell eggs. 
The Food and Drug Administration has received petitions from Rose Acres 
Farm, Inc., and the Center for Science in the Public Interest that 
request, in part, that FDA establish safe handling statements for shell 
eggs. FDA intends to propose to require safe handling statements on 
labeling of shell eggs that have not been treated to destroy Salmonella 
microorganisms that may be present. In accordance with amendments to 
the Egg Products Inspection Act, USDA published on August 27, 1998, a 
final rule to require that shell eggs be stored at an ambient 
temperature of 7.2 degrees Celsius (45 degrees Fahrenheit). However, 
the USDA rulemaking does not include refrigeration at retail. FDA 
intends to propose regulations to mandate that shell eggs be stored for 
retail sale at 7.2 degrees Celsius (45 degrees Fahrenheit) or less. FDA 
is proposing this measure to ensure that shell eggs are handled in a 
manner to decrease the possible growth of any SE that may be present in 
shell eggs. All of these actions are intended to reduce the occurrence 
of illnesses and deaths associated with the consumption of improperly 
cooked shell eggs.


Statement of Need:


FDA is adopting regulations as part of the farm-to-table food safety 
system for shell eggs that would establish refrigeration requirements 
for shell eggs held at retail and labeling requirements instructing egg 
preparers and consumers on safe handling of shell eggs. FDA intends to 
adopt these regulations because of the continued reports of outbreaks 
of foodborne illness and death caused by SE that are associated with 
the consumption of shell eggs, and because the agency believes that 
these measures can have an immediate effect in significantly reducing 
the risk of foodborne illness due to consumption of SE contaminated 
shell eggs. Further, these measures can be implemented while FDA and 
FSIS continue to develop their comprehensive farm-to-table food safety 
system.


Summary of Legal Basis:


FDA's legal basis to require refrigeration of shell eggs derives from 
sections 402(a)(4), and 701(a) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic 
Act (FDCA) (21 U.S.C.342(a)(4) and 371(a)) and sections 311, 361, and 
368 of the Public Health Service Act (PHSA) (42 U.S.C. 243, 264, and 
271) that relate to communicable disease. Under section 402(a)(4) of 
the act, a food is adulterated if it is prepared, packed, or held in 
insanitary conditions whereby it may have been contaminated with filth 
or may have been rendered injurious to health. Numerous scientific 
reports describe how refrigeration helps to maintain the egg's natural 
defenses against degradation and slows the growth of any SE present. 
Under section 701(a) of the act, FDA is authorized to issue regulations 
for the efficient enforcement of the act. Thus, a regulation that 
prohibits food from being held under insanitary conditions would 
provide for efficient enforcement. FDA's legal authority to require 
label statements on food products derives from sections 201(n), 
403(a)(1), and 701(a) of the FDCA (21 U.S.C. 321(n), 343(a)(1), and 
371(a)), and sections 311, 361, and 368 of the Public Health Service 
Act (PHSA) (42 U.S.C. 243, 264, and 271) that relate to communicable 
disease. Under section 403(a)(1) of the FDCA, a food is misbranded if 
its labeling is false or

[[Page 63940]]

misleading in any particular. Section 201(n) of the FDCA provides that 
in determining whether labeling is misleading, the agency shall take 
into account the extent to which the labeling fails to reveal facts 
that are material with respect to consequences that may result from use 
of the product under conditions of use prescribed in the labeling or 
under customary or usual conditions. The fact that shell eggs may 
contain illness causing bacteria and that there are measures that 
consumers can take to protect themselves from illness is material 
information and, therefore, must be provided in labeling to ensure that 
the product is not misbranded.


Alternatives:


There are several alternatives to requiring refrigeration and safe 
handling instructions for shell eggs. The five principal alternatives 
include: (1) No new regulatory action, (2) labeling only, (3) 
refrigeration only, (4) Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) 
for shell eggs, and (5) in-shell pasteurization. FDA had concluded, 
based on information available at this time, that relying on current 
safeguards (option 1) would not greatly reduce the number of illnesses 
from SE in shell eggs. Even though the benefits from either labeling 
alone or refrigeration alone (options 2 and 3) exceed the costs, the 
combined benefits of refrigeration and labeling are much greater than 
either taken separately. FDA believes that a HACCP-like program (option 
4) is currently not feasible. However, FDA is evaluating whether in the 
future, a HACCP-like program including possibly in-shell 
pasteurization, may be necessary to further ensure the safety of shell 
eggs. In-shell pasteurization (option 5) would greatly reduce SE, but 
FDA believes other interventions between farm-to-table could reduce SE 
at lower cost.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The benefits from requiring safe handling labeling and the 
refrigeration of shell eggs at 7.2 degrees C (45 degrees F) come from 
reducing SE-related illness. FDA used the results of the USDA SE risk 
assessment for one estimate of the baseline risk and the CDC Salmonella 
surveillance data for another estimate of the baseline. FDA also used 
the risk assessment model to estimate the expected reduction in 
illnesses attributed to the requirements. The range (5th to 95th 
percentile) of estimated annual benefits for the USDA SE risk 
assessment baseline was $87 million to $6.6 billion, with a median of 
$700 million. The range (5th to 95th percentile) of estimated annual 
benefits for the CDC surveillance baseline was $50 million to $1.7 
billion, with a median of $300 million. The benefits are large, 
although FDA estimates that 95 percent of shell eggs are already held 
at ambient temperatures of 7.2 degrees C (45 degrees F) or less. The 
costs of the proposed rule are the sum of the costs of changes in 
manufacturing practices--labeling and refrigeration--and changes in 
consumer practices--egg preparation and consumption. The costs of 
labeling are the sum of administrative compliance, inventory disposal, 
and label redesign costs. FDA anticipates that the total labeling cost 
for a 6-month compliance period to be a one-time cost of approximately 
$18 million. The total cost included administrative costs of $280,000, 
inventory disposal costs of $3 million, and label redesign costs of $15 
million. The refrigeration costs will be the cost of the additional 
equipment required for all establishments to maintain an ambient 
temperature of 7.2 degrees C (45 degrees F). The anticipated costs per 
establishment range from close to zero for small equipment upgrades to 
$6,000 for a large new refrigerator. For all establishments, the range 
(5th to 95th percentile) of anticipated one-time refrigeration costs 
was $7 million to $228 million, with a median of $31 million. FDA also 
considered as a part of the cost the change in consumer behaviors. The 
anticipated annual costs to consumers to change the way eggs are 
prepared and consumed ranged (5th to 95th percentile) from $2 million 
to $20 million, with a median of $10 million. The median total costs of 
the proposed rule--the sum of the costs of labeling, refrigeration, and 
changes in consumer practices--are about $60 million in the first year 
and $10 million per year thereafter.


Risks:


Any potential for growth of SE in shell eggs must be considered a very 
serious risk because of the possibility that such growth 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 refrigeration and labeling requirements for shell eggs based on a 
considerable body of evidence, literature, and expertise in this area. 
This decision was also based on the USDA Risk Assessment and the 
identified effects associated with refrigeration and labeling.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM           63 FR 27502                                    05/19/98
ANPRM Comment Period End                                       08/17/98
Economic Analysis for Refrigeration and Labeling of Shell Eggs
NPRM 07/06/1999 (64 FR 36492)
NPRM Comment Period End 09/20/1999 (64 FR 36492)
Final Action 04/00/2000
Refrigeration and Labeling of Shell Eggs
NPRM 07/06/1999 (64 FR 36492)
NPRM Comment Period End 09/20/1999 (64 FR 36492)
Final Action 04/00/2000
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, State


Agency Contact:
Geraldine A. June
Consumer Safety Officer
Department of Health and Human Services
Food and Drug Administration
HFS-158
Center for Food Safety and Applied
Nutrition, 200 C Street SW
Washington, DC 20204
Phone: 202 205-5099
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0910-AB30
_______________________________________________________________________



HHS--Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

35. MEDICARE PROGRAM; QUALIFICATIONS FOR ESTABLISHING AND MAINTAINING 
MEDICARE BILLING PRIVILEGES (HCFA-6002-P)
Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Legal Authority:


42 USC 1302; 42 USC 1395hh


CFR Citation:


42 CFR 424; 42 CFR 489


Legal Deadline:


None

[[Page 63941]]

Abstract:


This proposed rule would establish a requirement that all providers and 
suppliers (other than physicians who have entered into a private 
contract with a beneficiary) complete an enrollment form and submit 
specified information to us and to periodically revalidate the 
enrollment information to receive and maintain billing privileges in 
the Medicare program. The information must clearly identify the 
provider or supplier and its place of business, provide documentation 
that it is qualified to perform the services for which it is billing, 
and assure that it is not currently excluded from the Medicare program. 
If we determine the information submitted is incomplete, invalid, or 
insufficient to meet Medicare requirements, we would reject, deny, 
inactivate, or revoke billing privileges. Any deliberate concealment or 
misrepresentation of material information would subject the provider or 
supplier to liability under civil and criminal laws.


Statement of Need:


The Medicare program is currently the principal payer for health care 
for 39.2 million enrolled beneficiaries. Under section 1802 of the Act, 
a beneficiary may obtain health services from any institution, agency, 
or person qualified to participate in Medicare. Some qualifications to 
participate are specified in statute, such as in sections 1819, 1834, 
1861, 1866, and 1891 of the Act. Many more are in our regulations, 
especially at 42 CFR subchapter E, which concerns standards and 
certification requirements.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Because we are intending to use the form HCFA 855 as the principal 
information collection instrument, we provide the following information 
about the data request on the forms. In addition to the legal authority 
cited, the following additional cites grant us the authority to collect 
the information required to complete the form HCFA 855:


Section 1814(a) of the Act states that payment for services furnished 
to an individual may only be made to providers and only if a written 
request is filled in such a form and manner as the Secretary may 
prescribe.


Sections 1815 and 1833(e) of the Act authorize the Secretary to 
withhold Medicare payments until the provider or supplier furnishes 
such information as may be necessary to determine amounts due.


Section 1866(a)(1) of the Act establishes provider agreement 
requirements, including a requirement not to charge the beneficiary if 
the provider would have been entitled to Medicare payment had the 
provider compiled with procedural requirements.


Alternatives:


If this rule is not published, we would weaken our authority to prevent 
fraudulent or abusive providers and suppliers from billing the Medicare 
program.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


This is an administrative initiative that may result in Medicare 
program saving but at this time those savings are inestimable. We 
believe the probable costs providers or suppliers would incur as a 
result of this rule would be negligible.


Risks:


This rule will potentially improve the information and documentation 
collection used to determine if a provider or supplier should be 
granted billing privileges. This rule will promote compliance with 
Medicare requirements, and also prevent abuse of the Medicare program 
and inappropriate uses of Medicare funds by ensuring that payment is 
made only for services furnished by qualified individuals or entities 
by requiring that the providers and suppliers of those services prove 
their qualifications and identity. If the provider or supplier failed 
to meet the requirements or submit the required information, we would 
not enroll them in the Medicare program or we would remove them if they 
were currently in the program.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           02/00/00
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Additional Information:


Formerly known as HCFA-1023-


Agency Contact:
Michael Collett
CHPP
Department of Health and Human Services
Health Care Financing Administration
7500 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21244
Phone: 410 786-6121
RIN: 0938-AH73
_______________________________________________________________________



HHS--HCFA
36. PROSPECTIVE FEE SCHEDULE FOR AMBULANCE SERVICES (HCFA-1002-NR)
Priority:


Other Significant


Unfunded Mandates:


Private Sector


Legal Authority:


PL 105-33, sec 4531(b)


CFR Citation:


42 CFR 410


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, January 1, 2000.


Abstract:


The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 requires that the Secretary establish a 
fee schedule for ambulance services through negotiated rulemaking. The 
fee schedule is to be effective beginning with services furnished on or 
after January 1, 2000. In addition to setting the payment rates, the 
Secretary is to ensure that the aggregate amount of payment made for 
ambulance services in 2000 may not exceed the amount of payment that 
would have been made absent the fee schedule. This is a cap on payment, 
not a budget neutrality adjustment. The Secretary is to consult with 
national organizations representing individuals and entities that 
furnish and regulate ambulance services and share relevant data with 
these organizations. This provision will be met through the negotiated 
rulemaking process.


Statement of Need:


The establishment of this fee schedule is required by section 4531 of 
the BBA. In so doing through the negotiated rulemaking process, a 
fairer payment system will be implemented that is consistent with the 
services furnished and that takes into account the variations caused by 
regional and operational differences among ambulance companies.

[[Page 63942]]

Summary of Legal Basis:


Section 4531 of the BBA requires the establishment of this fee 
schedule.


Alternatives:


Because section 4531 of the BBA requires the establishment of this fee 
schedule, no alternatives to this regulation exist.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


There is an anticipated savings of $65 million that will be attributed 
to the savings that would have occurred if the HCFA proposed regulation 
published on June 17, 1997 at 62 FR 32715 had been implemented in 
final. This savings derived from the proposal to pay for ambulance 
services furnished, rather than paying for the more expensive advanced 
life support (ALS) level of service solely because an ALS vehicle was 
used even if no ALS service was furnished.


Benefits include establishing a fee schedule that will be commensurate 
with the services furnished, and that will take into account the 
regional and operational variations in providing ambulance services. 
The current reasonable charge/reasonable cost systems do not result in 
a fair geographic variation in payment allowances, since some areas 
receive 2 to 3 times the payment of other areas for the same services.


Risks:


Failing to implement the Medicare ambulance fee schedule would 
perpetuate an inequitable payment system that sometimes overpays and 
other times underpays for this critical aspect of medical care. The 
current system also has unintentional incentives to provide inefficient 
ambulance services in some areas, and inadequate ambulance services in 
areas of low population.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Notice of Intent64 FR 3474ate                                  01/22/99
NPRM                                                           05/00/00
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Agency Contact:
Nancy Edwards
Center for Health Plans and Providers
Department of Health and Human Services
Health Care Financing Administration
C5-06-27
7500 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21244-1850
Phone: 410 786-4531
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0938-AI72
_______________________________________________________________________



HHS--HCFA
37.  MEDICARE PROGRAM: PROSPECTIVE PAYMENT SYSTEM FOR INPATIENT 
REHABILITATION HOSPITAL SERVICES (HCFA-1069-P)
Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


PL 105-33, sec 4421


CFR Citation:


None


Legal Deadline:


NPRM, Statutory, October 1, 2000.


Abstract:


This proposed rule will estalish requirements for the new prospective 
payment system for rehabilitation facilities as mandated by section 
4421 of the BBA.


Statement of Need:


The BBA significantly changed the way we will pay for Medicare covered 
services furnished to a Medicare inpatient in a rehabilitation 
facility. The BBA requires payments to be based on the inpatient 
operating and capital costs of rehabilitation facilities and adjusted 
for: (1) Case mix using patient classification groups; (2) Area wages; 
(3) Inflation; (4) Outlier and special payments; and (5) Other factors 
necessary to reflect variations in costs of treatment. Total payments 
made under the system to rehabilitation facilities during fiscal years 
2001 and 2002 are required to be equal to 98 percent of estimated 
payments that would have been made under the current TEFRA payment 
system. Outlier payments in a fiscal year may not exceed 5 percent of 
the total projected payments for the fiscal year.


The BBA gives us considerable discretion in designing the prospective 
payment system. Payment rates are required to be based on payment units 
which may be defined as a discharge, a day of inpatient services, or 
another unit of payment defined by the Secretary. The case mix 
classification groups may be based on such factors as the Secretary 
deems appropriate such as impairment, age, related prior 
hospitalization, co-morbidities, and functional capability of the 
patient.


The BBA mandates implementation of the prospective payment system on 
October 1, 2000. We thus plan on publishing a Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (NPRM) in February 2000. We are currently funding research 
on various aspects of the prospective payment system that will be 
thoroughly discussed in the NPRM.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Section 4421 of the BBA mandates the phase-in of a case mix prospective 
payment system for inpatient rehabilitation facilities (freestanding 
and units) for cost reporting periods beginning on or after October 1, 
2000, with full implementation by October 1, 2002.


Alternatives:


None.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Based on the results of implementation of other Medicare prospective 
payment systems, HCFA believes that the implementation of a prospective 
payment system, as the method to pay for the services furnished to 
Medicare beneficiaries who are inpatients in rehabilitation facilities, 
will yield significant savings to the Medicare program. However, we 
have not completed our analysis so we can't be more specific about the 
expected costs and benefits.


Risks:


Altering the method that we pay rehabilitation facilities for the 
services they furnish to Medicare inpatients has the potential to 
affect a beneficiary's access to care and the quality of care furnished 
to a beneficiary. Therefore, we will be implementing methods to monitor 
the effect of the prospective payment system on these two associated 
patient care concerns.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           02/00/00
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No

[[Page 63943]]

Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Organizations


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Laurence Wilson
Center for Health Plans and Providers
Department of Health and Human Services
Health Care Financing Administration
C4-7-04
7500 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21244-1850
Phone: 410 786-4603
RIN: 0938-AJ55
_______________________________________________________________________



HHS--HCFA
38.  DME SURETY BONDS (HCFA-6006-P)
Priority:


Economically Significant


Unfunded Mandates:


Private Sector


Legal Authority:


PL 105-33, sec 4312(a)


CFR Citation:


42 CFR 424.57


Legal Deadline:


NPRM, Statutory, January 1, 1998.


Abstract:


This proposed rule would implement the provision of the Balanced Budget 
Act of 1997 that requires a Medicare supplier of durable medical 
equipment (DME) to furnish HCFA with a surety bond.


Statement of Need:


Section 4312(a) of the BBA `97 requires all suppliers of DME to obtain 
a surety bond for a minimum of $50,000. Drawing on our experience with 
the surety bond requirement for home health agencies, we have made 
extensive changes to an initial proposal published in the Federal 
Register in January 1998. Because of these changes, we decided to 
reissue this requirement as another notice of proposed rulemaking in 
order to give the public opportunity to comment.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Section 4312(1) of the BBA '97 amended section 1834(a) of the Social 
Security Act by adding a new paragraph (16). This new paragraph 
requires a DME supplier to provide the Secretary, on a continuing 
basis, with a surety bond of at least $50,000, as a condition of being 
issued or renewing a provider number. Section 1834(a)(16), as amended 
by section 4312(c) of the BBA '97, further provides that the Secretary 
may, at the Secretary's discretion, impose a surety bond on some or all 
providers or suppliers who furnish items or services under Medicare 
Part B other than physicians or other practitioners.


We are adding to the current supplier standards set forth at 42 CFR 
424.57 a stipulation that for every tax identification number for which 
a supplier billing number is issued, a DME supplier must obtain a 
surety bond. The surety bond must be in a form specified by the 
Secretary and in an amount of $50,000.


Alternatives:


If this rule is not published, we would not implement a provision of 
the BBA `97 related to surety bonds.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


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


Risks:


This rule will potentially improve HCFA's ability to protect the 
Medicare Part B Trust Fund from losses resulting from unrecovered 
Medicare debts by durable medical equipment (DME) suppliers. Failure to 
publish this rule would deprive HCFA of a valuable tool in screening 
applications from potential DME suppliers.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           03/00/00
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Agency Contact:
Charles Waldhauser
Division of Provider/Supplier Enrollment
Department of Health and Human Services
Health Care Financing Administration
7500 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21244-1850
Phone: 410 786-6140
RIN: 0938-AJ64
_______________________________________________________________________



HHS--HCFA
39.  HHA SURETY BOND (HCFA-6001-P)
Priority:


Economically Significant


Unfunded Mandates:


Private Sector


Legal Authority:


PL 105-33, sec 431ff; PL 105-33, sec 4724ff; PL 105-33, sec 1861(o)(8); 
PL 105-33, sec 1861(v)(1); PL 105-33, sec 1866(b)(2); PL 105-33, sec 
1891(b); PL 105-33, sec 1902(a)(10)(D); PL 105-33, sec 1903(I); PL 105-
33, sec 1905(a)(7)


CFR Citation:


42 CFR parts 413, 440, 441, 489


Legal Deadline:


NPRM, Statutory, June 15, 2000.


Abstract:


This proposed rule would amend our regulations to require an HHA surety 
bond of $50,000. We would remove the 15 percent provision based on 
concerns expressed by the Congress, the home health industry, surety 
association representatives, and comments published in a report by the 
General Accounting Office. This rule would require that HHAs obtain a 
surety bond by October 1, 2000. Although the bond must be effective 
January 1, 1998, we are proposing not to hold sureties liable for 
excessive interim payments attributable to the implementation of the 
interim payment systems made between October 1, 1997 and September 30, 
2000. Other suggestions recommended by GAO were to require a single 
$50,000 bond for both the Medicare and Medicaid programs and provide an 
exemption of those HHAs that demonstrate fiscal responsibility. 
However, these recommendations require Congressional action. The final 
recommendation was to eliminate the HHA's option for substituting a 
Treasury note, U.S. bond, or other Federal public debt obligation for a 
surety bond. We generally agree with these recommendations except for 
the elimination of substituting a Treasury note, etc., for a surety 
bond.


Statement of Need:


Home Health Care (skilled nursing, therapy, and related services 
provided to homebound beneficiaries) has been one of Medicare's fastest 
growing benefits in recent years. Between 1990 and 1997, spending 
increased from $3.7 billion to $17.8 billion, an average annual income 
increase of 26 percent.

[[Page 63944]]

 This growth occurred because more beneficiaries used the services and 
more users received more home health care visits. Concurrent with the 
rise in spending was an increase in the number of home health agencies 
(HHA), which almost doubled from 1989 to 1997. Changes in practice 
patterns and the need for home health care have contributed to the 
greater use of this benefit, but inappropriate use and billing 
practices have added to Medicare's HHA spending as well. Concern about 
growth in spending, fraud and abuse, and inadequate oversight led the 
Congress and the Administration to implement a number of initiatives to 
better control Medicare's home health care costs. By implementing the 
BBA provisions, the Congress strengthened HCFA's ability to keep 
potentially problematic providers out of the Medicare program by 
codifying a $50,000 surety bond requirement and establishing other 
participation requirements. HCFA's use of a financial guarantee bond 
for the return of overpayments regardless of their source will ensure 
more scrutiny and benefits to the Medicare and Medicaid programs.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The BBA `97 requires each home health agency to secure a surety bond in 
order to participate in the Medicare and Medicaid programs. This 
requirement applies to all participating Medicare and Medicaid HHAs, 
regardless of the date participation began.


Alternatives:


If this rule is not published, we would not implement a provision of 
the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 related to fraud and abuse initiatives.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The savings to Medicare and Medicaid that could result from this rule 
would be from any uncollected overpayments that could be collected from 
the surety companies responsible for the bond. The other benefit of the 
surety bond requirement is that it provides a deterrent to fraud and 
abuse. It is unclear how many HHAs would be affected but the impact is 
expected to be small. We believe that it is impossible to estimate the 
savings due to this regulation.


Risks:


Failure to publish this rule could jeopardize the trust funds for 
failure to collect overpayments under the Medicare and Medicaid 
programs.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

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


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Organizations


Government Levels Affected:


None


Additional Information:


RIN 0938-AJ08 in the October 1998 Unified Agenda provides information 
about rulemaking actions taken and withdrawn in 1998 concerning surety 
bond requirements for home health agencies.


Agency Contact:
Ralph Goldberg
Center for Health Plans and Providers
Department of Health and Human Services
Health Care Financing Administration
7500 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21244
Phone: 410 786-4870
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0938-AJ81
_______________________________________________________________________



HHS--HCFA

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

40. NATIONAL STANDARD HEALTH CARE PROVIDER IDENTIFIER (HCFA-0045-F)
Priority:


Other Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


42 USC 1320d-2


CFR Citation:


45 CFR 142


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, February 21, 1998.


Abstract:


This rule addresses the health care industry's need for a standardized 
provider identifier. It implements one of the requirements for 
administrative simplification in section 262 of the Health Insurance 
Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. A standard provider 
identifier will save the health insurance industry significant costs 
incurred in maintaining multiple identifier systems.


Statement of Need:


The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996(HIPAA) 
(P.L. 104-191) creates a new part C, entitled ``Administrative 
Simplification,'' to title XI of the Social Security Act. One of the 
standards for health identifiers that is mandated by part C is a 
standard unique health care provider identifier, to be used in the 
health care system. This final regulation announces the adoption of the 
National Provider Identifier (NPI) as the standard unique health care 
provider identifier. It also provides information on how health care 
providers will be assigned NPIs and defines the requirements of health 
plans, health care providers, and health care clearinghouses with 
respect to obtaining and using this standard. Implementation of the NPI 
and the other Administrative Simplification standards will increase the 
efficiency of the processing of standard transactions within the health 
care system.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Currently, health plans assign identification numbers to their member 
health care providers. Different health plans assign different numbers 
to the same health care providers. The identifiers are frequently not 
standard within a health plan or across health plans. This results in 
health care providers having different identification numbers for 
different health programs, often having multiple billing numbers issued 
within a single health program. This complicates the health care 
providers' claims submissions and other transactions and increases the 
costs incurred by health care providers in conducting those 
transactions.


The Administrative Simplification provisions of HIPAA were designed to 
improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the health care system by 
encouraging the development of a health information system through the 
establishment of the standard unique health care provider identifier 
and other standards and requirements to facilitate the electronic 
transmission of certain health information.


Alternatives:


This final regulation announces the NPI as the standard unique health 
care provider identifier. The NPI is a 10-position all numeric 
identifier, with a check-digit in the tenth position. There is no 
intelligence in the number. This

[[Page 63945]]

design and our assignment strategy will allow more than 200 million 
NPIs to be issued. The NPI meets the principles established by the 
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for designation as a 
national standard. This final regulation defines ``health care 
provider'' in terms of the entities that will receive NPIs.


Health care providers will be enumerated by a Federally-directed 
registry (the enumeration contractor). The enumeration contractor will 
use the National Provider System (NPS) to uniquely identify a health 
care provider and issue it an NPI. The NPS will be developed by HCFA. 
Health care providers must supply updates to their NPS data to the 
enumeration contractor within 30 days of the effective dates of the 
changes.


The NPS will establish the National Provider File (NPF), which will 
contain information collected from health care providers in order to 
assign them NPIs. The NPS will assign a single, unique NPI to a health 
care provider. Upon the dissolution of an organization health care 
provider or the death of a individual health care provider, the NPS 
will deactivate the NPI that had been issued to that health care 
provider and will not assign a deactivated NPI to any other health care 
provider. The NPS will disseminate information from the NPF to users in 
accordance with the Privacy Act and the NPS System of Records.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Our analysis of the costs and savings of the HIPAA Administrative 
Simplification standards is an aggregate impact of all the standards. 
Assessing the impact of each standard independently would inflate the 
costs and would yield inaccurate results. While each individual 
standard is beneficial, the standards as a whole have a synergistic 
effect on savings. A difficulty in this analysis was the fact that we 
have no historical experience in assessing the costs and benefits of 
such a sweeping change. The costs of implementing the standards 
specified in HIPAA are primarily one-time or short-term costs related 
to conversion. These costs will be incurred during the first 3 years of 
implementation. Benefits will accrue almost immediately, but will not 
exceed costs for health care providers until after the third year of 
implementation. After the third year, the benefits will continue to 
accrue into the fourth year and beyond. The impact analysis for the 
costs and benefits associated with all the Administrative 
Simplification standards indicates that the combined net savings for 
health plans and health care providers would amount to $1.5 billion 
dollars after 5 years.


Risks:


This rule will formally establish the standard for the unique health 
care provider identifier and will communicate the requirements for 
health plans, health care providers, and health care clearinghouses in 
implementing this standard.


Failure to publish this rule would jeopardize the benefits of 
administrative simplification. Payers would continue to maintain their 
own system of enumerating providers, and providers would need to 
maintain systems to store the different identifiers. Additional costs 
would thus be incurred.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            63 FR 25320                                    05/07/98
NPRM Comment Period End                                        07/06/98
Final Action                                                   03/00/00
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


Additional Information:


HCFA-0045-


Agency Contact:
Patricia Peyton
Office of Information Services
Department of Health and Human Services
Health Care Financing Administration
7500 Security Boulevard
N3-20-05
Baltimore, MD 21224-1850
Phone: 410 786-1812
RIN: 0938-AH99
_______________________________________________________________________



HHS--HCFA
41. MEDICARE PROGRAM; MEDICARE+CHOICE PROGRAM (HCFA-1030-2-F)
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


PL 105-33, section 400; 42 USC 1395w-21 to 1395w-27


CFR Citation:


42 CFR 422


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This final rule responds to comments on the June 26, 1998 interim final 
rule that implemented the Medicare+Choice (M+C) program and makes 
revisions to those regulations where warranted.


Statement of Need:


Section 4001 of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA) (Public Law 105-
33), enacted August 5, 1997, added sections 1851 through 1859 to the 
Social Security Act (the Act) to establish a new Part C of the Medicare 
program, known as the ``Medicare+Choice (M+C) Program.'' Under section 
1851(a)(1) of the Act, every individual entitled to Medicare Part A and 
enrolled under Part B, except for individuals with end-stage renal 
disease, may elect to receive benefits through either the existing 
Medicare fee-for-service program or Part C M+C plan, if one is 
available where he or she lives. The M+C statute authorizes a variety 
of private health plan options for beneficiaries, including both the 
traditional managed care (such as those offered by health maintenance 
organizations (HMOs)) that traditionally have been offered under 
section 1876 of the Act, and new options that were not previously 
authorized. Among the alternatives authorized by the BBA are M+C 
coordinated care plans (including plans offered by health maintenance 
organizations, preferred provider organizations, and provider-sponsored 
organizations), M+C ``MSA'' plans, that is, a combination of a high 
deductible M+C health insurance plan and a contribution to an M+C 
medical savings account (MSA), and M+C private fee-for-service plans.


The M+C program also introduced several other fundamental changes to 
the managed care component of the Medicare program. These changes 
include:


Establishment of an expanded array of quality assurance standards and 
other consumer protection requirements;


Introduction of an annual coordinated enrollment period, in conjunction 
with the distribution by HCFA of uniform, comprehensive information 
about M+C plans that is needed to promote informed choices of 
beneficiaries;


Revisions in the way we calculate payment rates to M+C organizations

[[Page 63946]]

that will narrow the range of payment variation across the country and 
increase incentives for organizations to offer M+C plans in diverse 
geographic areas; and


Establishment of requirements concerning provider participation 
procedures.


As directed by the BBA, we published an interim final rule on June 26, 
1998 to implement the M+C program. On February 17, 1999, we published a 
limited final rule that set forth selected changes to the interim final 
regulations.


This more comprehensive final rule is necessary to respond to all 
comments on the interim final rule and implement other necessary 
changes. Issues discussed in this rule include eligibility, election, 
and enrollment policies; marketing requirements; access requirements; 
service area and benefit policy; quality improvement standards; payment 
rates, risk adjustment methodology and encounter data submission; 
provider participation rules; beneficiary appeals and grievances; 
contractual requirements; and preemption of State law by Federal law.


This final rule also addresses comments on the M+C user fee interim 
final rule published on December 2, 1997 and on the provider-sponsored 
organization (PSO) interim final rule published April 1, 1998.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Sections 1851 through 1859 of the Social Security Act and the 
implementing regulations at 42 CFR 422 set forth a series of 
requirements for organizations that participate in the M+C program. The 
specific areas addressed by the different sections of the statute are 
as follows:


Section 1851--Eligibility, election and enrollment


Section 1852--Benefits and beneficiary protections


Section 1853--Payment to M+C organizations


Section 1854--Premiums


Section 1855--Organizational and financial requirements for M+C 
organizations


Section 1856--Establishment of standards


Section 1857--Contracts with M+C organizations


Section 1859--Definitions and miscellaneous provisions


Part 422 establishes regulatory requirements based on these statutory 
provisions.


Alternatives:


Section 1856(b)(1) of the Act provided that in order to carry out the 
requirement to establish M+C standards by regulation, the Secretary was 
authorized to promulgate regulations that take effect on an interim 
basis, after notice and pending opportunity for public comment. 
Inherent to this provision is the Department's commitment to subsequent 
publication of a final rule that responds to those public comments. 
Thus, we believe we have no alternative other than to publish a 
comprehensive final rule concerning the M+C program standards.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


We do not anticipate that this final rule will implement any changes in 
the M+C program that will have a significant economic impact on M+C 
organizations or the general public. Where possible without negative 
effects on the care provided to M+C enrollees, we intend to make minor 
changes in the M+C regulations that would reduce the administrative 
burden on M+C organizations.


Risks:


Given that the payment rates for M+C organizations are set by the 
statute, and that we do not intend to impose any burdensome new 
requirements on M+C organizations, we do not believe that this final 
rule poses any risks of financial harm to M+C organizations of causing 
pull-outs from the M+C program that could negatively affect Medicare 
beneficiaries.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            63 FR 34968                                    06/26/98
NPRM Comment Period End                                        09/24/98
Limited Final Ru64 FR 7968                                     02/17/99
Final Rule                                                     02/00/00
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Tony Culotta
Department of Health and Human Services
Health Care Financing Administration
Department of Health and Human Services
Health Care Financing Administration
7500 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21244
Phone: 410 786-4661
RIN: 0938-AI29
_______________________________________________________________________



HHS--HCFA
42. MEDICARE PROGRAM; PROSPECTIVE PAYMENT SYSTEM FOR HOSPITAL 
OUTPATIENT SERVICES (HCFA-1005-F)
Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Unfunded Mandates:


Private Sector


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.


In the proposed rule published on September 8, 1998, HCFA indicated 
that, although the statutory effective date for the outpatient 
prospective payment system is January 1, 1999, implementation of the 
system would be delayed because of year 2000 systems concerns. Demands 
on intermediary bill-processing systems and HCFA internal systems to 
become compliant for the year 2000 precluded making the major systems 
changes that are required to implement the prospective payment system.

[[Page 63947]]

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 
rule would establish in regulations the requirements for designating 
certain entities as provider-based or as a department of a hospital.


Statement of Need:


As the Medicare statute was originally enacted, Medicare payment for 
hospital services (inpatient and outpatient) was based on hospital-
specific reasonable costs attributable to serving Medicare 
beneficiaries. The law was later amended to limit payment to the lesser 
of a hospital's 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 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 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 determine 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 outpatients 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 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 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 prospective fee 
schedules, and for

[[Page 63948]]

chronic dialysis using the composite rate.


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 Cost 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 over time to beneficiaries from high coinsurance 
payments under the current system. Finally, the rules governing 
provider-based status will alleviate an important area of program 
abuse.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            63 FR 47551                                    09/08/98
Correction Notic64 FR 35258                                    06/30/99
NPRM Comment Period End                                        07/30/99
Final Action                                                   02/00/00
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


Additional Information:


The April 1999 Unified Agenda erroneously reported this RIN as a 
completed action.


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



HHS--HCFA
43. SECURITY AND ELECTRONIC SIGNATURE STANDARDS (HCFA-0049-F)
Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


PL 104-191; 42 USC 1320d-2


CFR Citation:


45 CFR 162


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, February 21, 1998.


Abstract:


This rule implements some of the requirements of the Administrative 
Simplification subtitle of the Health Insurance Portability and 
Accountability Act of 1996. It establishes standards for the security 
of health information and electronic signature use by health plans, 
health care clearing houses, and health care providers. These entities 
would use the security standard to develop and maintain the security of 
all electronic health information pertaining to an individual. The 
electronic signature standard is applicable only with respect to use 
with the specific transactions defined in the Health Insurance 
Portability and Accountability Act of 1996.


Statement of Need:


The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 
requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to adopt security 
standards that require reasonable and appropriate administrative, 
technical and physical safeguards to (1) ensure the integrity and 
confidentiality of health information, (2) protect against any 
reasonably anticipated threats or hazards to the security or integrity 
of the information and protect against unauthorized uses or disclosures 
of the information.. Further, the Secretary, in coordination with the 
Secretary of Commerce, is to adopt standards specifying procedures for 
the electronic transmission and authentication of signatures with 
respect to certain transactions specified in HIPAA. This rule 
stipulates the requirements necessary to comply with the law.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The Administrative Simplification provisions of HIPAA require the 
Secretary to establish standards for the security of health information 
and electronic signature use by health plans, health care clearing 
houses, and health care providers.


Alternatives:


In the absence of federal regulations, the security of health care 
information in electronic form would be left to the private sector to 
develop. It is believed that this course of action would result in an 
extremely uneven level of protection (ranging from none to excessive) 
for electronic health information pertaining to individuals and make it 
difficult, if not impossible, to provide for privacy of this 
information.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


As the effect of any one of the HIPAA standards is affected by the 
implementation of other standards, it is misleading to discuss the 
impact of one standard by itself. Therefore, an Impact Analysis on the 
total effect of all the standards was published in the proposed rule 
concerning the national provider identifier (HCFA-0045-P) which was 
published on May 7, 1998 (63 FR 25320). Security protection for health 
care information is not a ``stand alone'' type requirement. Appropriate 
security protections will be a business enabler, encouraging the growth 
and use of electronic data interchange. The synergistic effect of the 
employment of the recommended security practices, procedures and 
technologies will enhance all aspects of HIPAA's Administrative 
Simplification requirements.


Risks:


The storage, handling and transmission of health information has long 
been a paper process. However, the transition from paper to electronic 
media has begun and is increasing at a rapid pace. This transition has 
brought on a significantly increased risk to the security and 
confidentiality of health information, particularly for information 
pertaining to individuals. This rule formally establishes a baseline 
set of requirements for security that must be adopted by health care 
providers, health plans and health care clearinghouses. Compliance with 
these requirements will greatly decrease risk to the security, 
integrity and confidentiality of health information pertaining to 
individuals.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            63 FR 43242                                    08/12/98
Final Action                                                   05/00/00

[[Page 63949]]

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local, Tribal, Federal


Agency Contact:
Barbara Clark
Office of Information Services
Department of Health and Human Services
Health Care Financing Administration
N2-14-10
7500 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21244-1850
Phone: 410 786-3017
RIN: 0938-AI57
_______________________________________________________________________



HHS--HCFA
44. HEALTH INSURANCE REFORM: STANDARDS FOR ELECTRONIC TRANSACTIONS 
(HCFA-0149-F)
Priority:


Other Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


42 USC 1320d-2


CFR Citation:


45 CFR 162


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, February 21, 1998.


Abstract:


The rule puts in place code-set standards and standards for eight 
electronic transactions to be used by health plans, certain health care 
providers, and health care clearing houses. It would implement 
requirements for administrative simplification in section 262 of the 
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. The 
standards will significantly reduce costs for processing health care 
transactions.


Statement of Need:


The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, 
subtitle F of title II added to title XI of the Social Security Act a 
new part C, entitled ``Administrative Simplification.'' The purpose of 
this part is to improve the Medicare program under title XVIII of the 
Social Security Act and the Medicaid program under title XIX of the 
Act, and the efficiency and effectiveness of the health care system, by 
encouraging the development of a health information system through the 
establishment of standards and requirements for the electronic 
transmission of certain health information. This regulation implements 
the requirements for standard transactions and code sets.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Part C of title XI consists of sections 1171 through 1179 of the Act. 
These sections define various terms and impose several requirements on 
HHS, health plans, health care clearinghouses, and certain health care 
providers.


As established by Part C of title XI, section 1173 of the Act requires 
the Secretary to adopt standards for financial and administrative 
transactions, and data elements for those transactions, to enable 
health information to be exchanged electronically. Section 1173 of the 
Act requires the Secretary to establish standards for code sets for 
each data element for each health care transaction. The Secretary must 
also ensure that procedures exist for the routine maintenance, testing, 
enhancement and expansion of code sets. In order to codify this 
authority, we have proposed implementing regulations at 45 CFR 162.


Alternatives:


Alternatives to naming standards would be to leave the marketplace to 
determine the standards. Up to now, this has not been successful. There 
has been a steady increase in use of electronic data interchange in the 
health care market since 1993, and it is predicted there will be 
continued growth, even without national standards. However, the upward 
trend in electronic health care transactions will be enhanced by having 
national standards in place. Because national standards are not in 
place today, there continues to be a proliferation of proprietary 
formats in the health care industry. Proprietary formats are those that 
are unique to an individual business. Due to proprietary formats, 
business partners that wish to exchange information electronically must 
agree on which formats to use. Since most health care providers do 
business with a number of plans, they must produce electronic 
transactions in many different formats.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The economic impact that will stem from this rule will result in an 
estimated net savings to health plans and health care providers of $1.5 
billion during the first five years; use of the standards would 
continue to save the industry money.


Risks:


This regulation will standardize a set of administrative transactions 
in the health care industry. Not publishing this rule would see the 
continuing of the myriad of formats of these transactions and eliminate 
the anticipated $1.5 billion in savings due to simplification efforts.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            63 FR 25277                                    05/07/98
NPRM Comment Period End                                        07/06/98
Final Action                                                   01/00/00
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Joy Glass
Office of Information Systems
Department of Health and Human Services
Health Care Financing Administration
N2-14-26
7500 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21244-1850
Phone: 410 786-6125
RIN: 0938-AI58
_______________________________________________________________________



HHS--HCFA
45. NATIONAL STANDARD EMPLOYER IDENTIFIER (HCFA-0047-F)
Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


PL 104-191; 42 USC 1320d-2


CFR Citation:


45 CFR 162


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, February 21, 1998.


Abstract:


This rule institutes the employer identification number (EIN) as the 
standard for identifying employers for

[[Page 63950]]

purposes of administrative simplification, as required by the Health 
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA). Use of 
one standard in the health care industry will reduce the cost of 
identifying employers in electronic health care transactions.


Statement of Need:


The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (P.L. 
104-191) includes Subtitle F--Administrative Simplification, whose 
purpose is to improve the Medicare and Medicaid programs under the 
Social Security Act, and the efficiency and effectiveness of the health 
care system, by the establishment of standards and requirements for the 
electronic transmission of certain health information. This regulation 
establishes the standard for a unique employer identifier, as required 
by the Administrative Simplification provisions of P.L. 104-191.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The Administrative Simplification provisions of HIPAA require the 
Secretary of HHS to adopt a standard unique health identifier for each 
employer for use in the health care system and to specify the purposes 
for which a unique health identifier may be used.


Alternatives:


HHS examined several existing identifiers that might be adopted for the 
standard. In keeping with the requirements of HIPAA, because no 
standard setting organization had developed, adopted, or modified a 
standard for an employer identifier, HHS consulted with the National 
Uniform Billing Committee, the National Uniform Claim Committee, the 
Workgroup for Electronic Data Interchange and the American Dental 
Association in selecting this standard. HHS also relied on the 
recommendations of the National Committee on Vital and Health 
Statistics.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


As the effect of any one standard is affected by the implementation of 
other standards, it can be misleading to discuss the impact of one 
standard by itself. Therefore HHS did an impact analysis showing total 
costs and savings of all the HIPAA standards in the proposed rule 
concerning the national provider identifier (HCFA-0045-P), which can be 
found at 63 FR 25320. HHS determined that the requirements concerning 
the employer identifier would have a one time impact on those 
providers, clearinghouses, and health plans that have to convert to use 
the EIN, and on those employers that would have to disclose the EIN to 
covered entities.


Risks:


Failure to publish this rule would mean that no standard employer 
identifier would be established for use in the health care system. Lack 
of a standard employer identifier would decrease the savings in health 
care costs to be realized from administrative simplification.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            63 FR 32784                                    06/16/98
NPRM Comment Period End                                        08/17/98
Final Action                                                   03/00/00
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


State


Agency Contact:
Mary Emerson
Office of Information Services
Department of Health and Human Services
Health Care Financing Administration
7500 Security Boulevard
N2-12-22
Baltimore, MD 21244
Phone: 410 786-7065
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0938-AI59
_______________________________________________________________________



HHS--HCFA
46. 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.


Unfunded Mandates:


State, Local or Tribal Governments


Legal Authority:


PL 105-33, sec 4701 to 4710


CFR Citation:


42 CFR 438; 42 CFR 430; 42 CFR 431; 42 CFR 434; 42 CFR 435; 42 CFR 438; 
42 CFR 440; 42 CFR 447


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This 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) (PL 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 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

[[Page 63951]]

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 Cost 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
Final Action                                                   12/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Organizations, Governmental Jurisdictions


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, Tribal, State, Local


Agency Contact:
Michael Fiore
Center for Medicaid and State Operations
Department of Health and Human Services
Health Care Financing Administration
7500 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21244
Phone: 410 786-0623
RIN: 0938-AI70
_______________________________________________________________________



HHS--HCFA
47. HOME HEALTH PROSPECTIVE PAYMENT SYSTEM (HCFA-1059-P)
Priority:


Other Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


PL 105-33, sec 4603


CFR Citation:


42 CFR ch IV


Legal Deadline:


NPRM, Statutory, October 1, 2000.


Abstract:


This 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) (PL 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 
provides for interim steps until the PPS is established. Under the 
interim system HHAs will receive payment 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 percent of 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. The interim payment system was effective 10/1/97 and will be in 
effect 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 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 prospective payment system for home health services.


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

[[Page 63952]]

prospective payment system for home health services, the Secretary 
shall provide for a reduction by 15 percent of the per-visit cost 
limits and per-beneficiary limits, as those limits would otherwise be 
in effect on September 30, 2000.


Anticipated Cost 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 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 percent, if the PPS is not timely implemented, 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

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            64 FR 58133                                    11/03/99
Final Action                                                   03/00/00
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Organizations


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Robert Wardwell
Center for Health Plans and Providers
Department of Health and Human Services
Health Care Financing Administration
7500 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21244
Phone: 410 786-3254
RIN: 0938-AJ24
_______________________________________________________________________



HHS--HCFA
48.  THE CHILDREN'S HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAM: IMPLEMENTING THE 
BALANCED BUDGET ACT OF 1997 (HCFA-2006-P)
Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


42 USC 1396; PL 105-33


CFR Citation:


42 CFR 457


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rulemaking establishes rules for the new Children's Health 
Insurance Program (CHIP). It implements sections 4901 and 4911 of the 
Balanced Budget Act (BBA) of 1997.


Statement of Need:


The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (PL 105-33) creates a new title XXI of 
the Social Security Act to establish a Children's Health Insurance 
Program that supplements the Medicaid program and enables States to 
create a new and unique health delivery system for low-income children. 
This regulation will codify a series of policy guidance that has been 
released to the States and other interested parties over the past two 
years.


Summary of Legal Basis:


As established by section 4901 of the BBA, the new title XXI of the 
Social Security Act authorizes $41 billion over the next 10 years for 
States to create separate Children's Health Insurance Programs to 
provide health care coverage to targeted low-income children.


In order to receive reimbursement through an enhanced matching rate, 
States have three options in developing programs. They may expand 
existing Medicaid programs, create unique and separate children's 
health programs, or establish a combination of the two options. Within 
certain parameters set by the statute, States have flexibility to 
determine eligibility levels, develop benefit packages, and impose 
cost-sharing requirements. The statute also includes provisions for 
meeting strategic objectives, evaluation and data collection. In order 
to codify this authority, we have proposed implementing regulations at 
42 CFR part 457.


Alternatives:


Federal payments under title XXI are based on State expenditures under 
approved plans that could be effective on or after October 1, 1997. The 
short time frame between the enactment of the BBA on August 5, 1997 and 
the availability of funding for States and territories required the 
Department to begin reviewing CHIP plans at the same time as it was 
issuing policy guidance to States on how to operate the CHIP program. 
The Department worked closely with States to disseminate as much 
information as possible, as quickly as possible, so States could begin 
to implement their new programs expeditiously. As a result, 54 States 
and territories have approved CHIP plans. Therefore, CHIP is now in 
operation prior to the completion of regulations.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Estimates of the economic impact that will stem from this rule will be 
made available.


Risks:


This rule will formally establish the Department's policies and 
requirements related to the implementation of this program. It will 
provide States with needed information and also give them and other 
interested parties the opportunity to comment on the feasibility of 
implementing these policies. Failure to publish this rule would 
jeopardize our relationships with the States, advocates and providers 
because it would deprive them of many tools needed for establishing 
concrete programs.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            64 FR 60881                                    11/08/99
Final Rule                                                     06/00/00
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


Organizations


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local

[[Page 63953]]

Agency Contact:
Cheryl Austein-Casnoff
Department of Health and Human Services
Health Care Financing Administration
200 Independence Avenue SW.
Washington, DC 20201
Phone: 410 786-4196
RIN: 0938-AJ75
BILLING CODE 4150-04-F




[[Page 63954]]

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD)

Statement of Regulatory Priorities
The Regulatory Plan of the Department of Housing and Urban Development 
for Fiscal Year 2000 highlights priority regulations and policy 
initiatives directed towards the achievement of HUD's traditional goals 
of increasing the supply of affordable housing, ensuring equal 
opportunity for housing, promoting jobs and economic development, as 
well as its more recent goal of restoring the public's trust in HUD. 
These goals are embodied in HUD's mission and its strategic goals for 
Fiscal Year 2000.
HUD approaches the new fiscal year with a renewed sense of commitment 
to its mission and goals, and greater accountability for its 
performance. HUD 2020 Management Reform was designed in 1997 with the 
objective of improving the overall administration of HUD's programs to 
enhance the delivery of HUD's services to local communities. HUD has 
made significant progress in achieving its reforms through the 
Department, as evidenced by the following.
In a July 15, 1999 report issued by an independent organization, the 
National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA), HUD was cited as 
making major progress in improving its management performance and its 
planning to achieve the Department's strategic goals. In May 1999, HUD 
received its first clean audit in HUD history. HUD's Fiscal Year 1999 
budget was the Department's best budget in a decade. In HUD's FY 1999 
appropriations act, HUD received new Section 8 rental assistance 
vouchers for 90,000 low- and moderate-income families, and the 
appropriations also included landmark reforms for public and assisted 
housing. The increased budget for FY 1999, the clean audit, and the 
recognition of HUD's progress in management reform reflect a HUD that 
has been revitalized, has demonstrated significant progress in becoming 
a performance-oriented organization, and is restoring a reputation for 
credibility and competence. The improvements within HUD translate into 
improvements for HUD's constituents, such as better delivery of 
services and stronger partnerships with HUD's public and private 
partners.
The improvements within HUD also translate into improved regulations 
and policy initiatives. Consistent with President Clinton's Executive 
order on Regulatory Planning and Review (E.O. 12866), HUD's approach to 
regulations is to refrain, as permitted by law, from top-down 
directives, and over-regulation. HUD's general approach is to establish 
the necessary legal parameters and guidance, include the appropriate 
oversight, and provide as much flexibility as possible for program 
implementation at the local level given local concerns and needs. 
However, where strong action is needed to ensure that HUD programs are 
serving the people they are intended to serve, HUD has taken such 
action, restoring public trust.
Several priority regulations and policy initiatives implemented in 
Fiscal Year 1999 highlight these approaches to rulemaking.
HUD's Mark-to-Market Program, implemented by a rule which became 
effective on October 13, 1998, is already assisting State and local 
housing agencies to maintain affordable housing stock throughout the 
nation. The program, which gets its name because rents permitted by HUD 
in privately owned subsidized housing are marked down to the 
competitive rent level prevailing in an area's rental housing, is 
designed to enable HUD and its State and local partners to more 
effectively use Federal subsidies to preserve the maximum amount of 
affordable housing under the project-based Section 8 program.
The first comprehensive physical inspections of public housing, which 
got underway in Fiscal Year 1999, following implementation of the final 
rule on HUD's new Public Housing Assessment System (PHAS), rated 87 
percent of the inspected housing good or excellent. The implementation 
of the PHAS marks the first time in HUD's history that all public 
housing properties will be physically inspected, as well as financially 
assessed using comprehensive and consistent assessment protocols. A 
Request for Proposals (RFP) issued by HUD on May 3, 1999, challenged 
public housing agencies (PHAs) to improve administration of the 
project-based Section 8 program by forming partnerships with private 
firms and nonprofit organizations experienced in property management 
and accounting. The RFP solicited proposals from PHAs to administer 
more than 20,000 project-based Section 8 contracts currently 
administered by HUD. The intended partnerships promoted by the RFP are 
expected to effectively enforce owner obligations to provide decent 
housing to residents by adding private sector expertise to a PHA's 
administration of the contract.
HUD's Homebuyer Protection Initiative, announced in June 1999, is 
designed to protect consumers from buying HUD-insured homes with 
undetected defects. The initiative includes a consumer education 
campaign about appraisals and inspections conducted by HUD, calls for 
mandatory testing of all appraisers to determine qualifications to 
perform appraisals for HUD, requires more thorough and reliable 
appraisals for HUD-insured homes including mandatory disclosure of 
detected home defects, automated evaluation of appraisals, and stricter 
enforcement actions to suspend poorly performing appraisers.
HUD's Consumer Protection Measures for elderly homeowners participating 
in HUD's Home Equity Conversion Mortgage (HECM) Insurance Program, was 
implemented by final rule issued on January 19, 1999. The rule is 
directed to protecting elderly homeowners from becoming liable for 
payment of excessive fees for third party provided services that are of 
little or no value to the homeowner. The rulemaking was prompted by 
concerns that some estate planning entities were charging what HUD 
considered exorbitant fees to elderly homeowners in transactions 
related to HECMs.
HUD's new policy statement on RESPA -- the Real Estate Settlement 
Procedures Act -- is designed to save Americans millions of dollars a 
year by protecting them from excessive mortgage broker fees and by 
encouraging improved disclosure of mortgage broker fees and services. 
The statement, issued March 1, 1999, clarifies HUD's long-standing 
position dealing with fees paid to mortgage brokers, which is that the 
compensation a broker receives from a lender and from a borrower must 
be reasonable for the actual work performed. The fee disclosure called 
for in the policy statement is designed to make it easier for millions 
of homebuyers and families refinancing their mortgages to comparison 
shop for a home loan and save money on the fees they pay mortgage 
brokers to find and originate home loans.
HUD's Native American Housing Initiative, implemented in March 1999, 
will enable tribal governments to create non-profit groups that can 
apply for a share of more than $1 billion in annual assistance under 
several major HUD programs. Because only local governments and non-
profit groups are

[[Page 63955]]

eligible for funding under these programs, tribal governments have been 
unable to benefit from the programs, even though Indian reservations 
have high poverty and unemployment rates, as well as great housing 
needs. Under the initiative, the non-profit groups created by tribal 
governments will be eligible to apply for several funding sources to 
assist tribal governments in meeting their housing and community needs.
HUD's Officer Next Door Program (issued by interim rule on July 2, 
1999) is designed to help revitalize economically distressed areas, 
make communities safer and promote strong police-community ties. The 
program offers law enforcement officers a 50 percent discount on homes 
that were previously insured through the Federal Housing Administration 
and were then foreclosed when owners failed to make mortgage payments. 
The savings under the program provided to officers presents a 
significant incentive to move into neighborhoods in need of 
revitalization. The program builds on the success of community policing 
by turning the neighborhood officer into the good neighbor next door.
In addition to these priority regulatory initiatives, Fiscal Year 1999 
saw considerable headway made by HUD in implementing the program 
reforms called for by the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act 
of 1998, enacted on October 21, 1998 (commonly referred to as the 
``Public Housing Reform Act''). The Public Housing Reform Act 
constitutes a substantial overhaul of HUD's public housing programs and 
also institutes important reforms in HUD's Section 8 assistance 
programs. The statute enacts into law many of the reforms proposed by 
Secretary Cuomo in his HUD 2020 Management Reform Plan for HUD's public 
housing and Section 8 programs. The Public Housing Reform Act is 
designed to transform public housing into a setting that encourages and 
rewards work, brings more working families into public housing, 
increases the availability of subsidized housing for very poor 
families, deconcentrates poverty, removes barriers that isolate low 
income residents, provides for the demolition of the largest failed 
public housing projects, and replaces these projects with new townhouse 
style developments through the HOPE VI program.
The Public Housing Reform Act requires that many of its mandated 
reforms be implemented by rulemaking, including three negotiated 
rulemaking proceedings. Issuance of regulations to implement these 
reforms began early in Fiscal Year 1999, and HUD is well underway to 
completing the rulemakings required by the statute.
On February 18, 1999, HUD issued its interim rule on the Public Housing 
Agency (PHA) Plans. The two PHA plans -- the 5-year Plan and the Annual 
Plan -- allow the PHA to describe its mission and long range goals and 
objectives and provide details about the PHA's immediate operations, 
programs and services, and the PHA's strategy for handling operational 
concerns and resident concerns and needs.
On May 14, 1999, HUD issued its interim rule to provide for the 
complete merger of the Section 8 tenant-based certificate and voucher 
programs into a new Housing Choice Voucher Program. This single market-
driven program will assist in making Section 8 tenant-based rental 
assistance more successful at helping low-income families obtain 
affordable housing and will increase housing choice for low-income 
families.
Proposed rules already issued by HUD under the Public Housing Reform 
Act include rules pertaining to: Changes in admission and occupancy 
requirements for public and assisted housing; one-strike screening and 
eviction for drug abuse and other criminal activity in public and 
assisted housing; changes to the PHAS; Public Housing Drug Elimination 
Program formula allocation; required resident membership on the board 
of directors of a PHA or similar governing body; pet ownership in 
public housing; required conversion of developments from public housing 
stock; voluntary conversion of developments from public housing stock; 
Section 8 homeownership; public housing homeownership; and public 
housing agency consortia and joint ventures. HUD's objective is to 
complete the rulemakings on these subjects as close as possible to the 
beginning of the new fiscal year. HUD recognizes the importance of 
these changes, long sought by HUD and by its program partners, being 
implemented as quickly as possible.
For Fiscal Year 2000, HUD's regulatory plan reflects a continuation of 
the priority regulations and policy initiatives implemented in Fiscal 
Year 1999. Where rulemaking is required, it is HUD's intent that 
regulations be used to strengthen protections of those most vulnerable 
and in need of protection (the elderly, persons with disabilities and 
other protected classes), to empower communities by increasing their 
responsibility to design and implement strategies to address housing 
and community needs, and to increase the supply of affordable housing.
HUD's Regulatory Plan for Fiscal Year 2000 focuses on HUD's mission and 
strategic goals.
The Departmental Mission: Promote adequate and affordable housing, 
economic opportunity, and a suitable living environment free from 
discrimination.
To accomplish this mission, the Secretary has directed HUD to focus on 
the following strategic goals that are designed to reflect the core 
business of HUD:
1. Increase the availability of decent, safe, and affordable housing in 
            American communities;
2. Ensure equal opportunity in housing for all Americans;
3. Promote self-sufficiency and asset development of families and 
            individuals;
4. Improve community quality of life and economic vitality;
5. Restore public trust.
HUD's regulatory priorities for Fiscal Year 2000 include all of the 
rulemakings required by the Public Housing Reform Act. In addition to 
these priorities, HUD highlights certain of the Public Housing Reform 
Act rules and other priority rules in its Plan description that 
follows. The regulatory priorities set forth in HUD's Regulatory Plan 
for Fiscal Year 2000, and all the regulations set forth in HUD's 
Semiannual Regulatory Agenda, are designed to implement HUD's mission 
and address the strategic goals.
Regulatory Priorities
Regulatory Action: Capital Fund Allocation, Operating Fund Allocation, 
and Section 8 Housing Certificate Fund Allocation
These three rules, being developed through three separate negotiated 
rulemaking processes, will provide formula allocation for public 
housing agencies' capital needs, their operating needs, and their 
Section 8 tenant-based contract renewal needs. These three rules 
address the basic funding needs of public housing agencies. By 
developing these three significant funding rules through the negotiated 
rulemaking process, public housing agencies, public housing residents, 
and other affected and interested parties have a say in how to meet 
their future local needs, and how the funding should be allocated among 
the public housing agencies, given their needs.
[Furthers Strategic Goals 1 and 4]

[[Page 63956]]

Regulatory Action: Uniform Physical Condition Standards and Physical 
Inspection Requirements for Certain HUD Housing; Administrative Process 
for Assessment of Insured and Assisted Properties
This rule will establish for certain multifamily housing an 
administrative process by which (1) HUD will notify owners of HUD's 
assessment of the physical condition of their multifamily housing; (2) 
owners of multifamily housing will be provided an opportunity to seek 
technical review of HUD's physical condition assessment of their 
housing; and (3) HUD will notify owners of action to be taken where the 
housing is found not to be in compliance with HUD's uniform physical 
condition standards.
[Furthers Strategic Goals 1 and 5]
Regulatory Action: Resident Opportunities and Supportive Services 
Program
This rule would provide for more active involvement by public housing 
residents in their community and geographical area by linking public 
housing residents to supportive services and resident empowerment 
activities, and establishing methods for assisting residents in 
becoming economically self-sufficient. This rule is important in 
reducing the isolation of low-income residents by promoting their 
involvement in key areas that affect their lives -- their housing and 
their communities. The rule is also important in promoting economic 
empowerment of public housing residents.
[Furthers Strategic Goals 3 and 4]
Regulatory Action: HOPE VI Program
This rule will establish the legal parameters and guidance that will 
govern funding and eligible activities of HUD's HOPE VI Program, but 
under President Clinton's and HUD's regulatory principles allow HOPE VI 
grantees to develop, within those parameters, their own strategies to 
address public housing that is in severe distress. Consistent with new 
statutory requirements, the rule includes as an eligible activity 
appropriate homeownership downpayment assistance for displaced 
residents or other appropriate replacement homeownership activities.
[Furthers Strategic Goals 1, 3 and 4]
Regulatory Action: The Secretary of HUD's Regulation of Fannie Mae and 
Freddie Mac (Government Sponsored Entities)
Through this rule, HUD will issue new housing goal levels for the 
purchase of mortgages by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (collectively, the 
Government Sponsored Entities, or GSEs) for calendar years 2000 through 
2003. The new goals will provide strong incentives for the two 
enterprises to more fully address the housing finance needs for very 
low-, low- and moderate-income families and residents of underserved 
areas and, therefore, to more fully realize their public purposes.
[Furthers Strategic Goals 2 and 3]
_______________________________________________________________________



HUD--Office of the Secretary (HUDSEC)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

49.  SECRETARY OF HUD'S REGULATION OF FANNIE MAE AND FREDDIE 
MAC: PURCHASE GOALS (FR-4494)
Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


12 USC 1451 et seq; 12 USC 1716-1723h; 12 USC 4501-4641; 28 USC 2641; 
42 USC 3535(d); 42 USC 3601-3619


CFR Citation:


24 CFR 81


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


Through this rule, the Department is issuing new housing goal levels 
for the purchase of mortgages by Fannie Mae and the Freddie Mac 
(collectively, the Government Sponsored Enterprises, or GSEs) for 
calendar years 2000 through 2003. In accordance with the Federal 
Housing Enterprise Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, this 
rule establishes new goal levels for purchasing of mortgages financing 
low- and moderate-income housing, special affordable housing, and 
housing in central cities, rural areas, and other underserved areas. 
This rule also clarifies HUD's guidelines for counting different types 
of mortgage purchases toward those goals, and provides greater public 
access to certain types of mortgage data in HUD's public use database.


Statement of Need:


Current regulations, published in 1995, establish the GSEs' housing 
goals for 1995-99. While the goals would remain effective beyond 1999 
at 1999 levels, to avoid any lapse in coverage, the Secretary is 
establishing new goals to reflect current conditions. The new goals 
will provide strong incentives for the two enterprises to more fully 
address the housing finance needs for very low-, low- and moderate-
income families and residents of underserved areas and thus, to realize 
more fully their public purposes. Such incentives are consistent with 
the Department's strategic objectives of increasing homeownership 
opportunities and the supply of affordable rental housing in the United 
States.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The Department is authorized to establish housing goals for the GSEs by 
the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 
1992 (12 U.S.C. 4501 et seq.), which sets several parameters for the 
housing goals and provides other requirements for many of the issues 
addressed in this rule.


Alternatives:


The alternative of leaving the housing goals unchanged was considered. 
It was rejected because it failed to meet HUD's strategic objectives of 
increasing the supply of affordable rental housing and homeownership 
and promoting equal housing opportunities for those protected by the 
law.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


This rule will have the benefit of increasing the number of affordable 
housing units for low- and moderate-income families and underserved 
communities over the next four years (2000-03). However, there is no 
indication that focusing the GSEs' attention on the affordable lending 
market would be costly for the GSEs. In fact, HUD's analysis indicates 
that meeting the proposed housing goals will have little impact on the 
GSEs' financial returns or on the safety and soundness of GSE 
operations. Additionally, increased GSE activity in the affordable 
lending arena should not lead to significant crowding out of 
traditional portfolio lenders.

[[Page 63957]]

Risks:


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


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           11/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Janet Tasker
Director, Office of Government Sponsored Enterprise Oversight
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Office of Housing
Phone: 202 708-2224

Allen Fishbein
Senior Advisor to the Assistant Secretary for Housing Sponsored 
Enterprise Oversight
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Office of Housing
Phone: 202 708-3600
RIN: 2501-AC60
_______________________________________________________________________



HUD--Office of Housing (OH)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

50.  UNIFORM PHYSICAL CONDITIONS AND PHYSICAL INSPECTION 
REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTAIN HUD MULTIFAMILY HOUSING; ADMINISTRATIVE 
PROCESS FOR ASSESSMENT OF INSURED AND ASSISTED PROPERTIES (FR-4452)
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


12 USC 1701-1715; 42 USC 3535(d)


CFR Citation:


24 CFR 200


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rule will establish for certain multifamily housing administrative 
processes by which (1) HUD will notify owners of HUD's assessment of 
the physical condition of their multifamily housing; (2) the owners, 
under certain circumstances, will be provided an opportunity to seek 
technical review of HUD's physical condition assessment of the 
multifamily housing; and (3) HUD may take action where the housing is 
found not to be in compliance with the physical condition standards. 
The assessment of multifamily housing to ensure that it is a condition 
that is decent, safe and sanitary is an important mission of HUD. This 
rule helps HUD to achieve this mission.


Statement of Need:


HUD is responsible for ensuring that housing subsidized by HUD is in a 
condition that is decent, safe, sanitary and in good repair. Until 
implementation of HUD's 2020 Management Reform Plan, HUD never had an 
effective and comprehensive property assessment system. This system was 
established in 1998 and HUD's Real Estate Assessment Center is charged 
with the responsibility for assessing the properties in which HUD has 
an interest. In 1998, HUD established the Public Housing Assessment 
System, which provides for the assessment, among other things, of the 
physical condition of public housing. This rule will establish a 
process for the assessment of the physical condition for certain 
multifamily housing.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The Congress has charged HUD with the responsibility to ensure that 
housing assisted by HUD is in decent safe and sanitary condition (42 
U.S.C. 1437, 42 U.S.C. 12702, 12 U.S.C. 1701-z-11).


Alternatives:


In 1998, HUD established uniform physical condition standards and 
uniform physical inspection requirements. Until that date, physical 
condition requirements applicable to housing assisted under various HUD 
programs were similar but not uniform. Additionally, there was no 
comprehensive oversight and assessment of the properties in HUD's 
portfolio. Inspection was left to owners and managers with infrequent 
oversight by HUD, and HUD was without important information on the 
condition of the housing in its portfolio. By establishing uniform 
physical condition standards, HUD seeks to bring consistency in 
physical condition standards for all HUD housing, to standardize the 
inspection to be undertaken to determine compliance with the standards, 
and to implement an electronically based inspection system to evaluate, 
rate and rank the physical condition of HUD housing in an objective 
manner as possible.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


HUD has undertaken the responsibility for initial physical inspection 
of the properties in its portfolio and determining the condition of 
these properties. The benefit to owners of the covered multifamily 
housing is the elimination of subjectivity in the physical condition 
analysis process. By having uniform physical condition standards and 
uniform physical inspection requirements, owners are subject to the 
same standards and the standards do not vary because the inspection by 
one HUD Office might differ from that conducted by another HUD Office. 
The benefit to residents is increased confidence that HUD is committed 
to providing decent, safe and sanitary housing.


Risks:


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


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           11/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Kenneth Hannon
Office of Multifamily Housing
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Office of Housing
Phone: 202 708-3944
RIN: 2502-AH44
_______________________________________________________________________



HUD--Office of Public and Indian Housing (PIH)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

51. OPERATING FUND ALLOCATION FORMULA (FR-4425)
Priority:


Other Significant

[[Page 63958]]

Legal Authority:


42 USC 1437g(e); 42 USC 1437g(f); 42 USC 3535(d)


CFR Citation:


24 CFR 990


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, October 1, 1999, Section 519(f) permits the 
Department to extend the effective date for up to 6 months.


Abstract:


This rule will implement a new formula system for allocating funds to 
public housing agencies for their operation and management of public 
housing. The new formula system is being developed through negotiated 
rulemaking procedures, as required by section 519 of the Quality 
Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998 (title V of Public Law 105-
276, approved October 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2551; hereafter, ``Public 
Housing Reform Act''). That statute amended section 9 of the United 
States Housing Act of 1937 to require development of a new formula that 
would change the current method (the Performance Funding System) of 
determining the payment of operating subsidies to public housing 
agencies.


The members of the negotiated rulemaking advisory committee include 
national housing associations, housing authorities, tenant and 
community organizations, public interest organizations and HUD. 
Committee meetings began in March 1999 and are continuing.


Statement of Need:


Section 519 of the Public Housing Reform Act requires HUD to develop 
this rule to govern funding of PHAs' operating and management needs.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Section 519 of the Public Housing Reform Act amending Section 9 of the 
U.S. Housing Act of 1937, codified at 42 USC 1437g.


Alternatives:


The Public Housing Reform Act requires that this new formula system be 
developed through negotiated rulemaking.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The costs of the program as administered with one fund from which a PHA 
will fund all of its operating and management needs will be the same as 
under existing provisions. The benefits of having this new formula 
system developed through negotiated rulemaking is that it allows those 
entities and individuals directly affected -- public housing agencies 
and their residents -- to have a say in how the formula will operate, 
and consequently to help foster constructive, creative and acceptable 
solutions to difficult problems.


Risks:


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


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Notice          64 FR 5570                                     02/03/99
Notice Comment Period End                                      03/05/99
NPRM                                                           12/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Stephen Sprague
Acting Director, Funding and Financial Management Division
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Office of Public and Indian Housing
Phone: 202 708-1872
RIN: 2577-AB88
_______________________________________________________________________



HUD--PIH
52.  RESIDENT OPPORTUNITIES AND SUPPORTIVE SERVICES (FR-4525)
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


42 USC 1437-6; 42 USC 3535(d)


CFR Citation:


24 CFR 964


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rule will implement section 538 of Quality Housing and Work 
Responsibility Act of 1998 (title V of Public Law 105-276, approved 
October 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2461; hereafter, ``Public Housing Reform 
Act'') by adding the Resident Opportunities and Supportive Services 
(ROSS) program requirements to 24 CFR part 964. The purpose of the ROSS 
Program is to provide linkage of services to public housing residents, 
including supportive services and resident empowerment activities. 
Eligible activities include those related to physical improvements of a 
public housing development in order to provide space for supportive 
services of residents; work readiness including education, job training 
and counseling; and other activities designed to improve the economic 
self-sufficiency of residents.


Statement of Need:


The program established by section 538 of the Public Housing Reform Act 
is a permanent program. The regulations will provide the appropriate 
notice of the legal framework for the program, and clear and uniform 
criteria for program eligibility and participation.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Section 538 of the Public Housing Reform Act, amending title I of the 
U.S. Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437z-6).


Alternatives:


As a program that authorizes the use of funds for resident supportive 
services, the ROSS Program could be administered by a notice of funding 
availability (NOFA), but a NOFA does not provide a long term legal 
framework for the program. Requirements established for a program by 
NOFA are generally limited to short-term funding initiatives and 
demonstration programs. A permanent program requires regulations. HUD, 
however, will develop regulations consistent with President Clinton's 
Executive order on Regulatory Planning and Review (E.O. 12866) to 
provide flexibility, the least burden, and performance incentives.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The establishment of regulations will bring certainty to this funding 
program, and confirm its permanency. Although interested parties looked 
to the notice of funding availability, issued in Fiscal Year 1999, the 
first year of funding, to determine applicable requirements, the 
regulations when issued will provide the legal basis for the program. 
The certainty to be provided through issuance of regulations should 
reduce costs by providing longer term planning on the part of grantees.


Risks:


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

[[Page 63959]]

Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

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


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Paula Blunt
Director, Customer Services and Amenities Division
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Office of Public and Indian Housing
Phone: 202 619-8201
RIN: 2577-AC07
_______________________________________________________________________



HUD--PIH
53.  HOPE VI PROGRAM (FR-4530)
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


42 USC 1437v; 42 USC 3535(d)


CFR Citation:


24 CFR 000


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rule will establish regulations that will govern funding and 
eligible activities of HUD's HOPE VI Program. To date, HOPE VI has been 
operated from year to year as a demonstration program in accordance 
with authorization provided each year in appropriations bills. HOPE VI 
activities were funded and guided by notices of funding availability 
issued each fiscal year by HUD. The Quality Housing and Work 
Responsibility Act of 1998 (title V of Public Law 105-276, approved 
October 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2585; hereafter, ``Public Housing Reform 
Act'') makes HOPE VI a permanent program. The regulations to be 
implemented for the HOPE VI program will include the provisions set out 
in section 535 of the Public Housing Reform Act.


Statement of Need:


With the establishment of a permanent framework for the HOPE VI 
Programs, regulations are necessary to establish certainty and 
consistency in the operation of HOPE VI funded projects as provided by 
the statute. The regulations will establish clear and uniform criteria 
for program eligibility and participation.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Section 535 of the Public Housing Reform Act (42 U.S.C. 1437v).


Alternatives:


The HOPE VI Program has been operated as a demonstration program and 
funded by a NOFA on a yearly basis, dependent upon continued 
authorization through appropriations bills. The permanent framework 
provided by the Public Housing Reform Act necessitates the 
establishment of a permanent legal framework for administration of the 
program.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The establishment of regulations will bring certainty and permanency to 
the program, which has been lacking to date. Interested parties have 
looked to the notice of funding availability, issued annually, to 
determine applicable requirements. The certainty to be provided through 
issuance of regulations should reduce costs by providing longer term 
planning on the part of grantees.


Risks:


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


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           06/00/00
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Milan Ozdinec
Director, Office of Urban Revitalization
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Office of Public and Indian Housing
Phone: 202 401-8812
RIN: 2577-AC17
_______________________________________________________________________



HUD--PIH

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

54. CAPITAL FUND ALLOCATION FORMULA (FR-4423)
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


42 USC 1437g(d); 42 USC 1437g(f); 42 USC 3535(d)


CFR Citation:


24 CFR 905


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, October 1, 1999.


Abstract:


This rule will implement a new formula system for allocating funds to 
public housing agencies for their public housing program capital needs, 
whether related to development or modernization. The new formula system 
is being developed through negotiated rulemaking procedures, as 
required by section 519 of the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility 
Act of 1998 (title V of Public Law 105-276, approved October 21, 1998, 
112 Stat. 2551; hereafter, ``Public Housing Reform Act''). That statute 
amended section 9 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 to require 
development of a single formula to replace the existing development and 
modernization funding methods. This rule will work in conjunction with 
a rule that replaces the existing framework for public housing 
development and modernization, found in 24 CFR parts 941 and 968.


The members of the negotiated rulemaking advisory committee include 
national housing associations, housing authorities, tenant and 
community organizations, Fannie Mae, and HUD. Committee meetings began 
in April 1999 and concluded in August 1999.


The Capital Fund formula in this rule fulfills the statute's mandate to 
include a mechanism to reward performance. It also provides for a 
replacement housing factor, in recognition that funding for this 
purpose will facilitate demolition of obsolete housing and allow public 
housing authorities (PHAs) to address some of the remaining housing 
needs in the affected communities.


Statement of Need:


Section 519 of the Public Housing Reform Act requires HUD to develop

[[Page 63960]]

this rule to govern funding of PHAs' public housing capital needs.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Section 519 of the Public Housing Reform Act amending Section 9 of the 
U.S. Housing Act of 1937 codified at 42 USC 1437g.


Alternatives:


The Public Housing Reform Act requires a formula system to be 
established by negotiated rulemaking.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The costs of the program as administered with one fund from which a PHA 
will fund all of its capital needs will be the same as under existing 
provisions. However, the benefits of having just one funding mechanism 
for all such needs, and the provision of additional flexibility to PHAs 
to manage their physical assets will provide increased benefits to the 
PHAs. The additional consultation of residents built into the program 
will also benefit both tenants and the health of the public housing 
developments, through a stronger sense of involvement and commitment on 
the part of residents.


Risks:


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


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            64 FR 49924                                    09/14/99
End NPRM Comment Period                                        10/14/99
Final Action                                                   12/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
William Flood
Director, Office of Capital Improvements
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Office of Public and Indian Housing
Phone: 202 708-1640
RIN: 2577-AB87
BILLING CODE 4210-01-F




[[Page 63961]]

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR (DOI)

Statement of Regulatory Priorities
The Department of the Interior (DOI) is the principal steward of our 
nation's natural resources and guardian of many of our priceless 
cultural resources. We serve as trustee to Native Americans and Alaska 
natives and also are responsible for relations with the island 
territories under United States jurisdiction. As part of our duties, we 
manage more than 450 million acres of Federal lands, approximately 3 
billion acres of the Outer Continental Shelf, and more than 57,000 
buildings. In carrying out our many responsibilities we are committed 
to creative ideas that:
 Ensure the long-term viability of our resources
 Protect the environment in which our resources are found
 Minimize negative effects and maximize benefits to the 
            American people.
The Department'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 that support native species and to 
            preventing invasive species introductions. We expect this 
            to reduce the rate at 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 options of using 
            the most cost-effective method to meet the spirit and 
            letter of the law while providing the best result for 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 us better execute our 
mission and meet the requirements of our 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 
            American Indians, Indian tribes, Alaska Natives, and people 
            of the U.S. territories;
 Improve the Federal Government's relationship with State, 
            local, tribal, and 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 has implemented 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 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 
our regulations easier to comply with and understand. Because 
regulatory reform is a continuing process that requires the 
participation of all affected parties, we strive continually to include 
affected entities in the decision making process and to issue rules 
more efficiently. To better manage and review the regulatory process, 
we have revised our internal rulemaking guidance. Results have 
included:
 Increased bureau awareness of and responsiveness to the needs 
            of small businesses and better compliance with the Small 
            Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA);
 A Department-wide effort to evaluate the economic effects 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.
We are committed to improving the regulatory process through the use of 
plain language. 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) incorporates industry standards by reference; 
and (d) implements performance standards in some of the operating 
regulations. Our regulatory process ensures that bureaus share ideas on 
how to reduce regulatory burden while meeting the requirements of the 
laws they enforce and improving their

[[Page 63962]]

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. We are 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, our 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 surprises'' 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 ``surprises'' (in the form of 
unexpected fines) for conforming landowners, and better overall 
compliance with the Endangered Species Act.
Minimizing Regulatory Burdens
We are 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. We have has 
identified approximately 40 species for which delisting or downlisting 
(reclassification from endangered to threatened) may be appropriate. 
Experience has shown us that changing the planning process for land use 
and water development can reduce unnecessary delays and paperwork 
associated with agency decision making. For some projects, an improved 
planning process has dramatically reduced the time required for 
paperwork.
We 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. The 
new rule will allow 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.
Similarly, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) uses Resource Advisory 
Councils (RACs) made up of affected parties to help prepare regulations 
that it issues under the Rangeland Reform Act.
We also encourage public consultation during 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 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), we are preparing a revised comprehensive strategic plan to 
prepare DOI for the 21st century. The plan will cover the period from 
2000 through 2005 and will be a stand-alone plan with the five 
Departmental goals supported by the bureau goals. It gives employees 
and managers clear goals and strategies to help the Department meet its 
mission and fulfill its commitment to the nation. We believe that this 
plan must evolve in response to the changing natural and human 
environments. For this reason, our 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 current strategic plan (including updates that have 
been made during FY 1999) can be seen on our web site at this address:
http://www.doi.gov/gpra/
Bureaus and Offices Within DOI
The following brief descriptions summarize 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 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)

[[Page 63963]]

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 264 million acres of land 
surface and about 570 million acres of Federal mineral estate. 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.
MMS's regulatory philosophy 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 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

[[Page 63964]]

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 develop and apply 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. 
These 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 practical, and afford the public appropriate economic 
and recreational opportunity. 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 
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 involve interstate or foreign commerce, which 
must comply with various laws and international obligations. The 
Service works continually with foreign and State governments, the 
affected industries and individuals, and other interested parties to 
minimize the burdens associated with Service-related activities. Easing 
these burdens through regulatory actions continues to balance possible 
benefits with adequate protection for 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

[[Page 63965]]

requirements imposed by Congress and OMB.
National Park Service
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 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 these 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--Minerals Management Service (MMS)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

55. 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 to value oil that is not sold at arm's-
length. 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 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:


We 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.


We chose the higher of New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) futures 
prices, major portion prices in the field or area, or gross proceeds 
received by the lessee or its affiliate. We chose NYMEX-based prices as 
one of three measures of value because NYMEX represents the price for a 
widely-traded domestic crude oil, there is little likelihood that any 
particular participant in NYMEX trading could affect the prices, and 
NYMEX prices are regarded by many experts to be the best available 
measure of oil market value.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


We estimate 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

[[Page 63966]]

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
Supplementary NPRM                                             01/00/00
Comment Period End                                             03/00/00
Final Action                                                   09/00/00
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
MS 3021
P.O. Box 25165
Mail Stop 3021
Denver, CO 80225-0165
Phone: 303 231-3432
Fax: 303 231-3385
Email: David.G[email protected]
RIN: 1010-AC24
_______________________________________________________________________



DOI--MMS

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

56. 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 non-arm's-length 
crude oil transactions and establish a new MMS form for collecting 
value differential data. 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 to value oil that is not sold at arm's 
length. 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 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:


We 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. As most recently proposed, we chose to retain the concept 
that, for true, outright, arm's length sales, gross proceeds generally 
represent royalty value.


For non-arm's-length transactions in the most recent proposal, we chose 
three different methods for three distinct geographic areas. For 
production other than in California, Alaska, or the Rocky Mountain 
region, we chose to use appropriate spot prices because they result 
from market surveys of actual prices paid and received in the 
marketplace and thus form the basis for much of the way crude oil is 
marketed. We originally chose New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) 
prices because they represent the price for a widely traded crude oil 
and there is little likelihood that any particular trading participant 
could affect the prices. However, we decided on spot prices because, 
when adjusted for location and quality, they essentially duplicate 
NYMEX prices, and this eliminates the need for one set of adjustments.


For non-arm's-length transactions in the geographically isolated 
California and Alaska markets, we chose Alaska North Slope (ANS) spot 
prices. ANS spot prices represent large volumes of oil delivered into 
the California market, and many experts regard ANS spot prices as the 
best indicator of value for California and Alaska production. Finally, 
due to the lack of a reliable spot price in the Rocky Mountain region, 
we chose a series of benchmarks relying on the lessee's arm's-length 
sales and purchases, alternative spot prices, or a value determination 
by the Director.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


We estimate that compliance with this rulemaking would cost the oil and 
gas industry approximately $161,000 annually. 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.


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                                   02/24/97
NPRM Comment Period End                                        03/25/97
Supplemental NPR62 FR 36030                                    07/03/97
Comment Period End                                             08/04/97

[[Page 63967]]

NPRM Comment Per62 FR 49460d                                   09/22/97
Comment Period Extended                                        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
Comment Period R64 FR 12267                                    03/12/99
Comment Period E64 FR 17990                                    04/13/99
Final Action                                                   09/00/00
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
MS 3021
P.O. Box 25165
Mail Stop 3021
Denver, CO 80225-0165
Phone: 303 231-3432
Fax: 303 231-3385
Email: David.G[email protected]
RIN: 1010-AC09
_______________________________________________________________________



DOI--Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

57. 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 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 greater penalties for 
not meeting notice requirements.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The Department has prepared a cost-benefit analysis. 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 be slightly 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            64 FR 6422                                     02/09/99
NPRM Comment Period End                                        05/10/99
Supplementary Proposed Rule                                    10/00/02
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, State, Local


Agency Contact:
Robert Anderson
Minerals Resources
Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
Phone: 202 208-4201
RIN: 1004-AD22
_______________________________________________________________________



DOI--BLM

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

58. OIL AND GAS LEASING AND OPERATIONS
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 63968]]

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). The rule 
will: (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 repeat 
those standards in the rule; (3) incorporate the requirements of the 
Onshore Oil and Gas Orders and national notices to lessees into the 
regulations to eliminate overlap with current regulations; (4) revise 
and replace BLM's 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 by subject 
matter.


Summary of 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.


Anticipated Cost 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            63 FR 66840                                    12/03/98
NPRM Comment Per64 FR 29256                                    07/19/99
Final Action                                                   09/00/00
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, State, Local


Agency Contact:
Ian Senio
Regulatory Analyst
Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
MS 401
Regulatory Management Team (WO-630)
1849 C Street N.W.
Washington, DC 20240
Phone: 202 452-5049
Email: Ian__ S[email protected]
RIN: 1004-AC94
BILLING CODE 4310-RK-F




[[Page 63969]]

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 for 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 the 
reimbursements.
In response to public comments during the cost recovery rulemaking, the 
FBI published on April 28, 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 year 2000.
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.
On December 18, 1998, the FBI published a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) 
soliciting information and suggestions from interested parties for 
developing reasonable capacity methodologies for characterizing the 
capacity requirements for telecommunications services other than those 
covered by the March 12, 1998, Final Notice of Capacity. The FBI will 
be issuing a Further Notice of Inquiry (FNOI) that will respond to 
comments on the NOI and intends to focus on developing reasonable 
methodologies for the paging, mobile satellite service, specialized 
mobile radio, and enhanced specialized mobile radio services. The FBI 
anticipates publishing this FNOI by the beginning of the year 2000.
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.

[[Page 63970]]

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 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)

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

59. 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 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

[[Page 63971]]

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 Cost 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 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                                                   03/00/00
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


Governmental Jurisdictions


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local


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



DOJ--CRT
60. 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 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.

[[Page 63972]]

Anticipated Cost 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 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            64 FR 58567                                    10/29/99
NPRM Comment Period End                                        12/28/99
Final Action                                                   12/00/00
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
Fax: 202 307-2678
RIN: 1190-AA28
_______________________________________________________________________



DOJ--Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

61. 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 Legal Basis:


See Statement of Need.


Alternatives:


None


Anticipated Cost 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--Centers 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.

[[Page 63973]]

Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM (INS No. 1255 FR 438nt Period End 2/5/90                  01/05/90
NPRM (INS No. 1413)                                            12/00/99
Final Action                                                   11/00/00
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Federal


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, Adjudications Division
Department of Justice
Immigration and Naturalization Service
Room 3214
425 I Street NW
Washington, DC 20536
Phone: 202 514-3228
RIN: 1115-AB45
_______________________________________________________________________



DOJ--INS

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

62. 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.


INS No. 1947-98, Interim Rule published 2/9/99 (64 FR 6187). The 
``Receipt Rule'' permits employees to present their employer certain 
types of ``receipts'' in lieu of a document listed on the Form I-9. 
(Previously under RIN 1115-AE94, which was withdrawn and placed under 
AB73 due to the relationship of the regulations.)


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 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 Cost 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

[[Page 63974]]

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.


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. 1890-97                                     03/00/00
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, Organizations


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, State, Local, Tribal


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:
Linda Dodd-Major
Director, Business Liaison Branch, Adjudications Division
Department of Justice
Immigration and Naturalization Service
425 I Street NW
Washington, DC 20536
Phone: 202 305-2529
Fax: 202 305-2523
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 1115-AB73
BILLING CODE 4410-BP-F




[[Page 63975]]

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR (DOL)

1999 Regulatory Plan
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 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 and 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 1999 Regulatory Plan highlights the Department's 25 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 constant 
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 attempts to avoid legal obligations. The Department will 
continue to do all it can to increase compliance with worker protection 
laws, protect worker benefits, and provide worker 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 and equal pay 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 work 
force. 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 63976]]

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. This NPRM encourages contractors to 
analyze their own compensation and other employment practices to ensure 
that all employees are fairly treated. In addition, this plan entry 
will help fulfill the Administration's Equal Pay and Civil Rights 
initiative to eliminate wage discrimination by identifying and 
remedying compensation discrimination by Federal contractors.
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 the existence of 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 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 Regulatory Plan reflects 
this commitment. It will continue to concentrate on improving existing 
health standards and addressing emerging health hazards in mining.
Several significant regulatory actions exemplify MSHA's commitment to 
improving workplace health for miners. MSHA has issued proposed rules 
for diesel particulate matter in underground coal and metal and 
nonmetal mines to reduce the potential health hazards associated with 
the exhaust emitted by diesel-powered equipment. Those hazards range 
from headaches and nausea to respiratory disease and cancer.
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. MSHA is developing a proposed rule to provide a means 
to verify operators' coal dust control plans and to prevent 
overexposure to respirable coal mine dust on each and every working 
shift.
MSHA has identified the above actions for the October 1999 Regulatory 
Plan because occupational lung disease is the most serious and 
pervasive occupational illness in mining. MSHA believes these combined 
initiatives will greatly improve health protection for miners and are, 
therefore, tied directly and significantly to its mission and strategic 
plan.
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 change its regulatory approach to establish clear and 
sensible priorities, emphasize consensus-based approaches to 
rulemaking, and focus on developing a proposed ergonomics rule and a 
basic safety and health programs rule.
The seven rules 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. Each rule is designed to reduce occupational deaths, 
injuries, and illnesses among America's workers or to simplify OSHA 
recordkeeping requirements for employers. OSHA's Plan entries address 
the causes of the most dangerous occupational injuries, i.e., those 
with fatal or disabling consequences, those affecting large number of 
workers, those for which recognized solutions are available, or those 
identified as top priorities by the Agency's Priority Planning process.
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. To 
address this problem, 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 1999 Regulatory 
Plan reflect the rulemaking approach that is being followed by the New 
OSHA. For example, the Agency plans to initiate a process with 
stakeholders to select for future regulation a group of air 
contaminants that both OSHA and the regulated community recognize as 
hazardous to worker health. The Agency is considering the establishment 
of a Standards Advisory Committee to work on the selection of 
candidates for future air contaminants rulemaking.
One of the most important regulatory initiatives ever undertaken by 
OSHA -- development of an ergonomics programs rule -- is the 
centerpiece of the Agency's current Regulatory Plan. This rule will 
ensure that employers in general industry whose employees work in 
manual handling or manufacturing jobs, or whose employees experience a 
work-related musculoskeletal disorder (MSD), implement ergonomics 
programs in those jobs. About 65 percent of all MSDs reported by 
employers to the Bureau of Labor Statistics each year are caused by 
ergonomic risk factors in manual handling and manufacturing production 
jobs, although fewer than 30 percent of all general industry employees 
work in these jobs. Evidence of the effectiveness of ergonomics 
programs in achieving OSHA's ultimate goal -- the prevention of 
musculoskeletal disorders 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 ergonomics 
programs that are demonstrably effective. Included among these was a 
series of regional meetings to gain input on the rule at the grassroots 
level.

[[Page 63977]]

The Department believes that, by actively involving both employers and 
employees in the implementation of ergonomics programs, this standard 
will help to produce the high-performance workplaces of tomorrow. In 
sum, OSHA's regulatory strategy is designed to achieve a body of 
standards that will make sense to ordinary people, protect the safety 
and health of the U.S. work force, and enhance the productivity of 
American businesses.
The Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration (PWBA) administers and 
enforces the provisions 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 87 million 
participants and an estimated 6 million employee welfare benefit plans, 
including group health plans, covering approximately 185 million 
participants.
PWBA's regulatory priorities 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 enhanced standards for group health plans, including 
strengthening the claims review processes and improving the disclosure 
of health care benefit information. PWBA also will be working with the 
Department of Health and Human Services to adopt regulations under the 
Child Support Performance and Incentive Act of 1998, that will 
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. Another PWBA priority 
for the 1999 Plan is the adoption of standards to improve security and 
accountability with respect to assets held by small pension plans.
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 recent 
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 Employment Training Administration is issuing for comment a 
proposed rule to create, by regulation, the opportunity for the State 
agencies that administer the Unemployment Compensation (UC) program to 
pay, under a voluntary experimental program, UC to parents who take 
time off from employment after the birth or placement for adoption of a 
child. This effort responds to the President's Executive Memorandum 
issued May 24, 1999, directing the Secretary of Labor to allow States 
the opportunity to develop innovative ways of using UC to support 
parents taking leave to be with their newborns or newly-adopted 
children and to evaluate the effectiveness of using the UC system for 
these or related purposes. This regulation will permit interested 
States to experiment with methods for allowing the use of the UC 
program for this purpose.
_______________________________________________________________________



DOL--Employment Standards Administration (ESA)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

63. 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 
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 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

[[Page 63978]]

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 Cost 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 Executive Order 11246.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM Affirmative Action Plans (60-2)                           03/00/00
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, Planning, and Program Development, OFCCP
Department of Labor
Employment Standards Administration
Room N3424
200 Constitution Avenue NW
FP Building
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-0102
TDD Phone: 202 693-1308
Fax: 202 693-1304
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 1215-AA01
_______________________________________________________________________



DOL--ESA
64. 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 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.

[[Page 63979]]

Summary of 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 Cost 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 Action HOS56 FR 5862612                                  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                                                           11/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
John R. Fraser
Deputy Administrator (WHD)
Department of Labor
Employment Standards Administration
Room S3502
200 Constitution Avenue NW
FP Building
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-0051
Fax: 202 693-1432
RIN: 1215-AA09
_______________________________________________________________________



DOL--ESA
65. 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:


State, Local or Tribal Governments


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 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

[[Page 63980]]

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 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 Cost 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 Period End                                       03/22/86
NPRM                                                           09/00/00
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, Organizations


Government Levels Affected:


Local, State, Federal


Agency Contact:
John R. Fraser
Deputy Administrator (WHD)
Department of Labor
Employment Standards Administration
Room S3502
200 Constitution Avenue NW
FP Building
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-0051
Fax: 202 693-1432
RIN: 1215-AA14
_______________________________________________________________________



DOL--ESA

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

66. 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


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

[[Page 63981]]

year 1999 Public Law 105-277 (October 21, 1998). 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 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 Cost 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 included in the NPRM range from $72.8 million to 
$296 million, depending upon the alternative considered and the data 
sources used.


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            64 FR 17442                                    04/09/99
Comment Period Ends                                            06/08/99
Final                                                          01/00/00
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, State, Local, Tribal


Agency Contact:
John R. Fraser
Deputy Administrator (WHD)
Department of Labor
Employment Standards Administration
Room S3502
200 Constitution Avenue NW
FP Building
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-0051
Fax: 202 693-1432
RIN: 1215-AA94
_______________________________________________________________________



DOL--Employment and Training Administration (ETA)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

67.  BIRTH AND ADOPTION UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


42 USC 1302(a); 42 USC 503(a)(2) and (5); Secretary's Order No. 4-75 
(40 FR 18515); Secretary's Order No. 14-75 (November 12, 1975); 26 USC 
3306(h); 26 USC 3304(a)(1) and (4)


CFR Citation:


20 CFR 604


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Department of Labor is issuing for comment a Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking to create, by regulation, the opportunity for the State 
agencies that administer the Unemployment Compensation (UC) program to 
pay, under a voluntary experimental program, UC to parents who take 
time off from employment after the birth or placement for adoption of a 
child. This effort responds to the President's Executive Memorandum 
issued May 24, 1999, directing the Secretary of labor to allow States 
the opportunity to develop innovative ways of using UC to support 
parents taking leave to be with their newborns or newly-adopted child/
children and to evaluate the effectiveness of using the UC system for 
these or related purposes. This regulation will permit interested 
States to experiment with methods for allowing the use of the UC 
program for this purpose.


Statement of Need:


This effort responds to the President's Executive Memorandum issued May 
24, 1999, directing the Secretary of Labor to allow States the 
opportunity to develop innovative ways of using UC to support parents 
taking leave to be with their newborns or newly-adopted children and to 
evaluate the effectiveness of using the UC system for these or related 
purposes. That Memorandum cited a Family and Medical Leave Commission 
study indicating that lost pay was the most significant barrier to 
parents taking advantage of unpaid leave after the birth or adoption of 
a child.


Summary of Legal Basis:


This rulemaking action is undertaken under the authority of sections 
1102(a) and 303(a)(2) and (5) of the Social Security Act, sections 
3304(a)(1) and (4) and 3306(h) of the Federal Unemployment Tax Act, and 
the Secretary's Orders No. 4-75 and 14-75.

[[Page 63982]]

Alternatives:


The Department of Labor considered different regulatory alternatives 
and intends to pursue, in the proposed rule, an approach that gives 
States as much flexibility as possible within the defined parameters of 
the experimental program.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Based on legislative activity and expressed interest, the Department of 
Labor anticipates that a relatively small number of States will enact 
experimental Birth and Adoption Unemployment Compensation programs and, 
on this basis, estimates that the annual aggregate cost of Birth and 
Adoption Unemployment Compensation to the States will be between $50 
and $87 million. The benefit of this regulatory action will be to help 
eliminate a significant barrier that parents face in taking leave, thus 
having a positive effect on family well-being.


Risks:


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


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           11/00/99
NPRM Comment Period End                                        11/00/99
Final Action                                                   12/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


State


Agency Contact:
Jerry Hildebrand
Chief Division of Legislation
Department of Labor
Employment and Training Administration
C-4512
FP Bldg
200 Constitution Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 219-5201
Fax: 202 219-8506
RIN: 1205-AB21
_______________________________________________________________________



DOL--ETA

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

68. 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 and certain 
noncustodial parents. 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 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 have been 
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 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

[[Page 63983]]

been made with regard to the scope and nature of the regulatory 
guidance which will be necessary to carry out the new provisions.


Anticipated Cost 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                                                   11/00/99
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
C4524, FP Building
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 219-0181
RIN: 1205-AB15
_______________________________________________________________________



DOL--ETA
69. WORKFORCE INVESTMENT ACT OF 1998
Priority:


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


Legal Authority:


Workforce Investment Act of 1998, section 189(2)-506(c); 29 USC 939(a)


CFR Citation:


20 CFR 660 to 671; 20 CFR 652


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 and III, and V of the Act fall 
under the purview of the Employment and Training Administration. Title 
V falls under the purview of ETA as well as the Department of 
Education. 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 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. Interim final regulations were published on April 15, 
1999. The law requires 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 Cost 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 Ru64 FR 18662                                    04/15/99
Interim Final Rule Effective                                   05/17/99
Interim Final Rule Comment Period End                          07/14/99
Final Action                                                   12/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, State, Local, Tribal


Agency Contact:
Eric Johnson
Director, WIA Implementation Team
Department of Labor
Employment and Training Administration
Room S5513
200 Constitution Avenue NW
FP Building
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 219-0316
RIN: 1205-AB20


_______________________________________________________________________


[[Page 63984]]

DOL--Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration (PWBA)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

70. NATIONAL MEDICAL SUPPORT NOTICE
Priority:


Other Significant


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 
(CSPIA), 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 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 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 Cost 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

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           11/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


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



DOL--PWBA

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

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


Economically 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 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 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 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

[[Page 63985]]

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 Cost 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 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, 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 Implementin63 FR 68370Regulations                         12/10/98
NPRM Comment Period End                                        02/08/99
Final Action                                                   11/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Organizations


Government Levels Affected:


None


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
Room N5669
200 Constitution Avenue NW
FP Building
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 219-8521
RIN: 1210-AA52
_______________________________________________________________________



DOL--PWBA
72. 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, Interim Final Rule.


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 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 Cost 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
Request for Info64 FR 57520                                    10/25/99
Comment Period End                                             01/25/00
Final Rule                                                     07/00/00
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Daniel J. Maguire
Director, Health Care Task Force
Department of Labor
Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration
Room N5677
200 Constitution Avenue NW
FP Building
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 219-4592
RIN: 1210-AA54


_______________________________________________________________________


[[Page 63986]]

DOL--PWBA
73. 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


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 sections 707 and 734 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 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 will be necessary to carry out the new provisions.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


There is estimated to be no capital/start-up cost. Total burden cost 
for operating/maintenance is estimated 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                                                   12/00/99
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
Room N5669
200 Constitution Avenue NW
FP Building
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 219-8521
RIN: 1210-AA55
_______________________________________________________________________



DOL--PWBA
74. AMENDMENTS TO EMPLOYEE BENEFIT PLAN CLAIMS PROCEDURES REGULATION
Priority:


Other Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Unfunded Mandates:


Private Sector


Legal Authority:


29 USC 1133; 29 USC 1135


CFR Citation:


29 CFR 2560.503-1


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Department has proposed 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.

[[Page 63987]]

Summary of 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 necessary to 
update the rules that implement section 503 of ERISA.


Anticipated Cost 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 48390                                    09/09/98
NPRM Comment Period End                                        11/09/98
Notice of Public64 FR 65 Held on Feb. 17,18 & 19, 1999         01/04/99
Final Action                                                   12/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Jeffrey J. Turner
Pension Law Specialist
Department of Labor
Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration
Room N5669
200 Constitution Avenue NW
FP Building
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 219-8671
RIN: 1210-AA61
_______________________________________________________________________



DOL--PWBA
75. HEALTH CARE STANDARDS FOR MOTHERS AND NEWBORNS
Priority:


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


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


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. This 
rulemaking will provide further 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 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 Cost 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 Ru63 FR 57546                                    10/27/98
Final Action                                                   09/00/00
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), as 
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
Room N5669
200 Constitution Avenue NW
FP Building
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 219-7006
RIN: 1210-AA63
_______________________________________________________________________



DOL--PWBA
76. AMENDMENTS TO SUMMARY PLAN DESCRIPTION REGULATIONS
Priority:


Other Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.

[[Page 63988]]

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 amendments to the regulations governing the contents of summary 
plan descriptions (SPD) 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 repeal special rules limiting the 
information that must be included in summary plan descriptions with 
respect to certain health maintenance organizations. In addition, the 
amendments include provisions that 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 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 Cost and Benefits:


The Department estimates that the aggregate additional costs associated 
with the regulation would average approximately $125 million per year 
for the years 2000, 2001, and 2002. However, the Department believes 
that the 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                                                   12/00/99
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
Room N5669
200 Constitution Avenue NW
FP Building
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 219-8521
RIN: 1210-AA69
_______________________________________________________________________



DOL--Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

77. VERIFICATION OF DUST CONTROL PLAN AND CONTINUOUS MONITORING
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


30 USC 811; 30 USC 812


CFR Citation:


30 CFR 70; 30 CFR 75; 30 CFR 90


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


Our current regulations require that all underground coal mine 
operators develop and follow a mine ventilation plan that we approve. 
However, we do not have a requirement that provides for in-mine 
verification of the plan's effectiveness under typical mining 
conditions. Consequently, plans may be implemented by mine operators 
that could be inadequate to control respirable dust. The proposed rule 
will require mine operators to verify a plan's adequacy in controlling 
respirable dust. The proposed rule will address the issue of the use of 
continuous monitoring for sampling.


Statement of Need:


Respirable coal mine dust levels in this country are significantly 
lower than they were 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. Our regulations require that all underground 
coal mine operators develop and follow a mine ventilation plan approved 
by us. 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 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.


Therefore, we are considering regulatory action which would require

[[Page 63989]]

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.


Alternatives:


In developing the proposed rule, we will consider alternatives related 
to typical production levels and the use of appropriate dust control 
strategies.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Benefits sought are reduced dust levels over a miner's working lifetime 
by the elimination of over-exposures to respirable coal dust on each 
and every production shift, the key to eliminating lung disease as a 
risk to coal miners. Enhanced protection of miners from disease will 
reduce the cost of future black lung benefits and lead to lower 
operator insurance premiums. We are in the early stages of developing 
proposed rules and do 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. We are pursuing 
both regulatory and nonregulatory actions to eliminate these diseases 
through the control of coal mine respirable dust levels in mines and 
the reduction of miners' exposure.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           12/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


Additional Information:


This rulemaking is related to RIN 1219-AB18.


Agency Contact:
Carol J. Jones
Acting Director, Office of Standards
Department of Labor
Mine Safety and Health Administration
Room 631
4015 Wilson Boulevard
Arlington, VA 22203
Phone: 703 235-1910
Fax: 703 235-5551
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 1219-AB14
_______________________________________________________________________



DOL--MSHA
78. DETERMINATION OF CONCENTRATION OF RESPIRABLE COAL MINE DUST
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


30 USC 811


CFR Citation:


30 CFR 70; 30 CFR 71; 30 CFR 72; 30 CFR 90


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health and the Mine 
Safety and Health Administration jointly determined that a single, 
full-shift measurement (``single-shift sample'') will accurately 
represent the atmospheric condition to which a miner is exposed. The 
proposed rule will address the U.S. Court of Appeals' final decision 
and order in National Mining Association v. Secretary of Labor, issued 
September 4, 1998.


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. For as long as miners have taken coal from 
the ground, many have suffered respiratory problems due to their 
occupational exposures to respirable coal mine dust. These respiratory 
problems range from mild impairment of respiratory function to more 
severe diseases, such as silicosis and pulmonary massive fibrosis. For 
some miners, the impairment of their respiratory systems is so severe, 
they die prematurely. There is a clear relationship between a miner's 
cumulative exposure to respirable coal mine dust and the severity of 
the resulting respiratory conditions.


Although dust levels in underground coal mines are significantly lower 
than they were in the past, we believe that miners' health can be 
further protected from the debilitating effects of occupational 
respiratory disease by further limiting their exposures to respirable 
coal mine dust. On each and every workshift, it is essential to prevent 
miners from being exposed to respirable coal mine dust concentrations 
that exceed the mandated exposure limits.


Alternatives:


The requirements of this rule (``single-shift sample'') will work in 
tandem with those of the proposed rule on verification of dust control 
plans and continuous monitoring - RIN 1219-AB14. We believe that the 
fine-tuning of the latter rule will lessen the impact of the single-
shift sample requirements.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Benefits sought are reduced dust levels over a miner's working lifetime 
by the elimination of over-exposures to respirable coal dust on each 
and every production shift, the key to eliminating lung disease as a 
risk to coal miners. Enhanced protection of miners from disease will 
reduce the cost of future black lung benefits and lead to lower 
operator insurance premiums. We are in the early stages of developing a 
proposed rule and we do 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 potentially disabling and can cause death. Occupational lung 
disease associated with coal mine dust exposure typically arises after 
many years of cumulative exposure. Even after eliminating or 
substantially reducing individual shift overexposures, reductions in 
lung disease prevalence are not expected to materialize immediately. We 
are pursuing both regulatory and nonregulatory actions to eliminate 
these diseases through the control of coal mine respirable dust levels 
in mines and reduction of miners' exposure.

[[Page 63990]]

Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           12/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


Additional Information:


This rulemaking is related to RIN: 1219-AB14 (Verification of Dust 
Control Plans and Continuous Monitoring).


Agency Contact:
Carol J. Jones
Acting Director, Office of Standards
Department of Labor
Mine Safety and Health Administration
Room 631
4015 Wilson Boulevard
Arlington, VA 22203
Phone: 703 235-1910
Fax: 703 235-5551
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 1219-AB18
_______________________________________________________________________



DOL--MSHA

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

79. DIESEL PARTICULATE MATTER (EXPOSURE OF UNDERGROUND COAL MINERS)
Priority:


Other Significant


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:


Epidemiological studies indicate that diesel exhaust presents potential 
health risks to workers ranging from headaches and nausea to 
respiratory disease and cancer. The National Institute for Occupational 
Safety and Health considers whole diesel exhaust to be a potential 
occupational carcinogen. The International Agency for Research on 
Cancer found that diesel engine exhaust is probably carcinogenic to 
humans.


The rule as proposed for underground coal mines requires the use of 
filtration to remove diesel particulate matter and requires the use of 
engineering and work practice controls to reduce diesel particulate 
matter.


Statement of Need:


The use of diesel-powered equipment in underground mines has increased 
significantly and rapidly during the past decade. We estimate that 
approximately 13,000 miners are occupationally exposed to diesel 
exhaust emissions in underground coal 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 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, we are concerned about the potential health risk to miners.


Alternatives:


In the fall of 1995, we 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.


We considered establishing a PEL for diesel particulate in coal mines, 
but found that technology for measuring it in the presence of coal mine 
dust is not currently feasible. Therefore, the use of filtration to 
remove diesel particulate matter is required by the proposed rule.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


We estimate 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 $14,000.


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 the miners, their families, 
and society. In addition to savings related to acute health effects, we 
estimate that some lung cancers 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. 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. We believe 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
NPRM            63 FR 17492                                    04/09/98
Notice Significa63 FR 37796ent Impact                          07/14/98
Extension of Com63 FR 41755; Notice of Hearings; Close of Recor08/05/98
Notice of Hearin63 FR 55811f Record                            10/19/98
Extension of Com64 FR 7144d; Availability of Studies; Close of 02/12/99
Extension of Com64 FR 2259d; Close of Record                   04/27/99
Corrections     64 FR 36826                                    07/08/99
Final Action                                                   09/00/00
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes

[[Page 63991]]

Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Carol J. Jones
Acting Director, Office of Standards
Department of Labor
Mine Safety and Health Administration
Room 631
4015 Wilson Boulevard
Arlington, VA 22203
Phone: 703 235-1910
Fax: 703 235-5551
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 1219-AA74
_______________________________________________________________________



DOL--MSHA
80. DIESEL PARTICULATE MATTER (EXPOSURE OF UNDERGROUND METAL AND 
NONMETAL MINERS)
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:


Epidemiological studies indicate that diesel exhaust presents potential 
health risks to workers ranging from headaches and nausea to 
respiratory disease and cancer. The National Institute for Occupational 
Safety and Health considers whole diesel exhaust to be a potential 
occupational carcinogen. The International Agency for Research on 
Cancer found that diesel engine exhaust is probably carcinogenic to 
humans.


The rule as proposed for underground metal and nonmetal mines 
establishes a concentration limit for diesel particulate matter and 
requires the use of engineering and work practice controls to reduce 
diesel particulate matter.


Statement of Need:


The use of diesel-powered equipment in underground mines has increased 
significantly and rapidly during the past decade. We estimate 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.


Alternatives:


In the fall of 1995, we 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.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


We estimate 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 the miners, their families, 
and society. In addition to savings related to acute health effects, we 
estimate 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. 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. We believe 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
NPRM            63 FR 58104                                    10/29/98
Extension of Com64 FR 7144d; Availability of Studies; Close of 02/12/99
Comment Period E63 FR 58104                                    02/26/99
Notice of Hearin64 FR 14200f Record                            03/24/99
Corrections     64 FR 36826                                    07/08/99
Final Action                                                   09/00/00
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Carol J. Jones
Acting Director, Office of Standards
Department of Labor
Mine Safety and Health Administration
Room 631
4015 Wilson Boulevard
Arlington, VA 22203
Phone: 703 235-1910
Fax: 703 235-5551
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 1219-AB11


_______________________________________________________________________


[[Page 63992]]

DOL--Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

81. ERGONOMICS PROGRAMS: PREVENTING MUSCULOSKELETAL DISORDERS
Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Unfunded Mandates:


Private Sector


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


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 development of other 
compliance-assistance materials.


Ultimately, the Agency decided that, given the magnitude of the 
problem, a regulatory approach was appropriate 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.


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 Agency, therefore, 
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 that are 
serious enough to result in days away from work (34 percent of all lost 
workday injuries 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 as much as 
$15-$18 billion a year on direct costs for MSD-related workers' 
compensation, and up to three to four 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 ``ergonomic 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 ergonomic 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 ergonomic 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 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 
is still developing

[[Page 63993]]

and refining its regulatory alternatives, including those recommended 
by the SBREFA Panel.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Implementation costs of an ergonomics program standard 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 
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 
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
SBREFA Panel                                                   03/02/99
NPRM                                                           11/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, Organizations


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Agency Contact:
Marthe B. Kent
Acting Director, Directorate of Health Standards Programs
Department of Labor
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Room N3718
200 Constitution Avenue NW
FP Building
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-1950
Fax: 202 693-1678
RIN: 1218-AB36
_______________________________________________________________________



DOL--OSHA
82. SAFETY AND HEALTH PROGRAMS (FOR GENERAL INDUSTRY AND THE MARITIME 
INDUSTRIES)
Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Legal Authority:


29 USC 651; 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 Programs, and many proactive employers in 
all industries recognize the value of worksite-specific safety and 
health programs in preventing job-related injuries, illnesses, and 
fatalities. The reductions in job-related injuries and illnesses, 
workers' compensation costs, and absenteeism that occur after employers 
implement such programs dramatically demonstrate the effectiveness of 
these programs. In 1989, OSHA published nonmandatory guidelines to help 
employers establish safety and health programs (54 FR 3904). Those 
guidelines 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 has decided to expand on these guidelines by 
developing a safety and health programs rule because 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. This number does not include an estimated 
137 daily deaths associated with job-related chronic illnesses.


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 significant safety and health hazards of all 
types; and eliminating or controlling those hazards in an effective and 
timely way. 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 Programs 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

[[Page 63994]]

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 Legal Basis:


The legal basis for the proposed rule is a preliminary finding by the 
Secretary of Labor that unacceptably high injury, illness, and fatality 
rates can be substantially reduced by getting employers to 
systematically comply with their existing duty to control hazards under 
sections 5(a)(1) and 5(a)(2) of the OSH Act.


Alternatives:


In the last few years, OSHA has considered both nonregulatory and 
regulatory alternatives in the area of safety and health program 
management. First, in 1989, OSHA published a set of voluntary 
management guidelines designed to help employers set up and maintain 
safety and health programs. 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 States have also 
recognized the value of these programs and have mandated that some or 
all 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 Cost and Benefits:


OSHA preliminarily estimated the overall program costs of the draft 
proposed standard provided to the SBREFA Panel for this rule for all 
covered employers to be about $2.3 billion per year. The Agency also 
estimates that 580,000 to 1,300,000 injuries and illnesses and 416 to 
918 fatalities will be avoided each year as a result of the rule. OSHA 
anticipates that employers will have direct cost savings associated 
with this reduction in the number of injuries and illnesses of 
approximately $7.3 to $16.5 billion per year.


Risks:


Workers in all major industry sectors in the United States continue to 
experience an unacceptably high rate of occupational fatalities, 
injuries, and illnesses. For 1996, the Bureau of Labor Statistics 
reported that 6.2 million injuries and illnesses occurred within 
private industry. For 1997, BLS reported that 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: about $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. Because the proposed rule addresses 
significant job-related hazards, the rule will be effective in ensuring 
a systematic approach to the control of long-recognized hazards, such 
as lead, which are covered by existing OSHA standards, and emerging 
hazards, such as lasers and violence in the workplace, where conditions 
in the workplace would require control under the General Duty Clause of 
the Act.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           04/00/00
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 Director, Directorate of Health Standards Programs
Department of Labor
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Room N3605
200 Constitution Avenue NW
FP Building
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-2222
Fax: 202 693-1678
RIN: 1218-AB41
_______________________________________________________________________



DOL--OSHA
83. PERMISSIBLE EXPOSURE LIMITS (PELS) FOR AIR CONTAMINANTS
Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Unfunded Mandates:


Private Sector


Legal Authority:


29 USC 655 (b)


CFR Citation:


29 CFR 1910.1000; 29 CFR 1915.1000; 29 CFR 1917.1(a)(2)(ii); 29 CFR 
1918.1(b)(a); 29 CFR 1929.55


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


OSHA enforces hundreds of permissible exposure limits (PELs) for toxic 
air contaminants found in U.S. workplaces. Most of the air contaminant 
limits were adopted by OSHA in 1971 from recommendations 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 many cases, these early limits are 
outdated and insufficiently protective of worker health. To correct 
this situation, OSHA issued 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

[[Page 63995]]

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 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 
quantifying the risk and analyzing the feasibility that are required to 
support revised and new air contaminant limits. 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 name of the 20 substances from which the 
proposed new PELs for the first update were chosen: 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 and skin 
irritation and sensitivity, and cardiovascular disease, etc. Using the 
same criteria as those used in the Priority Planning Process, OSHA has 
evaluated for each substance: the 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, and the 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.


Although OSHA has evaluated factors for the twenty substances and plans 
to develop more PELs in the future, for this first stage in the current 
rulemaking process OSHA has decided to propose new PELs for four 
chemicals - carbon disulfide, glutaraldehyde, hydrazine, and 
trimellitic anhydride - that have different adverse health effects, 
both carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic, requiring different risk 
assessment approaches. For these four chemicals, OSHA has modified or 
developed new quantitative risk assessment approaches for cancer, 
respiratory sensitization and irritation, cardiovascular disease and 
neurotoxicity effects. Publication of the proposal will allow OSHA to 
continue to develop a mechanism for updating and extending its air 
contaminant limits, that 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 and timeliness of the 
process. The agency may consider using an advisory committee to review 
issues related to the PELs process.


Statement of Need:


OSHA has permissible exposure limits for approximately 470 toxic 
substances, 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 the contaminants at these levels. 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 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 to 
establish limits for some currently 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 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 Cost 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 
overexposures using engineering controls and work practices. Additional 
costs may be incurred for the implementation of administrative controls 
and the purchase and use of

[[Page 63996]]

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                                                           04/00/00
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


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:
Marthe B. Kent
Acting Director, Directorate of Health Standards Programs
Department of Labor
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Room N3718
200 Constitution Avenue NW
FP Building
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-1950
Fax: 202 693-1678
RIN: 1218-AB54
_______________________________________________________________________



DOL--OSHA

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

84. 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


Abstract:


In 1992, OSHA announced that it would develop a proposal for revising 
steel erection safety requirements using the negotiated rulemaking 
process. In negotiated rulemaking, OSHA, industry and employee 
representatives meet as an advisory committee and attempt to forge a 
consensus on a proposed standard. An advisory committee for this rule 
was formed in 1994. Its work resulted in the publication of a proposed 
rule on August 13, 1998.


The written comment period ended November 17, 1998. A public hearing 
was held in Washington, D.C. on December 1-11, 1998. The post-hearing 
comment period closed April 12, 1999. OSHA is now working to complete a 
final rule.


Statement of Need:


In 1989, the Ironworkers International Union and National Erectors 
Association petitioned OSHA to revise the steel erection standard 
through negotiated rulemaking. In light of the significant number of 
steel erection fatalities and injuries and concerns that the Agency's 
existing rule fails to adequately address a number of factors affecting 
safety, OSHA determined that the current rule needed to be revised.


Summary of 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:


OSHA considered continuing to rely on the existing rule. The Agency 
also considered issuing a proposed rule without negotiated rulemaking. 
Leaving the existing rule unchanged was rejected because of the 
apparent inadequacies of the standard. Negotiated rulemaking was chosen 
to help resolve conflicts and produce a proposal sooner.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


OSHA expects compliance with the proposal to impose annualized costs of 
about $50 million per year. Benefits are expected to include the 
prevention of about 14 fatalities and 824 lost workday injuries per 
year.


Risks:


OSHA estimates that at least 28 workers die each year while engaged in 
steel erection. Falls continue to be the leading cause of job-related 
deaths among construction workers, and steel erection involves a 
significant degree of exposure to fall hazards.


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                                                 12/01/98
Final Rule                                                     07/00/00
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None

[[Page 63997]]

Agency Contact:
Russell B. Swanson
Director, Directorate of Construction
Department of Labor
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Room N3468
200 Constitution Avenue NW
FP Building
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-2020
Fax: 202 693-1689
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 1218-AA65
_______________________________________________________________________



DOL--OSHA
85. 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 occupational illnesses 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 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. 
During that comment period, the public submitted over 450 written 
comments to OSHA Docket R-02. In addition, OSHA held two public 
meetings in Washington, DC (March 26-29 and April 30-May 1) resulting 
in 1,200 pages of transcripts from nearly 60 presentations. 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 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 use of the information, OSHA needs to provide clearer 
regulatory guidance to employers, simplify the recordkeeping forms and 
provide employees with access to the information.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The legal basis for issuance of this final rule is Section 8(c)(1) of 
the OSH 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 causes 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 Cost and Benefits:


OSHA has not determined the cost and benefits of the final rule.


Risks:


Not applicable.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            61 FR 4030                                     02/02/96
NPRM Comment Period End                                        07/02/96
Final Action                                                   04/00/00
Final Action Effective                                         01/00/01
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Organizations


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Marthe B. Kent
Acting Director, Directorate of Health Standards Programs
Department of Labor
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Room N3605
200 Constitution Avenue NW
FP Building
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-2222
Fax: 202 693-1678
RIN: 1218-AB24


_______________________________________________________________________


[[Page 63998]]

DOL--OSHA
86. OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE TO TUBERCULOSIS
Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Unfunded Mandates:


Private Sector


Legal Authority:


29 USC 655(b)


CFR Citation:


29 CFR 1910.1035


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


On August 25, 1993, the Labor Coalition to Fight TB in the Workplace 
petitioned the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to 
develop an occupational health standard to protect workers against the 
transmission of tuberculosis (TB). The Coalition stated that although 
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) had developed 
guidelines for controlling the spread of TB, many of the TB outbreak 
investigations conducted by CDC showed that many employers were not 
fully implementing the CDC guidelines. After reviewing the available 
information, OSHA preliminarily concluded that a significant risk of 
occupational transmission of TB exists for some workers in some work 
settings and began rulemaking on a proposed standard.


To assist in the development of the proposed standard, OSHA consulted 
with parties outside the Agency. The preliminary risk assessment was 
peer-reviewed by four experts with specific knowledge in the areas of 
TB disease and risk assessment. In addition, OSHA conducted stakeholder 
meetings with representatives of various groups that might be affected 
by the proposed standard. The draft proposed standard was also reviewed 
and commented on by affected small business entities under the Small 
Business Advocacy Review Panel requirements of the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA) and by the Office 
of Management and Budget (OMB) under Executive Order 12866.


On October 17, 1997 OSHA published its proposed standard for 
occupational exposure to TB (62 FR 54160). The proposed standard would 
cover workers in hospitals, nursing homes, hospices, correctional 
facilities, homeless shelters, and certain other work settings where 
workers are at significant risk of becoming infected with TB while 
caring for their patients or clients or performing certain procedures. 
The proposed standard would require employers to protect TB-exposed 
workers using infection control measures that have been shown to be 
highly effective in reducing or eliminating work-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, and skin testing and training of 
employees.


After the close of the written comment period for the proposed standard 
on February 17, 1998, 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 public hearings a 
post-hearing comment period was established. The post-hearing comment 
period closed on October 5, 1998. On June 17, 1999 OSHA re-opened the 
rulemaking record to submit the Agency's report on homeless shelters 
and certain other documents that became available to the Agency after 
the close of the post-hearing comment period. During this limited re-
opening of the rulemaking record, OSHA also requested interested 
parties to submit comments and data on the Agency's preliminary risk 
assessment in order to obtain the best, most recent data for providing 
the most accurate estimates of the occupational risk of tuberculosis.


Statement of Need:


TB is a contagious disease caused by the bacterium Mycobacterium 
tuberculosis. Infection is acquired by the inhalation of airborne 
particles carrying the bacterium. These airborne particles, called 
droplet nuclei, can be generated when persons with pulmonary TB in the 
infectious stage of the disease cough, sneeze, or speak. In some 
individuals who inhale the droplet nuclei, TB bacteria establish an 
infection. In most cases, the bacteria are contained by the 
individual's immune system. However, in some cases, the bacteria are 
not contained by the immune system and continue to grow and invade the 
tissue, leading to the progressive destruction of the organ involved. 
In most cases, this organ is the lung, although other organs may also 
become infected.


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 cases to 22,255 cases. However, this steady decline did not 
continue. Instead, from 1985 to 1992, the number of reported cases 
increased 20.1 percent. TB control efforts were re-initiated in some 
areas of the country and from 1993 to 1998, the number of cases in the 
United States again declined. A large portion of the decrease occurred 
in high incidence areas, such as New York City, where intervention 
efforts were focused. However, despite the recent decrease in active 
cases, there were still 18,371 reported TB cases in 1998. Outbreaks of 
TB continue to occur and multidrug-resistant forms of TB disease 
continue to spread to new states. In addition, more than 10 to 15 
million persons in the United States have latent TB infection and are 
at risk of developing TB disease sometime in the future. Moreover, the 
factors that led to the resurgence from 1985 to 1992 (e.g., increases 
in homelessness, HIV infection, immigration from countries with high 
rates of infection) still exist.


Providing health care for individuals with TB increases the risk of 
occupational exposure among healthcare workers. Many of the outbreaks 
of TB have occurred in health care facilities, resulting in the 
transmission of TB to both patients and health care workers. CDC found 
that the factors contributing to these outbreaks included delayed 
diagnosis of TB, delayed initiation of effective therapy, delayed 
initiation and inadequate duration of TB isolation, inadequate 
ventilation of isolation rooms, lapses in TB isolation practices, and 
lack of adequate respiratory protection. CDC analyzed data from several 
of the outbreaks and found that the transmission of TB decreased 
significantly when recommended TB control measures were implemented. 
Workers outside health care also provide services to patient or client 
populations that have an increased rate of TB disease. For example, 
occupational transmission of TB has been documented in correctional 
facilities, and the standard would cover such workers.


Summary of 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

[[Page 63999]]

are at a 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 Cost 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 work-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 annual costs of 245 million dollars. 
Implementation of the standard is estimated to reduce the number of 
work-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 approximately 115 to 136 deaths resulting from these 
active cases.


Risks:


From 1985 to 1992, the number of reported cases of TB in the United 
States 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. Fourteen states showed an increase or no change in the number of 
reported cases in 1998, and the factors that contributed to the 
resurgence continue to exist, along with exposure of certain workers to 
patient or client populations with an increased rate of TB. In 
addition, TB outbreaks continue to occur and multidrug-resistant 
strains of TB continue to spread to new states. 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 of TB. OSHA estimates that the average lifetime 
occupational risk of TB infection ranges from 30-386 infections per 
1000 workers exposed to TB on the job and that the average lifetime 
occupational risk of TB disease ranges from 3-39 cases of active TB 
disease per 1000 workers exposed to TB. 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 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
Record Reopening64 FR 32447                                    06/17/99
Reopening Comment Period End                                   08/02/99
Final Rule                                                     07/00/00
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, Organizations


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, State, Local, Tribal


Additional Information:


During this rulemaking, OSHA met with small business stakeholders to 
discuss their concerns, and conducted an initial Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis to identify any significant impacts on a substantial number of 
small entities. In addition, OSHA conducted a special study of homeless 
shelters and set aside certain hearing dates for persons who wished to 
testify on homeless shelter issues.


Agency Contact:
Marthe B. Kent
Acting Director, Directorate of Health Standards Programs
Department of Labor
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Room N3718
200 Constitution Avenue NW
FP Building
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-1950
Fax: 202 693-1678
RIN: 1218-AB46
_______________________________________________________________________



DOL--OSHA
87. EMPLOYER PAYMENT FOR PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT
Priority:


Other Significant


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 that 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, 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:


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 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.

[[Page 64000]]

 The memorandum stated that it was the employer's obligation to provide 
and pay for PPE except in limited situations.


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 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 Cost and Benefits:


It is estimated that this rule will shift, at most, annualized costs to 
employers of no more than $62 million across all affected industries. 
It is also estimated that the proposed rule will prevent over 47,000 
injuries and seven fatalities that occur annually as a result of the 
non-use or misuse of personal protective equipment by employees 
required to pay for their own PPE.


Risks:


Substantive requirements for protective equipment are included in other 
OSHA 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            64 FR 15401                                    03/30/99
NPRM Comment Period End                                        06/14/99
Informal Public Hearing End                                    08/13/99
Final Rule                                                     07/00/00
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local, Federal


Agency Contact:
Marthe B. Kent
Acting Director, Directorate of Health Standards Programs
Department of Labor
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Room N3605
200 Constitution Avenue NW
FP Building
Washington, DC 20210
Phone: 202 693-2222
Fax: 202 693-1678
RIN: 1218-AB77
BILLING CODE 4510-23-F




[[Page 64001]]

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (DOT)

Statement of Regulatory Priorities
The Department of Transportation (DOT) consists of ten operating 
administrations, and the Office of the Secretary, 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. The Department's regulatory policies and 
procedures provide a comprehensive internal management and review 
process for new and existing regulations and ensure that the Secretary 
and other appropriate appointed officials review and concur in all 
significant DOT rules.
For virtually all DOT rules, the initiating office must prepare an 
analysis that includes a discussion of the problem being 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 effects. 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 to improve its regulatory process. The creation 
of an electronic, Internet-accessible docket for the Department; the 
use of direct final rulemaking; and the use of regulatory negotiation 
are three examples of this.
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.
Throughout the Department, we are also actively engaged in the review 
of 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....'' 
Appendix D to our Regulatory Agenda highlights our new, organized 
approach in this area.
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 significance among the various elements 
of the Department.
OST provides guidance and training regarding compliance with regulatory 
requirements and process for use by personnel throughout the 
Department. This past year, OST also led Departmental efforts in 
conducting roundtable discussions with the public on how to improve our 
economic analyses, risk assessment, and regulatory flexibility 
analyses. OST is also leading DOT's effort to implement the President's 
plain language initiatives.
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 continually incorporating new technology into its rulemaking 
process. OST initiated the effort that resulted in the consolidation of 
nine Departmental rulemaking (and adjudicatory) docket facilities into 
one, centrally-managed facility. The new docket system stores 
electronic images in unalterable form. It 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 now accepts electronic filing of comments. OST redesigned its 
Internet home page and the General Counsel's Office now includes 
hyperlinks to other useful DOT regulatory web sites, including the 
public rulemaking dockets, and contacts for many issues of special 
interest to the public (http://regs.dot.gov/).
United States Coast Guard (USCG)
The United States Coast Guard's statutory responsibilities include 
protecting the marine environment; enforcing U.S. laws and 
international

[[Page 64002]]

treaties; performing search and rescue; and ensuring marine safety and 
security.
The majority of the regulatory actions issued by the Coast Guard are 
classified as routine and frequent because they take effect for a 
limited time and at specific locations. These temporary actions allow 
local Coast Guard units to ensure safety during marine events. The 
Coast Guard issues approximately 30 regulations annually that set 
national standards or respond to specific statutory mandates. The 
Marine Safety Council, a board of senior Coast Guard Leaders, approves 
each of these rulemaking projects, monitors the Coast Guard's 
regulatory program, and advises the Commandant on regulatory matters. 
The following are significant aspects of the Coast Guard's regulatory 
program:
 The Coast Guard is an active member of the Vice President's 
            Plain Language Action Network. It has used plain language, 
            including question/answer format and graphical displays to 
            issue rules directly affecting the public, such as changes 
            to the fee schedule for work credentials and new training 
            requirements for international safety. The Coast Guard 
            issues all new regulations and revisions to whole parts of 
            the CFR in plain language to meet the Presidential 
            Memorandum on Plain Language. Plain language updates will 
            be an important part of the Coast Guard's review of all 
            regulations under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
 The Coast Guard encourages early public involvement in 
            rulemaking through a variety of public meetings and the 
            ongoing work of nine advisory committees. In addition, 
            public comments are requested on existing rules identified 
            for analysis each year and identified in Appendix D of the 
            fall agenda.
 Recognizing that it should issue only necessary regulations 
            tailored to impose the least burden on society, 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 ensure that all regulations are necessary, each 
            agenda item specifies how it supports at least one of the 
            goals of the Coast Guard's Strategic Plan. Strategic goals 
            include marine safety, protection of the marine 
            environment, facilitation of maritime commerce, and 
            national defense.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
The FAA issues regulations to provide a safe, secure, and efficient 
global aviation system for civil aircraft.
In response to the mandate of the Vice President's National Performance 
Review to streamline the regulatory process, the FAA reengineered its 
rulemaking process. The new process 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 
            reformed rulemaking process supports this agenda by 
            ensuring that appropriate resources are available to 
            support those rulemaking projects identified as the 
            agency's highest priority. 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. The FAA obtains input, both on the rule 
            and the economics, from affected parties prior to 
            publishing a proposed regulation by using the Aviation 
            Rulemaking Advisory Committee, which represents members 
            from all aviation interests. It is presently working on the 
            resolution of more than 60 issues. In 1998, the ARAC issued 
            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) improving Security of checked baggage 
            on flights within the United States.
 Continuing to recognize the needs of small entities by 
            complying with the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
            Fairness Act and addressing small entity 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 more than 10,000 inquiries concerning small 
            entities.
 Ensuring that the congressional mandates for rulemaking 
            deadlines established by the FAA Reauthorization Act of 
            1996 are met. One mandate is the issuance of a final rule 
            16 months after the close of the comment period on the 
            proposed rule.
Top regulatory priorities for 1999-2000 include a duty limitations and 
rest requirements rule to ensure that pilots are sufficiently rested 
for duty; a terrain awareness and warning system requirement; flight 
recorder improvements; a transport airplane fleet fuel tank ignition 
source review; 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 2000 will be 
continuing 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 continue 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.

[[Page 64003]]

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: 1) focus on those areas of 
enforcement and compliance which are most effective in reducing motor 
carrier accidents; 2) reduce compliance costs; 3) encourage innovation; 
4) clearly and succinctly describe what is required; and 5) 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 prioritizing regulatory initiatives that will 
enhance the operational safety of commercial motor vehicles. 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 the number of and mitigating 
the effects of motor vehicle crashes and related fatalities and 
injuries, providing motor vehicle information to consumers, and 
improving automotive fuel efficiency. NHTSA pursues policies that 
encourage the development of nonregulatory approaches when feasible in 
meeting its statutory mandate. It issues new standards and regulations 
or amendments to existing standards and regulations when appropriate. 
It ensures that regulatory alternatives reflect a careful assessment of 
the problem and a comprehensive analysis of the benefits, costs, and 
other impacts associated with the proposed regulatory action. Finally, 
it considers alternatives consistent with the Administration's 
regulatory principles.
In 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 through a 
number of means, including encouraging initiatives in such areas as 
safety belt use, child safety-seat use, activities aimed at combating 
impaired driving and aggressive driving, 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, it 
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 detection at night or under other 
conditions of reduced visibility. NHTSA will continue evaluating the 
implementation of the American Automobile Labeling Act, which requires 
new passenger cars, pickup trucks, vans, and sport utility vehicles to 
carry labels providing information on their domestic and foreign parts 
content. It is also evaluating 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.
Fashioning regulations that have favorable benefit-to-cost ratios, and 
that where feasible, incorporate flexible performance standards, 
requires cooperative action by all affected parties. In order to foster 
an environment of collaborative rulemaking, FRA established the 
Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC). 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 locomotive 
inspection standards for steam-powered locomotives; 3) the review of 
FRA regulations for their applicability to historic railroads; 4) the 
development of safety standards for locomotive crashworthiness; 5) the 
development of safety standards for locomotive working conditions; 6) 
the development of locomotive event recorder accident survivability 
standards; 7) the development of regulations governing the use of 
positive train control (PTC) systems; 8) the revision of regulations 
governing locomotive engineering certification; and 9) the development 
of a new accident reporting threshold.
In addition to RSAC, FRA continues to use collaborative rulemaking to 
address passenger safety issues. FRA established a working group to 
address Passenger Equipment Safety Standards and published a final rule 
in the first phase of this rulemaking initiative in May 1999 based on 
its recommendations. FRA expects to conduct research workshops related 
to the second phase of the rule in 2000. FRA is also involved in 
extensive public outreach to develop regulations regarding the use of 
train whistles, and plans to publish an NPRM in late 1999 or early 
2000.
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

[[Page 64004]]

 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 priorities for 1999-2000 
are to continue to issue rulemakings required under the Transportation 
Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), to amend existing regulations 
as needed, and to update existing regulations for plain language.
Of particular importance to FTA is the publication of the Major Capital 
Investment Projects rule which is required by TEA-21 and will detail 
how the agency will evaluate and rate proposed transit projects as 
recommended, highly recommended or not recommended. FTA will use these 
ratings to recommend to Congress which of the more than 190 projects 
authorized in TEA-21 should be federally funded.
TEA-21 also requires that FTA and FHWA amend the joint Environmental 
and Planning rules, both of which will be of significant interest to 
States, transit agencies, local governmental bodies, and environmental 
groups.
FTA intends to amend the State Safety Oversight of Rail Fixed Guideway 
Systems rule by proposing to require States to begin overseeing rail 
fixed guideway systems in the planning, design, and construction phases 
of a system's cycle. FTA also intends to combine the drug and alcohol 
rules into one rule. These rules will be rewritten in plain language.
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 of 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 1999, and continuing into 2000, MARAD will give priority to updating 
existing regulations to reduce unnecessary burden on the public. For 
example, MARAD will update and streamline 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 clarify through rulemaking the applicability of 
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.
A previous priority to revise the requirement for cylinders has been 
removed from the plan as a result of public comments received to a 
notice of proposed rulemaking. RSPA will be conducting a full technical 
review of the proposed specifications and standards.
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 
collecting, compiling, analyzing, and making accessible information on 
the Nation's transportation systems; identifying needs for new 
information and analysis and implementing programs to meet those needs; 
and enhancing the quality and effectiveness of the Department's 
statistical programs through research, the development of guidelines, 
coordination with related information-gathering activities conducted by 
other Federal agencies, and the promotion of improvements in data 
acquisition, archiving, dissemination, and use.
BTS's Office of Airline Information (OAI), collects airline financial 
and operating statistical data, covering both passenger and cargo 
traffic. 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, market trends, and economic 
analyses.
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 to meet 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, is in the 
preliminary stages of performing 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.

[[Page 64005]]

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 to ensure the safe transit of 
commercial and noncommercial vessels through the two U.S. locks and 
navigation channels of the Saint 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 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

                              -----------

88. MARINE TRANSPORTATION - RELATED FACILITY RESPONSE PLANS FOR 
HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES (CGD 94-048)
Priority:


Other Significant


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, was developed in 
tandem with this rulemaking and addresses hazardous response plan 
requirements for tank vessels. Resources were committed to initially 
publish an NPRM for the Tank Vessel Response Plans rulemaking. That 
expertise will now be used to draft the NPRM for this related 
rulemaking. 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 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 Cost 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. A regulatory assessment 
addressing costs and benefits of this rule will be available in the 
public docket when the NPRM is published.


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                                                           11/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Additional Information:


Public hearings regarding this rulemaking were held in Washington,

[[Page 64006]]

DC on July 30, 1996; Houston, TX on August 5, 1996; and in Houston, TX 
on February 26 and 27, 1997.


Agency Contact:
David Dupont
Project Manager, G-MSR-1
Department of Transportation
U.S. Coast Guard
2100 Second Street SW
Washington, DC 20593-0001
Phone: 202 267-0971
RIN: 2115-AE87
_______________________________________________________________________



DOT--USCG

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

89. TANK VESSEL RESPONSE PLANS FOR HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES (USCG-
1998-4354)
Priority:


Other Significant


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 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 Cost 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. A regulatory 
assessment addressing costs and benefits of this rule is available in 
the public docket.


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            64 FR 13734                                    03/22/99
Notice of Public64 FR 31994                                    06/15/99
NPRM Comment Period Extended                                   06/15/99
NPRM Comment Period End                                        06/21/99
NPRM Extended Comment Period End                               08/30/99
Final Action                                                   03/00/00
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Additional Information:


A public hearing on this rulemaking was held in Houston, TX on August 
12 and 13, 1999.


Agency Contact:
David Dupont
Project Manager, G-MSR-1
Department of Transportation
U.S. Coast Guard
2100 Second Street SW
Washington, DC 20593-0001
Phone: 202 267-0971
RIN: 2115-AE88


_______________________________________________________________________


[[Page 64007]]

DOT--Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

90. 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) 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 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. A notice of proposed rulemaking has been developed and 
is now being reviewed by the FAA and NPS. In April 1999, the FAA issued 
a disposition of comments to the ANPRM. That document summarizes those 
comments to the ANPRM and provides an update to the public on matters 
concerning air tours over units of the national park system. 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 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 Cost 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
Comment Period E59 FR 31883                                    06/20/94
Notice of Public62 FR 31187                                    06/06/97
Notice of Public63 FR 17040                                    04/07/98
Disposition of C64 FR 17293                                    04/09/99
NPRM                                                           04/00/00
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, 04/00/2


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
91. 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 on duty period limitations, 
flight time limitations, and rest requirements for flight crewmembers 
engaged in air transportation. The changes are necessary to ensure that 
the rules will continue to provide the minimum level of safety. This

[[Page 64008]]

rulemaking responds to public and congressional interest in regulating 
flight crewmember rest requirements, NTSB Safety Recommendations, 
petitions for rulemaking, and scientific data. 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.


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.


Summary of 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 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.


Anticipated Cost 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
Comment Period E61 FR 11492                                    03/20/96
SNPRM                                                          08/00/00
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:
Alberta Brown
Air Transportation Division
Department of Transportation
Federal Aviation Administration
800 Independence Avenue SW.
Washington, DC 20591
Phone: 202 267-8321
RIN: 2120-AF63
_______________________________________________________________________



DOT--FAA

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

92. TERRAIN AWARENESS AND WARNING SYSTEM
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 copilot 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:


The TAWS improves on existing GPWS systems by providing the flight crew 
much earlier aural and visual warning of impending terrain, forward 
looking capability, and continued operation in the landing 
configuration. These improvements provide more time for the flight crew 
to make smoother and gradual corrective action.


Summary of 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 Cost 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

[[Page 64009]]

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                                                   03/00/00
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
_______________________________________________________________________



DOT--Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

93. HOURS OF SERVICE OF DRIVERS (SECTION 610 REVIEW)
Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Unfunded Mandates:


Private Sector


Legal Authority:


PL 104-88


CFR Citation:


49 CFR 395


Legal Deadline:


Other, Statutory, March 1, 1996, ANPRM.


NPRM, Statutory, November 5, 1997.


Final, Statutory, November 5, 1999.


Abstract:


This action would revise the FHWA's hours of service regulations. It is 
mandated by the ICC Termination Act of 1995. It also responds to the 
NTSB's safety recommendations, petitions for rulemaking, and new 
scientific data. There is substantial public and congressional interest 
in the regulation of 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, and 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. One of the purposes of this rulemaking is to 
incorporate as much of the scientific knowledge as possible into the 
applicable regulations.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Section 31502 of Title 49, United States Code, authorizes 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 
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 different regulations for different types of drivers, 
operations, or classification of vehicles.


The FHWA will also consider modifying the information collection 
burdens that have been placed 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 Cost and Benefits:


Undetermined. A cost-benefit analysis completed in 1981 and 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.''


Risks:


The Department's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's 
databases show fatigue as a contributing factor in 306 to 1,163 annual 
police-reported crashes for all vehicles nationally. Some scientific 
research suggests the number may be closer to 364 to 4,070 of all 
crashes (police-reported and non-police-reported).

[[Page 64010]]

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
NPRM                                                           12/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, Organizations


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local, Federal


Agency Contact:
David Miller
Transportation Specialist
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)

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

94. 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. 
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 March 9, 1999 (64 FR 11724 - RIN 2127-AG53), in a separate 
rulemaking, the agency upgraded the label with better graphics and 
stronger wording. However, there is no safety standard or rating test 
for rollovers.


Summary of 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 1.50.


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 Cost and Benefits:


The anticipated costs and benefits of this action have not yet been 
estimated.


Risks:


Rollover crashes are the most dangerous collision type for all classes 
of light vehicles when measured either by fatalities or incapacitating 
injuries per involved occupant. In terms of fatalities per registered 
vehicle, rollovers are second only to frontal crashes in their level of 
severity. Expressed another way, rollovers accounted for 5.9 percent of 
light vehicle tow-away crashes in NHTSA's 1997 NASS-CDS data, less than 
1/6 of the combined level of side and rear tow-away crashes. However, 
rollovers accounted for 29.4 percent of light vehicle occupant 
fatalities in 1997 FARS data, more deaths than the combined total of 
light vehicle occupant deaths in side and rear crashes. In addition, 
the rollover problem is generally more serious for light trucks and 
vans (LTV's) than for passenger cars. State crash data indicate that 
although the involvement rate for LTV's in all types of collisions is 
only 68 percent of that for passenger cars, their involvement rate in 
rollover accidents is 127 percent of that for passenger cars.


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
NPRM Comment Period End                                        08/05/96
Petition Grant  62 FR 27578                                    05/20/97
Agency Decision                                                11/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


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 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

[[Page 64011]]

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
RIN: 2127-AC64
_______________________________________________________________________



DOT--NHTSA
95. ADVANCED AIR BAGS
Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Unfunded Mandates:


Private Sector


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:


Final, Statutory, March 1, 2000.


Abstract:


On September 18, 1998, the agency proposed to upgrade its occupant 
protection standard to require advanced air bags. This proposal 
included performance tests for advanced air bags, requiring that 
advancements be made in the ability of air bags to protect occupants of 
different sizes, belted and unbelted, and requiring air bags to be 
designed to minimize risks to infants, children, and other occupants. 
In light of its review of the comments and other new information, the 
agency is presenting a modified proposal in an SNPRM. 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 July 1, 1999, the 
agency was aware of 80 children and 61 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 quickly 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 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 Cost and Benefits:


The agency estimates that the costs of the proposed rule would be in 
the range of $22 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
Notice of Public63 FR 57091                                    10/26/98
NPRM Comment Period End                                        12/17/98
Notice of Techni64 FR 13947p                                   03/23/99
SNPRM           64 FR 60556                                    11/05/99
Final Action                                                   03/00/00
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Additional Information:


A technical workshop was held February 11 and 12, 1997, in Washington, 
DC. The NPRM responded 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.


Public meetings to discuss technical issues relating to this NPRM were 
held

[[Page 64012]]

on November 23 and 24, 1998. Also, biomechanics meetings were held on 
April 20 and 21, 1999.


ANALYSIS: Regulatory Evaluation, 09/18/98, 63 FR 49957


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
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2127-AG70
_______________________________________________________________________



DOT--Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

96. WHISTLE BANS AT HIGHWAY-RAIL GRADE CROSSINGS
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


49 USC 20153


CFR Citation:


49 CFR 222


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, November 2, 1996.


Abstract:


This action would govern when and how train whistles at grade crossings 
must be sounded. FRA has found that failing to use the locomotive horn 
can significantly increase the number of collisions with motorists 
using the crossing. This action is considered significant because of 
substantial public interest. This action is being taken pursuant to 
statutory mandate. FRA studied the consequences of the proposed action 
and prepared a draft environmental impact statement (EIS) for the 
proposed rule.


Statement of Need:


This rule is required by the Swift Development Act of 1994 (Act). The 
Act requires the use of locomotive horns at every public highway-rail 
grade crossing but gives FRA the authority to make reasonable 
exceptions. Congress amended this law in 1996 to require that FRA take 
into account the interest of the communities with pre-existing 
restrictions on locomotive horns.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Issuance of this rule is required by 49 USC 20153.


Alternatives:


There was no alternative to initiating this rulemaking, as it is 
required by statute. However, the rule would provide a list of 
supplementary measures the FRA has determined to be effective 
substitutes for the locomotive horn in the prevention of highway-rail 
grade crossing casualties. The rule would also allow for whistle bans 
if there are alternative safety measures that compensate for the lack 
of a locomotive horn.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The problems considered by this rule are collisions and their 
associated casualties and property damage involving vehicles on public 
highways and the front ends of trains at whistle-ban grade crossings. 
Although accident severity and the probability of a fatal accident is 
most strongly related to train speed, every grade crossing where 
locomotive horns are not sounded is a potential accident site. In 1996, 
there were 79 collisions at whistle-ban crossings which resulted in 2 
fatalities, 39 injuries to non-railroad employees, and 2 injuries to 
railroad employees. The estimated safety benefits of the proposed rule 
are derived from the prevention of collisions and the resulting 
fatalities and injuries. Benefits also exist for railroads in terms of 
reduced train delay, debris removal and repairs.


The costs of this rulemaking will be incurred predominantly by 
communities. However, there are also costs to railroads and to the 
Federal government. At this time, FRA does not know how many businesses 
would be impacted or the severity of the impact if a community elects 
to follow the mandate and become subject to whistleblowing at 
crossings. Nevertheless, the benefits in terms of lives saved and 
injuries prevented will exceed the costs imposed on society for the 
proposed rule. Even under the best case scenario (falling collision 
rates over time) the safety benefits alone, excluding any benefit to 
railroads, exceed the most costly realistic scenario for community 
safety enhancements.


Risks:


As a result of studies conducted on accident rates at crossings at 
which locomotive horns are banned, FRA has concluded that such 
crossings generally result in a higher risk of accident than at 
crossings at which horns are sounded. FRA has compared the number of 
collisions occurring within ten different groups of crossings grouped 
by risk and found that the risk of a collision was 62 percent greater 
at crossings equipped with automatic gates and flashing lights than at 
similarly equipped crossings across the nation without bans. FRA 
analysis also indicated that whistle ban crossings without gates, but 
equipped with flashing light signals and/or other types of active 
warning devices, on average, experienced 119 percent more collisions 
than similarly equipped crossings without whistle bans. Congress 
requires that FRA issue a regulation requiring the sounding of 
locomotive horns at all public highway rail grade crossings. However, 
an exception to the requirement is permissible in circumstances in 
which there is not a significant risk of loss of life or serious 
personal injury, use of the locomotive horn is impractical, or 
supplementary safety measures fully compensate for the absence of the 
warning provided by the horn. Issuance of the rule would lower the 
increased collision risk associated with crossings at which no 
locomotive horns are sounded.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           11/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local


Agency Contact:
Mark Tessler
Trial Attorney
Department of Transportation
Federal Railroad Administration
400 Seventh Street SW.
Washington, DC 20590
Phone: 202 493-6061
RIN: 2130-AA71


_______________________________________________________________________


[[Page 64013]]

DOT--FRA

                              -----------

                            FINAL RULE STAGE

                              -----------

97. 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 an entity 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 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. FRA does not 
intend to regulate Class III railroads for the purposes of this rule. 
Nevertheless, the agency solicited comments from interested parties 
about this proposal, or whether the rule should cover any Class III 
railroad seeking to carry out a regulated transaction.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


In this rulemaking action, FRA addressed the costs and benefits of 
issuing the proposed rule. See 63 FR 72225, 72235 (December 31, 1998). 
For Class I railroads, the agency estimates that a SIP would cost 
between $300,000 and $800,000 to prepare, but will prevent $1.5 million 
to $12 million in accident costs. For Class II railroads, FRA estimates 
that a SIP would cost between $50,000 and $200,000 to prepare, but will 
prevent between $60,000 and $1.2 million in accident costs. The agency 
adds that the safety planning process may save railroads from 
experiencing substantial service difficulties that correspond to these 
complex transactions.


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            63 FR 72225                                    12/31/98
Public Hearing -64 FR 19512                                    04/21/99
Comment Period Extended                                        04/21/99
NPRM Comment Period End                                        05/04/99
Final Action                                                   01/00/00
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Additional Information:


A public hearing on this rulemaking was held on May 4, 1999.


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--Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

98. APPLICABILITY OF THE HAZARDOUS MATERIALS REGULATIONS TO 
LOADING, UNLOADING, AND STORAGE
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


49 USC 5101 to 5127


CFR Citation:


49 CFR 106 to 107; 49 CFR 171 to 180

[[Page 64014]]

Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rulemaking proposes to better define the applicability of the 
Federal Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR) in order to clarify the 
relationship among Federal, state, local, and tribal agencies in the 
regulation of hazardous materials. Under circumstances specified in 
Federal statutes, the regulations of other Federal agencies (EPA and 
OSHA) and non-Federal governments (States, localities, and Indian 
tribes) must be consistent with or defer to RSPA's regulation of the 
transportation of hazardous materials in commerce. However, other 
Federal and non-Federal requirements are generally not limited where 
hazardous materials are not in transportation. Activities relating to 
loading, unloading, and storage of hazardous materials have become 
areas of particular uncertainty and concern to both industry and non-
Federal governments. This action is significant because of the 
substantial public interest in reducing uncertainty and avoiding 
conflicting regulations.


Statement of Need:


In recent years, RSPA has issued interpretations and administrative 
decisions on a case-by-case basis about whether particular activities 
are in ``transportation'' and therefore subject to regulation under the 
HMR. Because of increasing State and local regulation of hazardous 
materials, RSPA concluded that an overall rulemaking is appropriate, 
rather than just case-by-case decisions. RSPA believes that better 
overall definitions of the applicability of the HMR will reduce 
uncertainty by the regulated community and other regulatory agencies 
(both Federal and non-Federal) as to which agency has regulatory 
authority. Greater certainty in this regard should promote improved 
compliance with the HMR and also with the requirements of other 
regulatory agencies.


Summary of 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 applicable 
to, among others, any person who offers hazardous materials for 
transportation or who transport hazardous materials in commerce. In 
addition, section 5125 of title 49 U.S.C. sets forth the circumstances 
under which differing non-Federal requirements are preempted.


Alternatives:


Commenters to the ANPRM and SANPRM suggested alternative ways to 
describe the applicability of the HMR. One suggestion is to describe 
the applicability of the HMR in relationship to specific transportation 
functions. Another is to describe the applicability of the HMR over 
specific regulated entities, such as those who offer hazardous 
materials for transportation or those who transport hazardous 
materials. RSPA is considering each of the alternatives proposed.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The potential costs and benefits of this action have not been 
determined. A preliminary regulatory evaluation will be developed.


Risks:


Clarifying the applicability of the HMR should reduce uncertainty as to 
which regulatory agency's requirements apply to any particular activity 
involving hazardous materials and improve compliance with the HMR, the 
requirements of EPA and OSHA, and non-Federal requirements. This should 
result in improved compliance with the applicable regulatory 
requirements, and improve hazardous materials transportation safety, 
reduce risks to the environment from hazardous materials, and promote 
workplace safety at facilities that manufacture or handle hazardous 
materials.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM           61 FR 39522                                    07/29/96
ANPRM Comment Period End                                       11/30/96
SANPRM          64 FR 22718                                    04/27/99
Extension Comment Period Published for SANPRM                  07/26/99
SANPRM Comment Period End                                      08/25/99
NPRM                                                           02/00/00
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, State, Local, Tribal


Additional Information:


Docket No. HM-223. As a result of comments received to the ANPRM, we 
have upgraded this rulemaking to significant.


Agency Contact:
Susan Gorsky
Senior Regulations Specialist
Department of Transportation
Research and Special Programs Administration
400 Seventh Street SW.
Washington, DC 20590
Phone: 202 366-8553
Email: Susan.G[email protected]
RIN: 2137-AC68
BILLING CODE 4810-25-F




[[Page 64015]]

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; developing domestic and 
international economic policy; 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 Fund and its programs; 
protecting the President, Vice President, certain foreign diplomatic 
personnel, and others; 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 2000 the Department will continue to 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 (Tax Policy), promulgates regulations that 
interpret and implement the Internal Revenue Code and related tax 
statutes. The purpose of these regulations is to carry out the tax 
policy determined by Congress in a fair, impartial and reasonable 
manner, taking into account the intent of Congress, the realities of 
relevant transactions, the need for the Government to administer the 
rules and monitor compliance, and the overall integrity of the Federal 
tax system. The goal is to make the regulations practical and as clear 
and simple as possible.
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.
During fiscal year 2000, the IRS will accord priority to the following 
regulatory projects:
 Reporting Requirements for U.S. Persons with Respect to 
            Certain Foreign Partnerships. The Taxpayer Relief Act of 
            1997 significantly modified the information reporting 
            requirements with respect to foreign partnerships. The IRS 
            intends to issue comprehensive final regulations relating 
            to the tax return requirements for United States persons 
            owning interests in foreign partnerships. The final 
            regulations will be issued under section 6038 (reporting 
            with regard to controlled foreign partnerships), section 
            6038B (reporting with regard to certain transfers to 
            foreign partnerships), and section 6046A (reporting with 
            regard to certain ownership changes in foreign 
            partnerships) of the Internal Revenue Code (Code). These 
            regulations will provide guidance to United States persons 
            who must file the relevant information returns.
 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 final regulations under 
            section 41 of the Code will explain the term ``qualified 
            research'' and the exclusions from research credit 
            eligibility.
 Relief from Joint and Several Liability. The Taxpayer Relief 
            Act of 1997, as amended by the Internal Revenue Service 
            Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, repealed former 
            section 6013(e) of the Code and added section 6015, which 
            provides individuals who filed a joint return the 
            opportunity for three types of relief from joint and 
            several liability with respect to the return. Section 6015 
            is effective for liabilities unpaid as of July 22, 1998, 
            and for liabilities that arise after that date. Section 
            6015(g) directs the Secretary to prescribe regulations 
            necessary to carry out the provisions of section 6015, 
            including: (1) providing alternative methods for allocation 
            of items; and (2) providing a ``nonrequesting spouse'' with 
            notice of, and an opportunity to participate in, any 
            administrative proceeding with respect to an election for 
            relief made under section 6015(b) or 6015(c) by the 
            ``requesting'' spouse. The IRS expects to issue proposed 
            regulations that will provide guidance on these and other 
            issues relating to the new relief provisions.
 Third Party Contacts Under Section 7602(c). The Internal 
            Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 added 
            section 7602(c) to the Code. Section 7602(c) creates a new 
            taxpayer right that prohibits IRS employees from contacting 
            any person, other than the taxpayer, with respect to the 
            determination or collection of tax without first giving the 
            taxpayer notice. Section 7602(c) also requires that the IRS 
            make a record of any contacts made and provide that record 
            to the taxpayer.
 Sourcing of Income From Communications Activities. The IRS and 
            Treasury intend to issue proposed regulations to determine 
            the source of income from ocean and space activities and 
            international communications. These proposed regulations 
            are of particular importance to taxpayers engaged in such 
            emerging technologies as data transmission, the Internet, 
            and satellite communications.
 Excise Taxes on Excess Benefit Transactions. Section 4958 
            imposes excise taxes on non-fair market value transactions 
            between certain tax-exempt organizations and persons in 
            positions to exercise substantial influence over those 
            organizations

[[Page 64016]]

            (disqualified persons). Disqualified persons who benefit 
            economically from the excess benefit transactions (and in 
            certain instances, the organization managers) are liable 
            for the taxes. The IRS expects to issue final regulations 
            that will clarify various definitions and rules contained 
            in section 4958.
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.
The OCC's regulatory workload and plans are affected directly by new 
statutes. For example, if the 106th Congress enacts financial 
modernization legislation the OCC would be required to devote 
substantial time and resources to implementing the new law. That 
legislation and other possible statutory changes are not otherwise 
addressed in this Regulatory Plan, but may affect some of the planned 
rules directly, and likely would affect how the OCC prioritizes its 
regulatory workload.
Important final and interim rules issued during fiscal year 1999 (or 
expected to be issued before publication of this Regulatory Plan) 
include:
 Capital Amendments (12 C.F.R. Part 3). This rule, issued 
            jointly with the other federal banking agencies, amended 
            the capital adequacy rules with respect to second mortgages 
            on certain residential properties; construction loans on 
            certain presold residential properties; bank investments in 
            mutual funds; and the leverage capital ratio. This rule 
            implemented section 303 of the Riegle Community Development 
            and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994 (RCDRIA), which 
            requires the banking agencies to work jointly to make 
            uniform regulations that implement common statutory or 
            supervisory policy. These changes were conforming in nature 
            and were designed to make the capital requirements of the 
            banking agencies more uniform.
 Release of Nonpublic OCC Information (12 C.F.R. Part 4). This 
            rule clarified that the OCC may make non-public OCC 
            information available to a supervised entity and to other 
            persons, as the Comptroller deems necessary or appropriate, 
            without a request.
 Management Official Interlocks (12 C.F.R. Part 26). This rule, 
            issued jointly by the federal banking agencies, amended 
            their regulations to conform to the 1996 amendments to the 
            Depository Institutions Management Interlocks Act (DIMIA). 
            Those amendments (1) permitted the agencies to grant 
            exemptions to the interlocks prohibition for any interlock 
            that would not result in a monopoly or substantial 
            lessening of competition and (2) raised 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.
 Y2K Standards for Safety and Soundness (12 C.F.R. Part 30). 
            The OCC and the other banking agencies issued interim 
            guidelines establishing Year 2000 standards for safety and 
            soundness for insured depository institutions pursuant to 
            section 39 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act. The 
            banking agencies previously issued several guidance papers 
            on important aspects of Year 2000 readiness. The guidelines 
            complement these guidance papers by establishing minimum 
            safety and soundness standards for achieving Year 2000 
            readiness.
The OCC's regulatory priorities for fiscal year 2000 include projects 
in the following areas:
 Community Banks. The OCC published an advance notice of 
            proposed rulemaking on May 12, 1999, inviting comment on 
            ways to eliminate unnecessary burdens on community banks. 
            In particular, the OCC requested comment on ways to reduce 
            burden in the areas of capital, lending limits, corporate 
            governance, and applications processing.
 Community Development Corporations, Community Development 
            Projects, and Other Public Welfare Investments (12 C.F.R. 
            Part 24). This rule would (1) make community benefit 
            information optional in self-certification letters and 
            investment proposals, (2) remove the local community 
            investment requirement for self-certification, and (3) 
            provide that eligible community banks may self-certify all 
            public welfare investments. The rule also would request 
            comments on whether the requirements for community 
            involvement in a national bank's public welfare investments 
            should be modified.
 Interpretive Rulings (12 C.F.R. Part 7). This rule would 
            codify recent OCC interpretations concerning messenger 
            services, visitorial powers, ownership of stock by a 
            director, acquisition and retention by a bank of its 
            shares, the power to guaranty liabilities for foreign 
            activities, and the ability of national banks to have ATMs 
            without being subject to geographic restrictions.
 Minimum Security Devices and Procedures (12 C.F.R. Part 21). 
            This rule would address a problem inadvertently created 
            when the Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction 
            Act of 1996 removed automated teller machines (ATMs) from 
            the definition of ``branch'' in 12 U.S.C. 36(j).
 Conservatorship and Receivership Rules for Uninsured Entities. 
            This rule will develop rules governing the conduct of a 
            conservatorship or receivership for an uninsured national 
            bank.
 Y2K. The OCC also expects to publish guidelines in the 
            following two areas affecting banks' efforts to become Year 
            2000 compliant:
 Year 2000 Transfer Agent/Broker-Dealer Safety and Soundness 
            Guidelines. This rule will complement the Year 2000 Safety 
            and Soundness Guidelines by establishing

[[Page 64017]]

            steps that national bank transfer agents and broker-dealers 
            must take to ensure the Year 2000 readiness of transfer 
            agent and broker-dealer automated systems.
 Interagency Guidelines Establishing Year 2000 Standards for 
            Safety and Soundness. The OCC intends to finalize, with 
            changes if appropriate, the interim guidelines discussed 
            above.
 Risk-Based Capital Standards (12 C.F.R. Part 3). The OCC will 
            continue to work with the other federal banking agencies to 
            update the risk-based capital standards to maintain, and, 
            where necessary, improve consistency in the agencies' 
            rules. Regulatory projects in this area may include the 
            following:
 Risk-Based Capital Treatment of Recourse and Direct Credit 
            Substitutes. Among other things, this rule would (1) treat 
            recourse obligations and direct credit substitutes 
            comparably; (2) use credit ratings to assign risk weights 
            to credit enhancements and asset-backed securities; and (3) 
            permit the use of bank internal risk ratings for certain 
            limited purposes.
 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. 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.
 Capital Adequacy. The OCC, along with the other banking 
            agencies, plans to issue a joint advance notice of proposed 
            rulemaking inviting comments on ways to simplify the 
            capital adequacy framework for small, noncomplex 
            institutions.
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.
Under the auspices of the Federal Financial Institutions Examination 
Council (FFIEC) the, OTS will continue to work with the other federal 
banking agencies to make uniform all regulations and guidelines 
implementing common statutory provisions or supervisory policies. These 
include:
 Risk-Based Capital Standards. The OTS will continue to work 
            with the other federal banking agencies to update the risk-
            based capital standards to maintain, and, where necessary, 
            improve consistency in the agencies' rules. Regulatory 
            projects in this area may include the following:
 Risk-Based Capital Treatment of Recourse and Direct Credit 
            Substitutes. Among other things, this rule would (1) treat 
            recourse obligations and direct credit substitutes 
            comparably; (2) use credit ratings to assign risk weights 
            to credit enhancements and asset-backed securities; and (3) 
            permit the use of bank internal risk ratings for certain 
            limited purposes.
 Collateralized Transactions. The rule would conform the rules 
            of OTS and the other banking agencies to the OCC's rule 
            regarding the risk-based capital treatment of loans 
            collateralized in cash or OECD government securities. 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.
 Capital Adequacy. This rulemaking would simplify capital 
            adequacy framework for small, non-complex institutions.
 Miscellaneous Capital Revisions. OTS plans to issue a proposed 
            rule making miscellaneous amendments to update its capital 
            rules.
 Interagency Guidelines Establishing Year 2000 Standards for 
            Safety and Soundness. During fiscal year 1999 the OTS and 
            the other banking agencies issued interim guidelines 
            establishing Year 2000 standards for safety and soundness 
            for insured depository institutions pursuant to section 39 
            of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act. The OTS intends to 
            finalize, with changes if appropriate, the interim 
            guidelines discussed above.
The OTS also plans to issue a proposed rule revising its conversion 
regulations, to finalize a rule concerning multiple holding companies 
claiming unitary status based on acquisitions, and to issue a proposed 
rule that would require certain holding companies to notify OTS before 
they engage in significant new activities.
 During fiscal 2000, the OTS intends to publish a number of 
            proposed rules as part of its ongoing effort to review and 
            streamline its regulations. These proposals, which will be 
            drafted in ``plain language'' format, include:
 Applications Processing. The OTS plans to revise its 
            procedures governing the submission of certain 
            applications, notices, and other filings to OTS.
 Offices. The OTS will review and update its regulations on 
            types of offices, including existing provisions on home, 
            branch, and agency offices. The project is designed to 
            ensure that OTS rules reflect how modern thrifts conduct 
            their operations.
 Directors and Officers. This rule would streamline regulatory 
            provisions concerning matters such as indemnification, 
            savings association boards of directors, compensation, 
            employment contracts, extensions of credit to insiders, 
            conflicts of interest, and corporate opportunity.
The regulatory workload and plans of the OTS are affected directly by 
new statutes. For example, if the 106th Congress enacts financial 
modernization legislation the OTS will be required to devote 
substantial time and resources to implementing the new law. That 
legislation and other possible statutory changes are not addressed in 
this Regulatory Plan, but may affect some of the planned rules 
directly, and likely would affect how the OTS prioritizes its 
regulatory workload.
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, over-seeing 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 
2000 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 1999, one of Customs` priorities was to continue the

[[Page 64018]]

reinvention of its regulatory procedures began 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. 12886, 
have involved and will continue to involve significant input from the 
importing public. Two final rules implementing the Customs Mod Act were 
published during the past fiscal year. One set forth Customs procedures 
regarding the detention of merchandise and the other concerned 
recordkeeping for merchandise transported by pipeline and for duty-free 
withdrawals of aircraft turbine fuel from customs bonded warehouses. 
Customs also proposed a major revision of its regulations concerning 
the licensing and conduct of customs brokers in the performance of 
customs business on behalf of others. This proposal is integral to 
implementation of the Customs Mod Act and was issued after consultation 
with the concerned public.
During fiscal year 2000 Customs will continue to move forward with 
amendments implementing the Customs Mod Act. Customs plans to publish a 
proposal to revise the procedures by which Customs will issue 
administrative rulings responding to requests from prospective 
importers concerning how Customs will treat their transactions. Customs 
also plans to finalize the proposed regulation concerning customs 
brokers.
During the fiscal year 2000, 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 to several regulatory projects 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 reducing paperwork and administrative 
costs, improving the efficiency of Customs operations, and streamlining 
the work of the trade community. Among these projects 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. This 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.
 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; 
            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 intends to streamline its regulations applying to the brewing 
industry by simplifying its brewery reports and operations and 
eliminating obsolete regulatory provisions. Also, ATF will propose 
minimum production standards for beer, thereby reducing formula filings 
and a revised statement of net contents requirement for certain 
container sizes.
ATF will continue, as a priority during Fiscal Year 2000, the multi-
faceted regulatory project governing various modifications to its 
regulations governing commerce in explosives. ATF is further analyzing 
its regulations governing storage requirements for explosives, 
including fireworks explosive materials, and plans to issue the notice 
of proposed rulemaking described in detail in Part II of this 
Regulatory Plan.
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network
The regulations of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) 
constitute the core of Treasury's anti-money laundering initiatives and 
are 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 
cornerstone 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 2000, 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

[[Page 64019]]

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:
 Suspicious Transaction Reports. 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. FinCEN may also publish for public comment a 
            proposal to require brokers and dealers in securities to 
            report suspicious transactions.
 Foreign Bank Drafts. In 1997, FinCEN issued a notice of 
            proposed rulemaking to expand the definition of ``monetary 
            instrument'' to include certain foreign bank drafts for 
            purposes of the reporting of cross-border transportation. 
            This expansion would 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. FinCEN expects to take further 
            action on the notice.
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. BPD also is responsible 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 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.
During fiscal year 2000 BPD will accord priority to finalizing the 
proposed rule issued in August 1999 that would establish the mechanism 
by which the Treasury can buy back marketable Treasury securities held 
by the public. This regulation will be an important potential debt 
management tool for the federal government in the future.
Financial Management Service
The Financial Management Service (FMS) issues regulations to improve 
the quality of Government financial management and to administer its 
payments, collections, and debt collection and government-wide 
accounting programs. During this fiscal year, FMS will continue to 
implement provisions of the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996. 
FMS, in conjunction with the Department of Justice, will finalize the 
rule containing the Federal Claims Collection Standards. This rule 
establishes standards for government-wide debt collection. 
Additionally, FMS will promulgate regulations to implement amendments 
to section 6402 of the Internal Revenue Code, authorizing the Secretary 
of the Treasury to offset tax refund payments to collect delinquent 
State income tax debt.
Also in fiscal year 2000, FMS will revise its rule that implements the 
Cash Management Improvement Act of 1990 (CMIA). The CMIA requires the 
head of each executive agency, under regulations prescribed by the 
Secretary of the Treasury, to provide for the timely disbursement of 
Federal funds through cash, checks, electronic funds transfer, or any 
other means identified by the Secretary of the Treasury. FMS issued an 
implementing regulation, affecting billions of dollars in Federal 
payments, on December 21, 1992. Since that date, many changes have been 
identified that require public comment. FMS intends to issue a notice 
of proposed rulemaking concerning CMIA in late 1999, with publication 
of a final rule targeted for several months later.
Finally, FMS plans to revise certain of its rules that pertain to 
Treasury checks. 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. FMS also plans to 
revise its rule that governs the issuance of settlement checks for 
forged checks that are drawn on designated depositaries.
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 2000 is to continue to 
streamline the application and review process for the CDFI and BEA 
programs. The Congress is currently considering legislation known as 
the ``Program for Investment in Microentrepreneurs Act of 1999,'' which 
would establish a program to provide financial grants for the purpose 
of encouraging microenterprise development. If this legislation is 
enacted, the Fund will also accord priority to promulgating regulations 
to implement this program.


_______________________________________________________________________


[[Page 64020]]

TREAS--Financial Management Service (FMS)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

99. RULES AND PROCEDURES FOR EFFICIENT FEDERAL-STATE FUNDS TRANSFERS
Priority:


Other 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:


5 USC 301; 31 USC 321; 31 USC 3335; 31 USC 6501; 31 USC 6503


CFR Citation:


31 CFR 205


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This regulation governs the transfer of Federal assistance funds to 
State governments and implements the Cash Management Improvement Act of 
1990, as amended. Revisions to the regulation will address concerns 
raised by both States and Federal agencies about intergovernmental 
financing. Rules and procedures for funds transfers will be revised to 
provide more options and greater flexibility.


Statement of Need:


The Cash Management Improvement Act (CMIA), Public Law 101-453, October 
24, 1990, requires the head of each Executive agency, under regulations 
prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury, to provide for the timely 
disbursement of Federal funds through cash, checks, electronic funds 
transfer, or any other means identified by the Secretary of the 
Treasury. FMS issued a final implementing regulation, impacting 
billions of dollars in Federal payments, on December 21, 1992. Since 
that date, many changes have been identified that require public 
comment. This CMIA regulation affects all States and territories 
receiving Federal funds.


Summary of Legal Basis:


This regulation is authorized by the Cash Management Improvement Act of 
1990, Public Law 101-453, October 24, 1990. The substantive provisions 
of this law are codified at 31 U.S.C. 3335 and 6503; other applicable 
provisions of law are codified at 5 U.S.C. 301 and 31 U.S.C. 321.


Alternatives:


Not applicable.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


This proposed revision of the regulation implementing the Cash 
Management Improvement Act of 1990 is anticipated to improve the 
efficiency of funds transfers between the Federal Government and the 
States. No increase in costs is anticipated for the Federal Government 
or the States. Administrative burdens on the Federal Government and the 
States are anticipated to decrease.


Risks:


Not applicable.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           11/00/99
Final Action                                                   03/00/00
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, State


Agency Contact:
Stephen Kenneally
Financial Program Specialist, Cash Management Policy and Planning 
Division
Department of the Treasury
Financial Management Service
Room 408D
401 14th Street SW.
Washington, DC 20227
Phone: 202 874-6799
RIN: 1510-AA38
_______________________________________________________________________



TREAS--Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF)

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

100. 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 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

[[Page 64021]]

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 Cost 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                                                           12/00/99
Interim Final Rule                                             12/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
William Foster
ATF Specialist
Department of the Treasury
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
650 Massachusetts Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20226
Phone: 202 927-8210
RIN: 1512-AB37
_______________________________________________________________________



TREAS--BATF
101. 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 1999.


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 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 Cost and Benefits:


Unknown at this time.


Risks:


Not applicable.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
General Notice o62 FR 1386ry Review                            01/10/97
NPRM                                                           12/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
James Ficaretta
Program Manager
Department of the Treasury
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
650 Massachusetts Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20226
Phone: 202 927-8230
RIN: 1512-AB48
BILLING CODE 4810-25-F




[[Page 64022]]

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS (VA)

Statement of Regulatory Priorities
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) administers benefit programs 
that recognize the important public obligations to those who served 
this Nation. VA's regulatory responsibility is almost solely confined 
to carrying out mandates of the laws enacted by Congress relating to 
programs for veterans and their beneficiaries. VA's major regulatory 
objective is to implement these laws with fairness, justice, and 
efficiency.
Most of the regulations issued by VA involve three VA components: The 
Veterans Benefits Administration, the Veterans Health Administration, 
and the National Cemetery Administration. The basic goal of the 
Veterans Benefits Administration is to provide high-quality and timely 
nonmedical benefits to eligible veterans through its system of medical 
centers, nursing homes, domiciliaries, and outpatient medical and 
dental facilities. The National Cemetery Administration'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 64023]]

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA)

Statement of Regulatory and Deregulatory Priorities
An Era of Opportunity
During the past 29 years, the Nation has 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 undertaken 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 an unprecedented opportunity to develop tough but 
flexible, 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, Tribes, 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, local, and Tribal governments, as well as labor and public 
interest groups so that all interested parties can participate in the 
design of environmental and public health protections. 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 
goals. 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.
EPA has sharpened its focus on protecting the health of children by 
evaluating data to take into account their unique characteristics and 
vulnerabilities. In November 1998, the Agency published the final EPA 
Rule Writer's Guide to Executive Order 13045. This Guidance advises EPA 
rule writers and risk assessors in considering risks to children during 
the establishment of public health-based and risk-based standards. The 
Guidance has resulted in an evaluation of children's environmental 
health for economically significant rules. It further provides rule 
writers with additional guidance on considering children's health in 
all applicable EPA rules, even those that are not categorized as 
economically significant, consistent with EPA's 1995 policy on 
Evaluating Health Risks to Children. Since 1997, EPA has conducted an 
inclusive public process through the Children's Health Protection 
Advisory Committee (established under the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act.) The Committee recommended to the Administrator the following 
existing standards for reevaluation to ensure that they protect 
children's health: the chloralkali NESHAP; pesticide tolerances for 
atrazine; the MCL for atrazine; pesticide tolerances for dimethoate, 
chlorpyrifos, methyl parathion; and the (Farm) Worker Protection 
Standard. EPA is currently in various stages of work to evaluate these 
standards.
Providing Greater Public Access to Information
To enhance the ability of the regulated community to comply with 
environmental requirements the Agency committed itself to make 
available its policy and guidance documents through the Internet. The 
Agency also set the end of FY 2000 as the date by which this would be 
achieved. With that goal in sight, the Agency expects to provide the 
public and in particular, the regulated community, with a single 
location on the EPA web site where Agency documents which interpret 
statutory and regulatory requirements can be located regardless of 
issuing organization.
With more than 40 million visits to EPA's Web site every month, public 
demand for high-quality environmental information has never been 
greater. To meet this and other related demands, EPA is establishing 
its first internal organization to deal comprehensively with 
environmental information. In addition to improving data quality and 
streamlining reporting, this move will advance community right-to-know 
opportunities for citizens and improve our ability to analyze 
environmental conditions.
Recognizing the effect that public disclosure can have on environmental 
performance, the Agency took action to make more environmental 
information publicly available. We recently expanded reporting under 
the Toxic Release Inventory for persistent, bioaccumulative chemicals, 
such as dioxin and mercury, by almost 25 percent. Other actions will 
give Americans access to information about the hazards from lead-based 
paint when renovating or remodeling their homes, whether their drinking 
water meets federal public health standards, and the potential risks 
from facilities in their neighborhoods that produce, use, or store 
chemical products.
A new program announced by Vice President Gore challenges the chemical 
industry to provide needed information on about 2,800 of the nation's 
most widely used toxic chemicals. By agreeing to conduct any necessary 
toxicity testing and to report the results publicly, companies can help 
resolve remaining questions about risk levels and avoid the need for 
further regulation.
More Regulatory Flexibility
To obtain better results, EPA is also giving businesses, communities, 
and Tribes more flexibility in how they fulfill their responsibilities 
to protect public health and the environment. For example, a rule for 
the pulp and paper industry -- the Agency's first-ever integrated, 
multimedia rulemaking -- allows companies to delay compliance with new 
water-pollution control requirements if they commit to go beyond 
compliance and installing more advanced technologies.
Through a program called Project XL, EPA encourages companies to use 
flexible alternative regulatory strategies if they agree to go beyond 
compliance -- and involve stakeholders along the way.

[[Page 64024]]

Stronger Partnerships with States, Tribes, and Industry
EPA recognizes that a new and improved system of environmental 
protection must include stronger partnerships between the public and 
private sectors, and among the States, Tribes and the Federal 
Government. It would also include a greater role for citizens in 
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, Tribal, or local levels.
EPA, States, and Tribes 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 EPA and the States have 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 is consulting with regulated industries earlier in its rule 
development processes. EPA sometimes employs formal consensus-based 
rulemaking, such as regulatory negotiation. More frequently, however, 
the Agency depends on less formal 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 vigorously 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 established sector-specific compliance assistance 
centers to serve as direct, readily available sources of information on 
the latest regulatory requirements. EPA has established nine centers to 
support the following sectors: printed wiring board manufacturing; auto 
service and repair; printing; agriculture; metal finishing; 
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.
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. 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. 
During the 3-year period from October 1, 1995, through September 30, 
1998, EPA completed reductions of over 22 million hours and another 4 
million hours is projected by the September 30, 2000. Reductions during 
this period will be offset by the addition of approximately 49 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.
Some examples of regulatory and paperwork streamlining are:
 Proposed Consolidated Air Rule for Chemical Manufacturers
A proposed rule that consolidates 16 federal air regulations into a 
single guideline could save the average U.S. chemical plant about 1,700 
hours or $80,000 a year in the future. The proposal, which represents 
the first consolidated rule ever under the Clean Air Act, would be 
voluntary. Plant managers could opt to comply with the consolidated 
rule or continue operating under the 16 existing rules.
 Streamlined Certification Process for Auto Makers
A streamlined process for certifying that new passenger cars and trucks 
meet federal standards for air pollution emissions is expected to save 
automobile manufacturers an estimated $55 million a year. Under the 
proposed process, testing would be performed on vehicles actually in 
use on the nation's highways rather than on brand new vehicles. In 
addition to cutting burden, the new process creates an incentive for 
manufacturers to produce more durable emissions control equipment and 
gives EPA better data for managing real-world air quality programs.
 Simplified Hazardous Waste Management Requirements
The Agency addressed several barriers that have prevented common sense 
practices in managing hazardous wastes. Reforms to the 20-year-old 
program for managing polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs, are expected 
to produce cost savings estimated at between $178 million and $736 
million each year. New treatment standards for land disposal of 
hazardous waste will facilitate cleanups of contaminated sites. Another 
regulation simplifies the

[[Page 64025]]

cleanup and closure of hazardous waste disposal facilities.
Highlights of EPA's Regulatory Plan for 1999
EPA's regulatory plan for 1999 reflects the Agency's continuing 
commitment to create new environmental protection strategies that 
better protect public health and the environment at lower cost.
Here are highlights of our upcoming rules:
Office of Air and Radiation Highlights
One of the most significant events for the Office of Air and Radiation 
(OAR) since the publication of the last Regulatory Plan was an adverse 
court decision regarding EPA's air quality standards. As summarized 
below, EPA is appealing this decision, and is re-evaluating its 
implementation program while it awaits legal resolution of this 
situation. To assure air quality progress in the interim, EPA has 
reinstated the one hour ozone standard in areas where it had previously 
been revoked. Meanwhile, EPA remains 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 low-cost 
approaches. The following paragraphs summarize the most significant of 
OAR's activities.
 In 1997, EPA established new, more stringent air quality 
            standards for ozone and particulate matter based on new 
            scientific and technical information. The new standards 
            were designed to offer increased protection for public 
            health and the environment, and EPA began pursuing a 
            commonsense implementation strategy that would give States 
            and industry flexibility with which they can meet these air 
            quality goals. However, on May 14, 1999, a three-judge 
            panel of the D.C. Circuit found that the Clean Air Act 
            provision authorizing the new standards is unconstitutional 
            as EPA applied it. This decision did not call into question 
            the scientific basis for the new standards, only the 
            procedure by which they were established. EPA has appealed 
            this decision and intends to vigorously defend the 
            standards in court. However, until the matter is resolved 
            in court, EPA must defer to the panel's decision, and is 
            re-evaluating this implementation strategy to decide which 
            parts of it can continue and which parts must be put on 
            hold during the litigation.
 To achieve further emission reductions mandated by the Clean 
            Air Act, EPA is developing the Tier II rulemaking which 
            will propose the next generation of emission standards for 
            light-duty vehicles and light-duty trucks. The primary 
            focus of this action will be reducing emissions of nitrogen 
            oxides and non-methane hydrocarbons, pollutants which 
            contribute to ozone pollution. The rulemaking will also 
            propose limitations on the sulfur content of gasoline 
            available nationwide. Sulfur in gasoline has a detrimental 
            impact on catalyst performance and could be a limiting 
            factor in the introduction of advanced technologies on 
            motor vehicles.
 In accordance with Section 801 of the Energy Policy Act of 
            1992, EPA is developing health and safety standards for 
            protection of the public from releases from radioactive 
            materials stored or disposed of by the Department of Energy 
            in the nuclear waste repository being constructed at Yucca 
            Mountain in Nevada.
 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. A final rulemaking is 
            expected late in 1999.
 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.
 In August of 1997, EPA completed a comprehensive revision to 
            streamline its regulations on transportation conformity. On 
            March 2, 1999, the U.S. District Court for the District of 
            Columbia overturned parts of that 1997 revision, including 
            the provisions governing which projects can proceed without 
            a conforming transportation plan and when States can use 
            State Implementation Plans that EPA has not approved. The 
            Administration's initial response to this court decision 
            was to issue guidance from EPA and the Department of 
            Transportation dealing with the issues in question. EPA is 
            now developing a rule to respond to these court decisions 
            that will formalize this guidance and deal definitively 
            will all the issues raised by the court.
 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 29 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, in October 1998 EPA proposed 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. The final rule on the 
            pilot program is expected by the end of 1999.
 To date, our air toxics program has focused primarily on 
            getting broad emission reductions from large industrial 
            sources through technology-based standards. Since 1990, EPA 
            has issued standards affecting 77 different industries, 
            such as petroleum refineries and chemical manufacturing 
            plans. When fully implemented, these standards will reduce 
            more than one million tons of toxic air emissions per year. 
            Additionally, through other efforts such as the phase-out 
            of lead in gasoline, we have significantly reduced air 
            toxics from cars and trucks. We are continuing to set 
            technology-based standards for large industries, and will 
            complete more than 80 additional standards over the next 
            few years. The rule listed in this year's Regulatory Plan 
            -- industrial boilers, institutional/commercial boilers -- 
            is among the most significant remaining categories to be 
            regulated under this program. While working on these 
            standards, we are beginning to evaluate those sources with 
            standards already in place to determine if the remaining 
            risk from these sources warrants additional regulation. We 
            are also implementing our Urban Air Toxics Strategy, which 
            focuses on 33 air toxics that pose the greatest risk in the 
            largest number of urban areas and presents our plan, both 
            nationally and more locally, to reduce those toxics. 
            Finally, to better understand and measure risks from air 
            toxics, we are also conducting important health research 
            and improving our emissions inventories, modeling 
            capability, and monitoring network.
 On May 22, 1996, EPA published its final decision not to 
            revise the primary sulfur dioxide NAAQS. The

[[Page 64026]]

            notice stated that EPA would shortly propose a new 
            implementation strategy to help 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.
 On April 15, 1998, the EPA promulgated 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 from the most important emission sources at pulp and 
            paper facilities. At the same time, the EPA proposed air 
            emission standards for a final group of combustion sources 
            at these facilities. These air standards are scheduled to 
            be completed by the end of the year 2000.
Office of Water Highlights
On August 6, 1996, President Clinton signed the Safe Drinking Water Act 
(SDWA) Amendments of 1996 which laid out requirements to strengthen the 
nations drinking water program. These amendments directed EPA to 
further improve the quality of drinking water and protect public health 
by requiring the following actions:
 The National Primary Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR) for 
            Radon will reduce exposure to radon in homes. The 
            regulation recognizes that the public health problem from 
            radon in indoor air typically far exceeds the health risks 
            of breathing radon released to the air from showers, sinks, 
            or drinking water . The rule, therefore, lays out a unique 
            framework that allows States and/or systems to adopt 
            multimedia programs which reduce radon risks from indoor 
            air and drinking water in combination. States and systems 
            that choose this option will focus risk reduction on the 
            greatest threat (indoor air), while spending much less 
            money to comply with these rules than if they focused on 
            drinking water alone.
 The NPDWR for Ground Water sets in place an increasingly 
            targeted strategy to identify ground water systems that are 
            vulnerable to microbial contamination. The multiple barrier 
            approach, of this rule relies on 4 major components 
            (inspections, monitoring, corrective action, and treatment) 
            which, in combination, EPA believes strikes an appropriate 
            balance between the intensity or burden of protective 
            measures against microbial contamination and follow-up 
            action to the risk being addressed.
 The NPDWR for Arsenic is another rule mandated by the 1996 
            SDWA Amendments. Presently, the arsenic standard is 50 ug/
            l. The National Academy of Science, however, issued a 
            report in March 1999 that urged EPA to lower the drinking 
            water standard, based on conclusive evidence that inorganic 
            arsenic causes bladder, lung and skin cancer in humans. EPA 
            will decide what that appropriate level is, balancing 
            health risk reduction benefits and the costs.
 The Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment/Filter 
            Backwash Rule contains provisions that require surface 
            water treatment for public water systems serving 10,000 or 
            fewer people and that govern the recycle of filter backwash 
            within the treatment process of all public water utilities. 
            EPA believes that implementing the provisions contained in 
            this rule will improve public health protection in three 
            ways. First, it will reduce the level of Cryptosporidium in 
            finished drinking water supplies through improvements in 
            filtration and recycle practices. Second, the reduced level 
            of Cryptosporidium will reduce the likelihood of outbreaks 
            of cryptosporidiosis, which usually causes symptoms such as 
            abdominal discomfort and nausea in healthy individuals and 
            possibly death to sensitive populations such as children 
            and the immunocompromised. Third, the filtration provisions 
            of the rule are expected to increase the level of 
            protection from exposure to other pathogens (i.e., Giardia 
            or other waterborne bacterial or viral pathogens).
The amendments also set forth new public notification provisions for 
EPA to better inform customers of the quality of their drinking water. 
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 1996 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 and (4) allow the primary States to specify alternative 
notification requirements (by rule) with respect to the form and 
content of the notice. One other new requirement was for public water 
systems to prepare an annual consumer confidence report which was 
implemented as part of a separate rulemaking (published August 19, 
1998). In addition to streamlining the existing requirements, this rule 
will provide quicker and more effective notification of violations that 
have a serious adverse effect and better inform customers of the risk 
to their health.
The National Water Quality Inventory, 1996 Report to Congress indicates 
that storm water discharges are major causes of water quality 
impairment, roughly 45 percent of the identified cases of water quality 
impairment of estuarine square miles surveyed, for example, are 
attributable to storm sewer runoff. Pollutants in discharges from 
municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) include sediment, 
floatables, oil and grease, as well as toxic pollutants, metals and raw 
sewage from illicit discharges. Studies indicate that erosion rates 
from construction sites are typically an order of magnitude larger than 
from other land uses. Sediment and erosion from these sites have been 
shown to severely impact water quality and aquatic life. Storm water 
runoff has also been the cause of many beach closings and caused 
increase gastrointestinal illnesses in swimmers who swim adjacent to 
storm drains. To protect public health and the aquatic environment EPA 
issued the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 
existing storm water program (Phase I) in 1990. The Phase I regulation 
addresses storm water discharges from specific industrial categories, 
MS4s serving populations over 100,000, and construction sites that 
disturb 5 or more acres. To further protect American families and the 
environment EPA proposed the Storm Water Phase II rule and we will 
issue the final rule by October 29, 1999. Phase II will expand the 
existing national program to smaller municipalities and construction 
sites

[[Page 64027]]

that disturb 1 to 5 acres. In this expansion, EPA is proposing an 
exemption for certain sources to be excluded from the national program 
based on the lack of impact on water quality, as well as to pull in 
other sources not regulated on a national basis based on localized 
adverse impact on water quality.
EPA believes that the implementation of the six minimum measures for 
small MS4s should significantly and cost-effectively reduce pollutants 
in urban storm water. Similarly, EPA believes that implementation of 
best management practices (BMPs) at small construction sites will cause 
a significant reduction in pollutant discharges and an improvement in 
surface water quality. EPA expects significant monetized financial, 
recreational and health benefits, as well as benefits that EPA has been 
unable to monetize. These include reduced scouring and erosion of 
streambeds, improved aesthetic quality of waters, reduced 
eutrophication of aquatic systems, benefit to wildlife and endangered 
and threatened species, tourism benefits, biodiversity benefits and 
reduced costs for siting reservoirs.
On August 12, 1990, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Carol 
Browner signed proposed revisions to the Total Maximum Daily Load 
(TMDL) regulations (40 CFR part 130) for implementing state, 
territorial, authorized tribal, and EPA responsibilities under section 
303(d) of the Clean Water Act. Administrator Browner also signed 
proposed revisions to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 
System (NPDES) and Water Quality Standards regulations to facilitate 
implementation of TMDLs and to improve water quality in impaired waters 
before TMDLs are established. These proposed regulatory revisions 
address issues of fundamental importance to cleaning up our Nation's 
polluted waters. States and territories have identified over 20,000 
individual river segments, lakes, and estuaries across America as 
polluted. These polluted waters include approximately 300,000 miles of 
river and shoreline and approximately 5 million acres of lakes -- 
polluted mostly by sedimentation, nutrients, and harmful 
microorganisms. With the overwhelming majority of the population living 
within 10 miles of these polluted waters, these proposed regulatory 
revisions will have a profound impact on the environment and health of 
communities across the country.
The proposed revisions to the TMDL regulations provide states with 
clear, consistent, and balanced direction for listing waters and 
developing TMDLs, resulting in restoration of waterbodies not meeting 
water quality standards. Listing impaired and threatened waters and 
establishing TMDLs are fundamental tools for identifying remaining 
sources of water pollution and achieving water quality goals. Clean-up 
plans developed under this regulatory proposal will help to restore the 
health of thousands of miles of river and shoreline and make millions 
of lake acres safe for fishing, swimming and other activities.
The proposed revisions to the NPDES and water quality standards 
regulations (40 CFR parts 122, 123, 124 and 131) are designed to 
achieve reasonable further progress toward attainment of water quality 
standards in impaired waterbodies after listing and pending TMDL 
establishment, and to provide reasonable assurance that TMDLs, once 
completed, will be adequately implemented. EPA may also, in the future, 
promulgate federal water quality standards for states, pursuant to 
section 303(c)(2)(B), to ensure consistent, nationwide application of 
the new requirements in the period between listing and TMDL 
establishment. Federal implementation through NPDES permits, in the 
absence of State, Territorial, or Tribal implementation, will ensure 
that the clean-up plans will work.
Pollution from concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) 
potentially can reach waters of the United States through discharges 
from waste storage and containment areas and from areas where waste is 
applied to the land as a nutrient or soil amendment. The potential for 
polluted discharges from these areas is especially high during periods 
of heavy rain when waste storage and disposal systems and the soil's 
assimilation capacity are likely to be overwhelmed. Discharges from 
CAFOs can lead to degradation of surface waters due to the addition of 
nutrients, micronutrients, salts, BOD, various pathogens and other 
pollutants.
Currently, certain CAFOs are regulated through permits issued under the 
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). These permits 
specify appropriate discharge standards based on either promulgated 
effluent limitation guidelines and/or permit writers' best professional 
judgment. EPA promulgated the regulations describing the NPDES 
regulatory process for CAFOs in 1976. It also promulgated effluent 
limitation guidelines applicable to feedlots in 1974 and 1975.
EPA is re-examining and plans to revise the existing NPDES and effluent 
guideline regulations related to CAFOs due to: Changes within the 
animal agriculture industry since the rules were promulgated in the 
1970s; new animal and waste management techniques; improved 
understanding of the water quality impacts associated with CAFO waste 
management; and issues associated with implementing the existing 
regulations. The types of changes that are being considered, but may 
not necessarily be adopted, include: requirements to develop and 
implement nutrient management plans; requirements regarding land 
application of manure; requirements regarding treatment of manure, 
litter and wastewater to reduce manure constituent concentrations; 
installation of controls to contain animal waste; Best Management 
Practices; establishing numeric discharge limitations; additional 
sampling and monitoring, reporting and record keeping; and revising the 
regulatory scope.
Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances Highlights
The Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) overhauled U.S. pesticides laws, 
enhancing protections related to pesticide residues in food by 
requiring aggregate and cumulative risk assessments, with a special 
emphasis on children and infants. EPA currently has underway the 
Pesticide Tolerance Reassessment Program, a 10-year program to 
reevaluate the safety of all pesticide residues in food. Under this 
program, EPA has now completed reassessment of the first third of the 
pesticide residues in foods. In addition, the Agency is establishing an 
Endocrine Disruptor Screening and Testing Program based on the 
recommendations of the advisory committee established by EPA to 
consider human health and ecological effects; estrogenic, androgenic, 
anti-estrogenic, anti-androgenic, and thyroid effects of pesticides, 
industrial chemicals and drinking water contaminants.
The Chemical Right-to-Know Initiative, which was announced by the Vice 
President in April 1998, challenges industry and directs the Agency to 
establish programs and/or promulgate regulations that would provide 
baseline toxicity information for approximately 3,000 widely used 
commercial chemicals, additional health effects information for those 
chemicals to which children are disproportionately exposed; and the 
listing and lowering of the reporting threshold for persistent, 
bioaccumlative, toxic chemicals reported under section 313 of the 
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA). This 
information will better enable

[[Page 64028]]

communities to understand the nature of toxic releases and potential 
risks at the local level, as well as decide local priorities.
With almost a million children under 5 with blood-lead levels exceeding 
the Center for Disease Control's level of concern (10 ug/dl), reducing 
the opportunities for childhood lead poisoning resulting from 
activities associated with lead-based paint activities continues to be 
a priority for the Agency. 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. EPA is considering proposed approaches to 
address lead risks associated with renovation and remodeling 
activities. To help reduce the costs related to the abatement of lead-
based paint hazards, EPA is working on final rules which would address 
the disposal of lead-based paint debris.
EPA expects to issue a final rule which would require EPA-approved 
Pesticide Management Plans (PMPs) for certain pesticides that have a 
high groundwater contamination potential. Through a PMP, a State or 
Tribe may commit to both EPA and the public that they will manage the 
use of a particular pesticide in a way that avoids unreasonable risks 
to groundwater that would otherwise warrant the cancellation of the use 
of that particular pesticide. The PMP program was developed in 
partnership with State and Tribal representatives.
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Highlights
The Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) is planning 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.
 EPA seeks to streamline the regulation of listed hazardous 
            wastes. Certain regulations may be overly broad in that 
            they apply regardless of the concentrations of chemicals 
            within listed wastes. As a result, they regulate certain 
            low-risk wastes (in particular, treatment residuals) as if 
            they posed high risk. EPA plans to propose concentration-
            based exemptions that could grant relief to some of these 
            lower risk wastes from the full management requirements 
            designed for higher risk hazardous waste.
 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 that can be completed either 
            manually or electronically. The chief goal of the manifest 
            system is to facilitate the safe transportation of 
            hazardous waste shipments to appropriate RCRA management 
            facilities.
 The proposed rule on storage, treatment and disposal of mixed 
            waste suggests regulatory flexibility in the management of 
            mixed waste that is dually regulated by EPA and the Nuclear 
            Regulatory Commission. The proposal will take comment on 
            allowing low-level radioactive mixed wastes to be 
            conditionally exempt from the definition of hazardous waste 
            while it is subject to NRC regulations and providing 
            certain conditions are met. When completed, it is expected 
            to reduce worker exposures to radiation, costs, and 
            regulatory requirements.
 Over the past few 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 the 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.
EPA is announcing its intent to establish a new subpart governing 
Environmental Program Grants to States, Interstate, and Local Agencies 
(40 CFR 35, subpart A). The regulation includes rules applicable to the 
Performance Partnership Grant (PPG) program. Under the PPG program, 
eligible applicants can combine environmental program grants into a 
single grant in order to improve environmental performance, increase 
programmatic flexibility, and achieve administrative savings. The 
proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on July 23, 1999. 
The Agency anticipates that the regulation will be made final in 
December 1999.
Executive Order 13084 addresses the need for regular and meaningful 
consultation and collaboration with Indian Tribal governments in 
developing regulatory policies on federal matters affecting their 
communities. In accordance with this Executive Order, EPA is announcing 
its intent to publish a new subpart containing Tribal-specific 
provisions for environmental program grants and a new Tribal 
Performance Partnership Grant (PPG) program (40 CFR 35, subpart B). 
Under the PPG program, eligible Tribes and Intertribal Consortia can 
combine environmental program grants into a single grant in order to 
improve environmental performance, increase programmatic flexibility, 
achieve administrative savings, and strengthen the government-to-
government partnership between Indian Tribes and EPA. The proposed rule 
was presented in the Federal Register on July 23, 1999. The Agency 
anticipates publishing the final regulation in February 2000.
In developing all of these actions, EPA is committed to flexible, cost-
effective regulatory programs that offer increased protections for 
public health

[[Page 64029]]

and the environment. EPA welcomes suggestions from the public to help 
the Agency in this effort.
_______________________________________________________________________



EPA

                              -----------

                                Prerule

                              -----------

102. TRI; ADDITION OF OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION TO THE 
TOXIC RELEASE INVENTORY
Priority:


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


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


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 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 Cost 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

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM                                                          09/00/00
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


State, Federal


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.


Sectors Affected:


211111 Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas Extraction


Agency Contact:
Tim Crawford
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
7408
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 260-1715
Email: [email protected]

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-AD19


_______________________________________________________________________


[[Page 64030]]

EPA

                              -----------

                             Proposed Rule

                              -----------

103. NAAQS: SULFUR DIOXIDE (RESPONSE TO REMAND)
Priority:


Economically Significant


Legal Authority:


42 USC 7409, CAA sec 109


CFR Citation:


40 CFR 50.4; 40 CFR 50.5


Legal Deadline:


Final, Judicial, December 31, 2000.


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 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, while at 
exercise, may 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.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Title I of the Clean Air Act.


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 Cost 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                                  11/00/99
Final Rule Response to NAAQS Remand                            12/00/00
Final Action 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
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
MD-15
Phone: 919 541-1146
Fax: 919 541-0237
Email: [email protected]

Gary Blais (Implementation)
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
MD-15
Phone: 919 541-3223
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2060-AA61
_______________________________________________________________________



EPA
104. 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 operating permits rule regulations, 40 
CFR Part 70, to provide more effective

[[Page 64031]]

implementation of part 70, and to address comments provided in response 
to notices of proposed rulemaking, parts 70 and 51 are being revised. 
The changes streamline the procedures for revising stationary-source 
operating permits issued by State and local permitting authorities 
under title V of the Clean Air Act and eliminate public participation 
requirements for minor new source review actions with little or no 
environmental impact.


Statement of Need:


These revised rules will allow more streamlined procedures for revising 
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:


In response to concerns expressed in comments on the draft final 
rulemaking, the EPA discussed alternatives with representatives from 
State and local permitting authorities and industry and environmental 
groups, and desires public comment on some of the proposed 
alternatives. EPA will then consider public comments before 
promulgating a final rule.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The administrative cost of implementing these proposed rules by 
permitting authorities, EPA, and permitted sources has not yet been 
estimated, but is expected to be lower than the cost of the current 
rule. 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.


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
Supplemental NPR60 FR 20804                                    04/27/95
Supplemental NPR60 FR 45530                                    08/31/95
NPRM Interim App63 FR 40053sion                                07/27/98
Direct Final Int63 FR 40054al Extension                        07/27/98
NPRM                                                           02/00/00
Final Action                                                   12/00/00
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


State


Additional Information:


SAN No. 3412


Agency Contact:
Ray Vogel
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
MD-12
Research Triangle Pa, NC 27711
Phone: 919 541-3153
RIN: 2060-AF70
_______________________________________________________________________



EPA
105. 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.


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 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 Cost 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                                                           11/00/99
Final Action                                                   08/00/00
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Federal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 3568

[[Page 64032]]

Agency Contact:
Ray Clark
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
6602J
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 564-9198
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2060-AG14
_______________________________________________________________________



EPA
106. NESHAP: INDUSTRIAL, COMMERCIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL BOILERS
Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Unfunded Mandates:


Private Sector


Legal Authority:


42 USC 7412


CFR Citation:


40 CFR 63


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, November 15, 2000.


Abstract:


The Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990, requires EPA to develop emission 
standards for sources of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). Industrial 
boilers and institutional/commercial boilers are among the potential 
source categories to be regulated under section 112 of the CAA. 
Emissions of HAPs will be addressed by this rulemaking for both new and 
existing sources. EPA promulgated an NSPS for these source categories 
in 1987 and 1990. The standards for the NESHAP are to be technology-
based and are to require the maximum achievable control technology 
(MACT) as described in section 112 of the CAA.


Statement of Need:


Industrial boilers and institutional/commercial boilers are source 
categories listed to be regulated under Section 112 of the Clean Air 
Act.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Section 112 of the Clean Air Act.


Alternatives:


Alternatives will be explored as the proposal is developed. At this 
early stage, no alternatives have yet been identified.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


It is expected that this rule will result in significant costs to the 
affected industry, including costs for recordkeeping and reporting. 
These costs will be identified as the proposal is developed.


Risks:


The risks from this industry are expected to be those normally 
associated with combustion, such as exposure to particulate matter and 
sulfur oxides. These will be addressed as the proposal is developed.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           11/00/00
Final Action                                                   11/00/01
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Additional Information:


SAN No. 3837


Agency Contact:
James Eddinger
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
MD-13
Phone: 919 541-5426
Fax: 919 541-5450
Email: [email protected]

Amanda Aldridgel
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
(A OPE), SA-6
Washington, DC 20522-0602
Phone: 919 541-5268
Fax: 919 541-5450
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2060-AG69
_______________________________________________________________________



EPA
107. REVIEW OF THE NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS FOR 
PARTICULATE MATTER
Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Legal Authority:


42 USC 7408; 42 USC 7409


CFR Citation:


40 CFR 50


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, July 1, 2002, Under the Clean Air Act - the next 
standards review is to be completed July 2002.


Abstract:


On July 18, 1997, the EPA published a final rule revising the national 
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter (PM) (62 
FR 38652). While retaining the PM10 standard levels, new standards were 
added for fine particles (PM2.5) to provide increased protection 
against both health and environmental effects of PM. On the same day, a 
Presidential Memorandum (62 FR 38421, July 16, 1997) was published 
that, among other things, directed EPA to complete the next review of 
the PM NAAQS by July 2002. The EPA's plans and schedule for the next 
periodic review of the PM NAAQS were published on October 23, 1997 (62 
FR 55201). As with other NAAQS reviews, a rigorous assessment of 
relevant scientific information will be presented in a Criteria 
Document (CD), and the preparation of this document is currently under 
way by the EPA's National Center for Environmental Assessment. The 
EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards will also prepare a 
Staff Paper (SP) for the Administrator which will evaluate the policy 
implications of the key studies and scientific information contained in 
the CD and additional technical analyses and identify critical elements 
that EPA staff believe should be considered in reviewing the standards. 
The SP and CD will be reviewed by the Clean Air Scientific Advisory 
Committee (CASAC) and the public; both will reflect the input received 
through these reviews. As the PM NAAQS review is completed, the 
Administrator's proposal to revise or reaffirm the PM NAAQS will be 
published with a request for public comment. Input received during the 
public comment period will be reflected in the Administrator's final 
decision which will be published in July 2002.


Statement of Need:


As established in the Clean Air Act, the national ambient air quality 
standards for particulate matter are to be reviewed every five years.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Section 109 of the Clean Air Act (42 USC 7409) directs the 
Administrator to propose and promulgate ``primary'' and ``secondary'' 
national ambient air quality standards for pollutants identified under 
section 108 (the

[[Page 64033]]

``criteria'' pollutants). The ``primary'' standards are established for 
the protection of public health, while ``secondary'' standards are to 
protect against public welfare or ecosystem effects.


Alternatives:


The main alternatives for the Administrator's decision on the review of 
the national ambient air quality standards for particulate matter are 
whether to reaffirm or revise the existing standards.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Costs and benefits of revising or reaffirming the national ambient air 
quality standards for particulate matter cannot be determined at 
present; a regulatory impact analysis will be conducted along with the 
review of the standards.


Risks:


The current national ambient air quality standards for particulate 
matter are intended to protect against public health risks associated 
with morbidity or premature mortality from cardiopulmonary disease. 
During the course of this next review, a risk assessment will be 
conducted to evaluate health risks associated with alternative 
particulate matter standards.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           08/00/01
Final Action                                                   07/00/02
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local, Tribal, Federal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 4255


Agency Contact:
Eric Ginsburg
Chief, Policy and Guidance Section
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
MD-15
Research Triangle Pa, NC 27711
Phone: 919 541-5274
Email: [email protected]

Mary A. Ross
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
MD-15
Research Triangle Pa, NC 27711
Phone: 919 541-5170
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2060-AI44
_______________________________________________________________________



EPA
108.  TRANSPORTATION CONFORMITY AMENDMENTS: RESPONSE TO MARCH 
2, 1999, COURT DECISION
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


42 USC 7401-7671q


CFR Citation:


40 CFR 93


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Clean Air Act requires EPA to promulgate rules that establish the 
criteria and procedures for determining whether highway and transit 
plans, programs, and projects conform to state air quality plans. 
``Conformity'' means that the transportation actions will not cause or 
worsen violations of air quality standards or delay timely attainment 
of the standards. The original conformity rule was finalized on 
November 24, 1993, and most recently amended on August 15, 1997. On 
March 2, 1999, the U.S. Court of Appeals overturned certain provisions 
of the 1997 conformity amendments. This rulemaking will amend the 
conformity rule in compliance with the court decision. The rulemaking 
will formalize the May 14, 1999 EPA guidance and the June 18, 1999 DOT 
guidance that was issued to guide action on this issue until a 
rulemaking could be issued. Specifically, the rulemaking will clarify 
the types of projects that can be implemented in the absence of a 
conforming transportation plan. It will also explain EPA's process for 
reviewing newly submitted air quality plans and when those submissions 
can be used for conformity purposes.


Statement of Need:


The U.S. Court of Appeals remanded some provisions of EPA's conformity 
rule. The conformity rule must be amended in compliance with the court 
decision.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The Clean Air Act requires transportation plans, programs, and projects 
to conform to state air quality plans. The Clean Air Act also requires 
EPA to establish rules for how to determine the conformity of 
transportation actions.


Alternatives:


EPA's alternatives are constrained by the court decision.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


This amendment will not change the results of the economic analysis 
performed for the original transportation conformity rule, which was 
summarized in the preamble to that rule on 11/24/93 at 58 FR 62214.


Risks:


Transportation conformity is a process designed to help achieve 
attainment with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The risks 
addressed by the rule are therefore those risks associated with non-
achievment of such standards.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           12/00/99
Final Rule                                                     04/00/00
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local, Tribal, Federal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 434


Agency Contact:
Kathryn Sargeant
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
NFEVL
Ann Arbor, MI 48105
Phone: 734 214-4441
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2060-AI56


_______________________________________________________________________


[[Page 64034]]

EPA
109.  HEAVY-DUTY ENGINE EMISSION STANDARDS AND DIESEL FUEL 
SULFUR CONTROL REQUIREMENTS
Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Unfunded Mandates:


Private Sector


Legal Authority:


Not Yet Determined


CFR Citation:


Not Yet Determined


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This rulemaking sets new quality requirements for fuel used in diesel 
engines in order to bring about large environmental benefits through 
the enabling of a new generation of diesel emission control 
technologies. Improving the quality of diesel fuel will enable advanced 
technologies for diesel emission control. These advanced sulfur-
sensitive technologies have the potential to reduce diesel engine NOx 
emissions by 75% and PM emissions by 80% or more. A key approach taken 
in developing the ``Tier II'' standards (Tier II Light-Duty Vehicle and 
Light-Duty Truck Emission Standards and Gasoline Sulfur Standards -- 
see item number RIN 2060-AI23 in this Regulatory Plan) was ``fuel -
neutrality'' -- applying standards equally to diesel and gasoline 
vehicles powered vehicles. Reducing sulfur levels in on highway diesel 
fuel will help facilitate development of diesel powered vehicle that 
meet these standards. This rulemaking will also tighten heavy duty NOx 
and PM engine standards. Low sulfur diesel fuel is needed so that 
advanced technology for diesel engines will be available to meet new 
more stringent standards. There are also additional air quality 
benefits such as particulate matter and sulfate reductions associated 
with reducing sulfur levels in diesel fuel.


Statement of Need:


Ozone and particulate pollution pose 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, 
hydrocarbons, and particulate matter, from heavy-duty diesel engines, 
and will also require reduced sulfur levels in diesel fuel, in order to 
protect the public health and welfare.


Summary of Legal Basis:


42 USC 7521, 42 USC 7545


Alternatives:


Alternatives will be considered as the rulemaking proposal is 
developed.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Costs and benefits will be assessed as the rulemaking proposal is 
developed.


Risks:


The risks addressed by this program are primarily those associated with 
nonattainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone 
and particulate matter. There are also serious public health and 
environmental problems associated with toxic air pollution, acid rain, 
reduced visibility, and nitrogen loading of estuaries.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM           64 FR 32209                                    06/16/99
NPRM                                                           01/00/00
Final Action                                                   08/00/00
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


None


Additional Information:


SAN No. 4355


This rule incorporates the work done on Control of Diesel Fuel Quality, 
RIN 2060-AI32, SAN 4268 which is listed as ``Withdrawn'' in the 
Completed section of this Agenda.


Agency Contact:
Paul Machele
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
Ann Arbor, MI 48105
Phone: 734 214-4264
Fax: 734 214-4050
Email: [email protected]

Don Kopinski
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
Ann Arbor, MI 48105
Phone: 734 214-4229
Fax: 734 214-4781
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2060-AI69
_______________________________________________________________________



EPA
110. TSCA INVENTORY UPDATE RULE AMENDMENTS
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


15 USC 2607(a), TSCA 8(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. Additionally, EPA will consider other amendments 
to the IUR. These include removing the inorganic chemicals exemption; 
providing the information to better assess and manage risks of 
inorganic chemicals; improving the linkages of IUR data to other data 
sources to enhance the data's usefulness; and altering the confidential 
business information (CBI) claim procedures to reduce the frequency of 
CBI claims, allowing the public greater access to relevant information 
on toxic chemicals. 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.

[[Page 64035]]

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. 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 Legal Basis:


Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Section 8.


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 Cost 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 
chemical assessment, risk management and prevention programs and to 
monitor 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                                                           11/00/99
Final Action                                                   12/00/00
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


Federal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 3301


Sectors Affected:


325 Chemical Manufacturing; 324 Petroleum and Coal Products 
Manufacturing


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]

Robert Lee
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
7406
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 260-0676
Fax: 202 260-1661
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2070-AC61
_______________________________________________________________________



EPA
111. LEAD; OVERVIEW OF RULEMAKINGS UNDER TSCA SECTION 402, LEAD-BASED 
PAINT ACTIVITIES FOR THE REGULATORY PLAN
Priority:


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


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Legal Authority:


15 USC 2603, TSCA title IV


CFR Citation:


40 CFR 745


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, April 28, 1994.


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

[[Page 64036]]

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 insure 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 Legal Basis:


These regulations are mandated by TSCA section 402.


Alternatives:


Alternatives to each of the mandated activities will be analyzed.


Anticipated Cost 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 qualify.


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
Interim Final Ru63 FR 41430404(g)                              08/04/98
Direct Final Rul63 FR 46668402(a)(3)/404(h)                    09/02/98
NPRM Sections 4063 FR 46734(h)                                 09/02/98
Direct Final Rul63 FR 55547 Sections 402(a)(3)/404(h)          10/16/98
NPRM Section 40263 FR 70190)                                   12/18/98
Final Rule Sections 402(a)(3)/404(h)                           11/00/99
NPRM Section 402(c) (Remodeling & Renovation)                  07/00/00
NPRM Section 402(a) (Buildings & Structures)                   09/00/00
Final Rule Section 402(a) (Debris)                             12/00/00
Final Rule Section 402(c) (Remodeling & Renovation)            08/00/01
Final Rule Section 402(a) (Buildings & Structures)             10/00/01
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, Organizations


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local, Tribal, Federal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 3243


Also covers SANs 3244, 3557, 3881, 4172, 3506.


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 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
Fax: 202 260-0770
Email: [email protected]

Mike Wilson
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
7404
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 260-4664
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2070-AD06
_______________________________________________________________________



EPA
112. CHEMICAL RIGHT-TO-KNOW INITIATIVE
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


15 USC 4, TSCA; 15 USC 8, TSCA; 7 USC 136, FIFRA; 42 USC 313


CFR Citation:


Not Yet Determined


Legal Deadline:


Final actions must be completed by December 31, 1999.


Abstract:


The Chemical RTK Initiative was announced by the Vice President on 
EPA's Earth Day 1998 in response to the finding that most commercial 
chemicals have very little, if any, publicly available toxicity 
information on which to make sound judgments about potential risks. 
There are three key components to this initiative, each of which is 
being implemented by EPA. These are: collecting and making public 
screening level toxicity data for 2,800 widely used commercial 
chemicals; additional health effects testing for chemicals to which 
children are substantially exposed; and the listing and lowering of 
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.


Statement of Need:


The Chemical Right to Know Initiative grew out of the finding of an EPA 
study

[[Page 64037]]

that there is very little basic publicly available information on the 
health and environmental effects of even the most widely used 
commercial chemicals. Less than 7% of the 2,800 high production volume 
chemicals have a full set of baseline testing information readily 
available, while almost 50% have no public information whatsoever. The 
Chemical Right to Know Initiative is designed to close these 
information gaps, and to make both new and existing information 
available to the public.


Summary of Legal Basis:


To the extent that rule-making 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 
provide both new and existing data on high production volume chemicals, 
while an HPV test rule would require testing of specific HPV chemicals 
of concern.


Anticipated Cost 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 baseline testing is well-established, and runs about $200,000 
per chemical for a full set of tests, for those chemicals on which data 
do not already exist. More detailed testing, as envisioned for the 
Children's Health testing portion of this initiative, may be more 
expensive, but has not yet been costed out.


Risks:


None.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Initiative Completion                                          12/00/99
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); Children's Health Test Rule (SAN 2865; RIN 2070-
AC27).


Sectors Affected:


325 Chemical Manufacturing; 32411 Petroleum Refineries


Agency Contact:
Barbara Leczynski
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
7405
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 260-1864
Email: [email protected]

Mary Dominiak
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
7405
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 260-7768
Fax: 202 260-1096
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2070-AD25
_______________________________________________________________________



EPA
113. HAZARDOUS WASTE IDENTIFICATION RULE (HWIR): IDENTIFICATION AND 
LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTES
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 RCRA sec 1006; 42 USC 6912(a) RCRA sec 2002(a); 42 USC 6921 
RCRA sec 3001; 42 USC 6922 RCRA sec 3002; 42 USC 6926 RCRA sec 3006


CFR Citation:


40 CFR 260; 40 CFR 261; 40 CFR 262; 40 CFR 264; 40 CFR 268


Legal Deadline:


Final, Judicial, April 30, 2001.


Other, Judicial, October 31, 1999, Reproposal.


Abstract:


EPA is proposing to amend its regulations governing solid wastes that 
are designated as hazardous, because they have been mixed with or 
derived-from listed hazardous wastes. Specifically, under this action, 
the Agency is proposing to retain the mixture and derived-from rules 
promulgated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). 
These rules are currently in effect on an emergency basis and this 
rulemaking action formally proposes their retention.


The Agency is also proposing two revisions to the mixture and derived-
from rules. The first is an exemption for wastes and their residuals 
listed solely for the ignitability, corrosivity, and/or reactivity 
characteristics. The second, which EPA is proposing in a separate 
notice, is a conditional exemption from the mixture and derived from 
rules for ``mixed wastes'' (that is, wastes that are both hazardous and 
radioactive).


Because this action is deregulatory, it is not expected to have adverse 
impacts on small business. This action will be implemented by EPA and 
authorized States.


Statement of Need:


EPA has proposed to amend its regulations under RCRA for hazardous 
waste identification. The rule would retain and amend the mixture and 
derived-from rules. The mixture and derived-from rules ensure that 
hazardous wastes that are mixed with other wastes and their residuals 
from treatment, storage or disposal, do not escape regulation and 
thereby cause harm to human health and the environment.


The proposal also discusses an approach to establish exemption 
criteria, protective of human health and the environment, for low-risk 
listed hazardous waste, waste mixtures, and derivatives. Once 
finalized, this rule will reflect a balancing of the Agency's 
informational needs for oversight and enforcement with the practical 
resource considerations of the generator. This rule could reduce demand 
on Subtitle C landfill capacity, and promote pollution prevention, 
waste minimization, and development of innovative waste treatment 
technology.

[[Page 64038]]

 This notice will also contain the Agency's response to a petition for 
rulemaking submitted by the Chemical Manufacturers Association in 1989.


Summary of Legal Basis:


This regulation will amend the mixture and derived-from rules, 40 CFR 
261.3(a)(2)(iii) and (iv) and (c)(2)(i), and will create an exemption 
for low-risk waste. EPA is required to revise the mixture and derived-
from rules under Public Law No. 102-389, 106 Stat. 1571. The mixture 
and derived-from rules and the exemption are exercises of EPA's 
authority under RCRA section 3001, 42 U.S.C. Section 6921.


Alternatives:


A variety of alternatives for establishing the exemption criteria and 
the implementation requirements were identified by a FACA committee co-
chaired by EPA and the States. EPA is forging a strong partnership with 
the States in the interest of our co-regulator, co-implementor roles. 
The October 1999 notice discussed two options for a concentration-based 
exemption: a generic exit option and a contingent management option. 
Before these options could be finalized, EPA would formally propose the 
exemption, providing public notice and the opportunity to comment on 
the revised risk assessment and resulting exemption levels.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


EPA estimates that 236 applicable industrial hazardous wast streams, 
totaling 3.6 million tons in annual generation by an estimated 120 US 
facilities may be affected by proposed revions to the mixture and 
derived-from rules. As generated, these waste streams consist of 87% 
wastewaters and 13% non-wastewaters. After RCRA Subtitle C treatment 
(mainly incineration), the 236 wastestreams result in the annual 
disposal of about 57,400 tons of treatment residuals, primarily in the 
form of incineration ash. Total annual cost savings is estimated at 
$4.29 to $6.56 million per year.


Risks:


This rule would maintain current levels of risk protection.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            57 FR 21450                                    05/20/92
NPRM Withdrawn  57 FR 49280                                    10/30/92
NPRM Reproposal 60 FR 66344                                    12/21/95
NPRM Reproposal                                                11/00/99
Final Action                                                   05/00/01
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


State, Federal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 3328


Sectors Affected:


325 Chemical Manufacturing; 324 Petroleum and Coal Products 
Manufacturing; 331 Primary Metal Manufacturing; 332 Fabricated Metal 
Product Manufacturing; 333 Machinery Manufacturing; 334 Computer and 
Electronic Product Manufacturing; 335 Electrical Equipment, Appliance 
and Component Manufacturing; 336 Transportation Equipment Manufacturing


Agency Contact:
Tracy Atagi
Environmental Protection Agency
Solid Waste and Emergency Response
5304W
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 703 308-8672
Fax: 703 308-0514
Email: [email protected]

Adam Klinger
Environmental Protection Agency
Solid Waste and Emergency Response
5304W
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 703 308-3267
RIN: 2050-AE07
_______________________________________________________________________



EPA
114. 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, RCRA sec 3002; 42 USC 6923, RCRA sec 3003; 42 USC 6926, 
RCRA sec 3006; 42 USC 6924, RCRA sec 3004


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. In addition, the Agency intends to standardize further the 
manifest form itself, by eliminating several optional data fields, and 
by specifying one format that may be used in all 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.


Summary of Legal Basis:


RCRA Section 3002(a)(5) authorizes EPA to issue regulations applicable 
to generators of hazardous waste regarding the use of a manifest system 
to describe waste, its origin, and its routing to ensure waste arrives 
at designated off-site facilities. RCRA Sections 3002 and 3004 
authorizes EPA to issue

[[Page 64039]]

regulations applicable to transportors of hazardous waste and to 
treatment, storage, and disposal facilitites regarding compliance with 
the manifest system.


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 Cost 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 this action. The Agency is currently conducting 
an analysis to determine the costs and benefits of the rule.


Risks:


This rule reduces the paperwork burden of the manifest on the public 
without reducing protectiveness of human health or the environment.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           07/00/00
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local, Tribal, Federal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 3147


Sectors Affected:


2111 Oil and Gas Extraction; 2122 Metal Ore Mining; 2211 Electric Power 
Generation, Transmission and Distribution; 3221 Pulp, Paper, and 
Paperboard Mills; 323 Printing and Related Support Activities; 325 
Chemical Manufacturing; 326 Plastics and Rubber Products Manufacturing; 
331 Primary Metal Manufacturing; 332 Fabricated Metal Product 
Manufacturing; 482 Rail Transportation; 483 Water Transportation; 484 
Truck Transportation; 5621 Waste Collection; 5622 Waste Treatment and 
Disposal


Agency Contact:
Ann Codrington
Environmental Protection Agency
Solid Waste and Emergency Response
5304W
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 703 308-8825
Fax: 703 308-0514
Email: [email protected]

Rich Lashier
Environmental Protection Agency
Solid Waste and Emergency Response
5304W
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 703 308-8796
Fax: 703-308-0522
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2050-AE21
_______________________________________________________________________



EPA
115. STANDARDIZED PERMIT FOR RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES
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; 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

[[Page 64040]]

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 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 Cost 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 such things as the type of permit and the type of 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                                                           04/00/00
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


State, Federal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 4028


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; 332813 Electroplating, 
Plating, Polishing, Anodizing and Coloring; 32532 Pesticide and Other 
Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing


Agency Contact:
Vernon Myers
Environmental Protection Agency
Solid Waste and Emergency Response
5303W
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 703 308-8660
Fax: 703 308-8609
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2050-AE44
_______________________________________________________________________



EPA
116. 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


Legal Deadline:


Final, Judicial, April 30, 2001.


NPRM, Judicial, October 31, 1999.


Abstract:


EPA is proposing a conditional exemption from the regulatory definition 
of RCRA hazardous waste for storage, treatment, and disposal of low-
level mixed waste (LLMW) which is subject to Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission (NRC) or NRC Agreement State regulations and licensing 
provisions. Commercial mixed waste generators, particularly nuclear 
power plants, contend that dual regulation of mixed waste by EPA and 
NRC is duplicative, burdensome, and costly. EPA has determined that 
NRC-licensed storage of LLMW, or disposal of LLMW in low-level 
radioactive waste disposal facilities that we have evaluated, not only 
address radiological hazards, but will provide protection of human 
health and the environment with respect to chemical hazards. The 
exemption, when finalized, will provide regulatory flexibility for

[[Page 64041]]

generators of LLMW for storage, treatment or disposal based on 
compliance with the required conditions. The storage proposal, when 
finalized, would allow LLMW generators meeting specified conditions to 
claim an exemption for stored mixed waste while subject to NRC 
regulations and licensing provisions. Regulatory flexibility proposed 
for treatment would be limited to treatment that: is covered in the 
generator's NRC license; and takes place in a tank or container for the 
purpose of solidification, neutralization or other stabilization. For 
the purposes of disposal, EPA is proposing that LLMW, which meets land 
disposal restriction treatment standards, may be disposed at a low-
level waste disposal facility licensed by NRC or its Agreement States 
if the generator complies with specified conditions. The proposal was 
signed by the Administrator on October 29, 1999.


Statement of Need:


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 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 LDR 
treatment standards for chemical constituents in conjunction with NRC 
disposal requirements for LLW; 2) applicability of HWIR exit 
concentration levels and associated requirements for chemical 
constituents; 3) a conditional exemption for stored mixed waste subject 
to NRC regulatory requirements; and 4) allowing decay-in-storage as 
provided by NRC for some mixed wastes to limit worker exposures to 
radionuclides.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


EPA anticipates that implementation of this rule will result in net 
cost savings of at least 1-3 million dollars annually; unquantified 
cost savings from administrative and permitting burdens could be much 
higher. In addition, EPA anticipates risk reductions from reduced 
exposure to radionuclides.


Risks:


The purpose of this rule is not risk reduction. The rule will maintain 
current level of protection as required by NRC for radionuclides under 
alternatives 1 and 3, and also provide protection for human health and 
the environment from chemical hazards. For alternative 2 the risk will 
be similar to HWIR risk benchmarks for carcinogens and non-carcinogens. 
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           64 FR 10063                                    03/01/99
NPRM                                                           11/00/99
Final Action                                                   04/00/01
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


State, Federal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 4017


SIC Codes: Nuclear Electric Power Generation (4911); Federal Facilities 
(9431) and (9511); Mixed Waste Treatment, Storage and Disposal 
Facilities (4953); Commercial Low Level Radioactive Waste Disposal 
Facilities (4953); Universities (8221); Medical Facilities (8071); 
Pharmaceutical Companies (2834); Research Laboratories (8731, 8734)


Agency Contact:
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]

Rajani Joglekar
Environmental Protection Agency
Solid Waste and Emergency Response
5304W
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 703 308-8806
Fax: 703 308-0522
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2050-AE45
_______________________________________________________________________



EPA
117. NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS: RADON
Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Unfunded Mandates:


State, Local or Tribal Governments


Legal Authority:


42 USC 300(f), SDWA 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:


EPA is proposing new regulations for radon in drinking water which will 
provide states flexibility in how to manage the health risks from 
radon, in both drinking water and in indoor air. States would be able 
to focus their efforts on the highest radon risks to the public - in 
indoor air - while reducing the highest risks from radon in drinking 
water. Breathing indoor radon in homes is the primary public health 
risk from radon, contributing to about 20,000 lung cancer deaths each 
year in the United States, according to a landmark report this year by 
the National Academy of Sciences. That makes radon in indoor air the 
second leading cause of lung cancer in the United States. Based on a 
second NAS report, EPA estimates that radon in drinking water causes 
about 168 cancer deaths per year, of which about 89 percent are lung 
cancer from breathing radon released from water. The remaining 11 
percent of the risk is for stomach cancer from drinking radon-
containing water.


The unique framework for the proposed regulations, outlined in the 1996 
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), recognizes that the public health 
problem from radon in indoor air typically far exceeds the health risks 
from radon in drinking water and that targeting indoor radon exposures 
is the most cost-effective way for states to reduce radon health risks. 
The proposed new regulation will provide two options to states and 
water systems for reducing public health risks from radon. Under the 
first option, states can choose to

[[Page 64042]]

develop enhanced state programs to address the health risks from indoor 
radon while water systems reduce radon levels in drinking water to the 
higher, alternative maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 4,000 pCi/L 
(picoCuries per liter, a standard unit of radiation) or lower, ensuring 
protection from the highest risks from radon in drinking water. EPA is 
encouraging the states to adopt this approach as the most cost-
effective way to achieve the greatest radon risk reduction. If a state 
does not elect this option, the second option would require water 
systems in that state to either reduce radon in drinking water levels 
to the MCL, or to develop a local indoor radon program and reduce 
levels in drinking water to 4000 pCi/L. Those systems initially at the 
MCL or lower will not need to treat their water for radon.


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 Legal Basis:


Pursuant to the Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended in 1996 [sec. 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 a Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) and National 
Primary Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR) for radon by August, 1999; 
and (5) Publish an MCLG 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 
and criteria for States to develop multimedia radon mitigation 
programs. EPA shall approve State multimedia mitigation programs if 
they are expected to achieve equal 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 considered a range of MCL options for radon in drinking water in 
the Health Risk Reduction and Cost Analysis (HRRCA) (published in 
February 1999). The primary alternative is 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 provided 
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 Cost and Benefits:


The total annual costs of compliance with the MCL of 300 pCi/l for 
radon in drinking water and the associated information collection and 
reporting requirements is estimated at $407 million. In complying with 
300 pCi/l, an estimated 62.0 fatal and 0.2 non-fatal cancer cases are 
avoided each year. Because EPA expects that most States and systems 
will choose to comply with the alternative maximum contaminant level 
(AMCL) of 4,000 pCi/l and implement a Multi-Media Mitigation (MMM) 
program, EPA expects the total annual costs of compliance with the 
radon rule to be significantly less than $407 million. If most States 
and systems comply with the AMCL and implement a MMM program, the total 
annual costs of compliance are estimated at approximately $86 million. 
The quantifiable benefits of the health risk reduction are estimated to 
be $362 million for either implementation scenario. EPA expects 
compliance with the AMCL and implementation of a MMM program to achieve 
equal or greater risk reduction than is expected with strict compliance 
with the MCL.


Risks:


Radon is a naturally occurring volatile gas formed from the normal 
radioactive decay of uranium. It is colorless, odorless, tasteless, 
chemically inert, and radioactive. Exposure to radon and its progeny is 
believed to be associated with increased risks of several kinds of 
cancer. When radon or its progeny are inhaled, lung cancer accounts for 
most of the total incremental cancer risk. Ingestion of radon in water 
is suspected of being associated with increased risk of tumors of 
several internal organs, primarily the stomach. As required by the 
SDWA, as amended, EPA arranged for the National Academy of Sciences 
(NAS) to assess the health risks of radon in drinking water. The NAS 
released the pre-publication draft of a report on the Risks of Radon in 
Drinking Water, (NAS Report) in September 1998 and published the report 
in July 1999. The analysis in this RIA uses information from the 1999 
NAS Report. The NAS Report represents a comprehensive assessment of 
scientific data gathered to date on radon in drinking water. The 
report, in general, confirms earlier EPA scientific conclusions and 
analyses of radon in drinking water.


NAS estimated individual lifetime unit fatal cancer risks associated 
with exposure to radon from domestic water use for ingestion and 
inhalation pathways. The results show that inhalation of radon progeny 
accounts for most (approximately 88 percent) of the individual risk 
associated with domestic water use, with almost all of the remainder 
(11 percent) resulting from directly ingesting radon in drinking water. 
Inhalation of radon progeny is associated primarily with increased risk 
of lung cancer, while ingestion exposure is associated primarily with 
elevated risk of stomach cancer.


The NAS Report confirmed that indoor air contamination arising from 
soil gas typically accounts for the bulk of total individual risk due 
to radon exposure. Usually, most radon gas enters indoor air by 
diffusion from soils through basement walls or foundation cracks or 
openings. Radon in domestic water generally contributes a small 
proportion of the total radon in indoor air. However, NAS recognized 
that radon in water is the largest source of cancer risk in drinking 
water compared to other regulated chemicals in water.


The NAS Report is one of the most important inputs used by EPA in its 
regulatory impact analysis. EPA has used the NAS's assessment of the

[[Page 64043]]

cancer risks from radon in drinking water to estimate both the health 
risks posed by existing levels of radon in drinking water and also the 
cancer deaths prevented by reducing radon levels.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM           51 FR 34836                                    09/30/86
NPRM            56 FR 33050                                    07/18/91
Notice          64 FR 9560                                     02/26/99
NPRM            64 FR 59245                                    11/02/99
Final Action                                                   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
Phone: 202 260-0417
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2040-AA94
_______________________________________________________________________



EPA
118. NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS: GROUND WATER RULE
Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Unfunded Mandates:


State, Local or Tribal Governments


Legal Authority:


42 USC 300(f), SDWA 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 develop a protective public health 
approach which assures a baseline of protection for all consumers of 
ground water and sets in place an increasingly targeted strategy to 
identify high risk or high priority systems that require greater 
scrutiny or further action. Development and implementation of the rule 
will involve local, tribal, State and Federal governments. The 
structure of the rule is a series of barriers to microbial 
contamination. The multiple-barrier approach relies upon four major 
components: 1) periodic onsite inspections of ground water systems 
requiring the evaluation of eight key areas and the identification of 
significant deficiencies; 2) source water monitoring for systems 
drawing from sensitive aquifers without treatment or with other 
indications of risk; 3) a requirement for correction of significant 
deficiencies; and 4) a requirement for treatment where contamination or 
significant deficiencies are not or cannot be corrected, and 
alternative sources of drinking water are not available. EPA believes 
that the combination of these elements strikes an appropriate 
regulatory balance which tailors the intensity or burden of protective 
measures and follow-up action to the risk being addressed.


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 subject to treatment 
technique requirements for the control of pathogens. 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.


Summary of 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 Cost and Benefits:


Not available at this time.


Risks:


Not available at this time.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           03/00/00
Final Action                                                   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


Statutory deadline for final: After August 6,1999 but before May 31, 
2002.


Agency Contact:
Tracy Bone
Environmental Protection Agency
Water
4607
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 260-2954
RIN: 2040-AA97
_______________________________________________________________________



EPA
119. NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS: ARSENIC
Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Unfunded Mandates:


Private Sector


Legal Authority:


42 USC 300(f), SDWA sec 1412


CFR Citation:


40 CFR 141(Revision); 40 CFR 142 (Revision)


Legal Deadline:


NPRM, Statutory, January 1, 2000.


Final, Statutory, January 1, 2001.


Abstract:


The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Amendments of 1996 require EPA to 
develop and carry out a study plan to reduce the uncertainty in 
assessing health risks of low levels of arsenic. In addition, EPA must 
propose a revised drinking water regulation for arsenic by January 1, 
2000, and issue a final rule by January 1, 2001. Currently the National 
Primary Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR) for arsenic is 50 ppb, or 50 
ug/L. The

[[Page 64044]]

National Academy of Sciences issued a report in March 1999 that urged 
EPA to lower the drinking water standard, based on significantevidence 
that inorganic arsenic causes bladder, lung and skin cancer in humans. 
The report recommended additional studies to characterize heath effects 
at low doses for cancers, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and 
reproductive effects. The SDWA directs EPA to establish an enforceable 
maximum contaminant level (MCL) as close to the health-based maximum 
contaminant level goal (MCLG) as feasible, considering treatment 
efficacy and costs, unless the benefits of a standard set at this level 
do not justify the costs, in which case EPA may set a less stringent 
standard. EPA must list affordable technologies or treatment techniques 
that achieve compliance with the MCL for three categories of small 
systems considering the quality of the source water. Furthermore, 
alternatives to central treatment, such as point-of-use and point-of-
entry devices, can be considered for small systems that maintain 
control over operation and maintenance. At the time of proposal, EPA 
must seek comment on its analyses of the costs of compliance and health 
risk reduction benefits likely to occur as the result of treatment to 
comply with the proposed MCL and any alternatives being considered.


Statement of Need:


The U.S. Public Health Service first established a drinking water 
standard for arsenic at 50 Fg/L in 1942. The Safe Drinking Water Act of 
1974 (SDWA) which amended the Public Health Service Act specified that 
EPA set drinking water standards. In 1975 EPA issued a National Interim 
Primary Drinking Water Regulation for arsenic at 50 Fg/L, noting no 
illness. After EPA's risk assessment approach calculated a much lower 
arsenic criteria to protect humans from skin cancer for surface water 
quality criteria under the Clean Water Act, the drinking water program 
retained its 50 Fg/L standard. EPA did not revise the standard as 
required by 1986 amendments to SDWA, based on the need to better 
characterize health effects and assess arsenic removal technologies. At 
that time, EPA's analysis estimated it would cost $2.1 billion a year 
to comply with a standard protective of health (skin cancer). The 1996 
amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act require EPA to determine 
whether the costs of regulation would justify the benefits, including 
consideration of nonquantifiable benefits. In addition, EPA must 
determine the incremental costs and benefits of alternatives considered 
that do not include what would occur from compliance with other 
proposed or final regulations. If the costs do not justify the 
benefits, the Administrator may choose to raise the MCL to a level 
still protective of health at which costs do justify the benefits. As 
noted in 17 above, the 1999 report issued by the National 
Academy of Sciences definitely implicated inorganic arsenic's effects 
on bladder, lung, and skin cancer althoaugh it was not able to 
determine the shape of the dose-response curve below 50 ppb. However, 
based on existing data, and in order to be adequately protective, EPA 
is urged to lower the drinking water standard as soon as possible.


Summary of Legal Basis:


1412(b)(12) CERTAIN CONTAMINANTS.


(A) ARSENIC.: i) SCHEDULE AND STANDARD.-- notwithstanding the deadlines 
set forth in paragraph (1), the Administrator shall promulgate a 
national primary drinking water regulation for arsenic pursuant to this 
subsection, in accordance with the schedule established by this 
paragraph.


(ii) STUDY PLAN.-- Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment 
of this paragraph, the Administrator shall develop a comprehensive plan 
for study in support of drinking water rulemaking to reduce the 
uncertainty in assessing health risks associated with exposure to low 
levels of arsenic. In conducting such study, the Administrator shall 
consult with the National Academy of Sciences, other Federal agencies, 
and interested public and private entities.


(iii) COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS.-- In carrying out the study plan, the 
Administrator may enter into cooperative agreements with other Federal 
agencies, State and local governments, and other interested public and 
private entities.


(iv) PROPOSED REGULATIONS.-- The Administrator shall propose a national 
primary drinking water regulation for arsenic not later than January 1, 
2000.


(v) FINAL REGULATIONS.-- Not later than January 1, 2001, after notice 
and opportunity for public comment, the Administrator shall promulgate 
a national primary drinking water regulation for arsenic.


(vi) AUTHORIZATION.-- There are authorized to be appropriated 
$2,500,000 for each of fiscal years 1997 through 2000 for the studies 
required by this paragraph.


Also see: 1412(b)(4)(E)(ii) for listing small system technologies; 
1412(b)(4)(C) for requiring analysis of whether costs justify benefits; 
1412(b)(3)(C)(i) for other requirements for the cost-benefit analyses; 
1412(b)(15) for small system variance technologies, if, considering the 
source water, no treatment technology is listed.


Alternatives:


EPA is considering arsenic MCL options of 3, 5, 10, 15, and 20 Fg/L and 
performing costs and benefits analyses of each of these alternatives, 
measured as reducing drinking water arsenic from the current standard 
of 50 Fg/L. This analysis includes flexibility to allow additional 
technologies for small systems, as allowed by the 1996 amendments to 
the statute. In addition, depending on the option chosen, EPA may list 
some small system variance technologies that consider the quality of 
source water treated which may not reach the MCL but will be protective 
of health.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Not yet available.


Risks:


According to the report issued by the National Academy of Sciences, the 
risk of male bladder cancer at the current standard is 1 to 1.5 
additional cancers per thousand people, or 1-1.5x10-3, based on a 
default linear approach.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
Plan Arsenic Stu61 FR 67800                                    12/24/96
NPRM                                                           01/00/00
Final Action                                                   01/00/01
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, Organizations


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local, Tribal, Federal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 2807

[[Page 64045]]

Agency Contact:
Irene Dooley
Environmental Protection Agency
Water
4607
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 260-9531
Fax: 202 260-3762
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2040-AB75
_______________________________________________________________________



EPA
120. LONG TERM 1 ENHANCED SURFACE WATER TREATMENT/FILTER BACKWASH RULE
Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Unfunded Mandates:


State, Local or Tribal Governments


Legal Authority:


SDWA 1412(b)(2)(C); SDWA 1412(b)(14)


CFR Citation:


Not Yet Determined


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, August 30, 2000, Filter Backwash Rule Provisions.


Final, Statutory, November 30, 2000, LT1 provisions.


Abstract:


The purposes of the Long Term 1 Filter Backwash rule (LT1FBR) are to: 
1) improve control of microbial pathogens in drinking water, including 
Cryptosporidium, for PWSs serving fewer than 10,000 people; 2) prevent 
increases in microbial risk while PWSs serving fewer than 10,000 people 
control for disinfection byproducts, and; 3) require certain public 
water systems (PWSs) to institute changes to the return of recycle 
flows within the treatment process to reduce the effects of recycle on 
compromising microbial control. The rule responds to the statutory 
requirement to establish a Long Term Final Enhanced Surface Water 
Treatment Rule (LTESWTR) affecting PWSs that serve under 10,000 people. 
It also addresses the statutory requirement to promulgate a regulation 
which ``governs'' the recycle of filter backwash within the treatment 
process of public utilities.


The proposed LT1FBR will contain 5 key provisions for systems serving 
fewer than 10,000 people: 1) a 2-log Cryptosporidium removal 
requirement for systems practicing conventional or direct filtration; 
2) strengthened combined filter effluent turbidity performance 
standards and new individual filter turbidity provisions; 3) 
disinfection benchmark provisions to assure continued microbial 
protection is provided while facilities take the necessary steps to 
comply with new disinfection byproduct standards (63 FR 69390, December 
16, 1998); 4) inclusion of Cryptosporidium in the definition of ground 
water under the direct influence of surface water (GWUDI) and in the 
watershed control requirements for unfiltered public water systems; and 
5) requirements for covers on new finished water reservoirs. The 
proposed LT1FBR will contain three key provisions for all systems: 1) a 
provision requiring recycle flows be introduced at the head of the 
plant; 2) a requirement for plants meeting criteria to perform a one-
time self assessment of their recycle practice and consult with their 
primacy Agency to address and correct high risk recycle operations; and 
3) a requirement for direct filtration plants to provide information to 
the State on their current recycle practice.


Statement of Need:


The National Academy of Sciences identified Cryptosporidium as one of 
the major threats to public Health. This resulted in the requirements 
for an Interim and Long Term Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule, as 
well as a governing the recycle of filter backwash in the 1996 Safe 
Drinking Water Act Amendments.


Summary of Legal Basis:


1412(b)(2)(C): ``The Administrator shall promulgate in Interim Enhanced 
Surface Water Treatment Rule, a Final Enhanced Surface Water Treatment 
Rule, A Stage I Disinfectants and Disinfection byproducts Rule in 
accordance with the schedule published in volume 59, Federal Register, 
page 6361 (February 10, 1994), in table III.13 of the proposed 
Information collection rule. If a delay occurs with respect to the 
promulgation of any rule in the schedule referred to in this 
subparagraph, all subsequent rules shall be completed as expeditiously 
as practicable but no later than a revised date that reflects the 
interval or intervals for the rules in the schedule.''


1412(b)(14): RECYCLING OF FILTER BACKWASH - ``The Administrator shall 
promulgate a regulation to govern the recycling of filter backwash 
water within the treatment process of a public water system. The 
Administrator shall promulgate such regulation not later than 4 years 
after the date of enactment of the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments 
of 1996 unless such recycling has been addressed by the Administrator's 
Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule prior to such date.''


Alternatives:


The Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment rule/Filter Backwash 
used the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment rule (IESWTR) as a 
template to develop the turbidity and disinfection benchmarking 
requirements of the rule. The Agency has considered several 
alternatives in the development of these regulatory provisions. These 
alternatives include:


Turbidity: The Agency recognized that small system operators are often 
not present during the full hours of operation at a water treatment 
plant. The Agency is therefore proposing a monitoring scheme that 
requires less operator review and record keeping time than was required 
for the IESWTR.


Disinfection Benchmarking: Again, in an attempt to reduce operators 
data gathering and record keeping time, as well as reduce cost, the 
Agency is recommending provisions that will allow the operator to 
ensure that the plant is achieving satisfactory disinfection, while 
planning for the reduction in disinfection byproducts.


Filter Backwash: The Agency considered several more stringent 
alternatives when developing the filter backwash provisions. A lack of 
data associating the occurrence of Cryptosporidum in filter backwash 
water and finished water in plants which recycle backwash, has resulted 
in a recommendation of less restrictive provisions. The Agency 
considered requiring two types of treatment of filter backwash recycle, 
but has instead recommended monitoring and reporting of practices to 
the State.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Costs and benefits still under development.


Risks:


Risk analysis still under development.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           02/00/00
Final Action                                                   08/00/00

[[Page 64046]]

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, Organizations


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local, Tribal, Federal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 4147


The Filter Backwash Recycling Regulations, previously listed separately 
in the Regulatory Agenda (RIN 2040-AD17) has been merged into this 
rule. It is listed as ``completed'' elsewhere in the Agenda.


Agency Contact:
Steve Potts
Environmental Protection Agency
Water
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 260-5015
Fax: 202 410-6135
Email: [email protected]

Steve Potts
Environmental Protection Agency
Water
4607
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 260-5015
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2040-AD18
_______________________________________________________________________



EPA
121. EFFLUENT GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS FOR THE FEEDLOTS POINT SOURCE 
CATEGORY, SWINE AND POULTRY SUBCATEGORIES, AND NPDES REGULATION FOR 
CONCENTRATED ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATIONS
Priority:


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


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Legal Authority:


33 USC 1311, CWA sec 301; 33 USC 1314, CWA sec 304; 33 USC 1316, CWA 
sec 306; 33 USC 1317, CWA sec 307; 33 USC 1318, CWA sec 308; 33 USC 
1342, CWA sec 402; 33 USC 1361, CWA sec 501


CFR Citation:


40 CFR 412; 40 CFR 122.23


Legal Deadline:


NPRM, Judicial, December 31, 1999.


Final, Judicial, December 31, 2001.


Abstract:


Feedlot operations are covered by existing effluent guidelines at 40 
CFR 412 and concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) are covered 
by regulations at 40 CFR 122.23. This action will revise the existing 
regulations for two of the effluent guidelines subcategories to address 
swine and poultry operations and the NPDES regulation for concentrated 
animal feeding operations. The existing regulations, which require the 
largest confined animal feeding operations to achieve zero discharge of 
wastes to surface waters except for certain storm related discharges, 
have not been sufficient to resolve water quality impairment from 
feedlot operations. Swine and poultry operations have been identified 
as substantial contributors of nutrients in surface waters that have 
severe anoxia (low levels of dissolved oxygen) and problem algae 
blooms.


Statement of Need:


Inputs of nutrients, most notably nitrogen and phosphorus, are 
essential for profitable crop and animal agriculture. However, nitrogen 
and phosphorus export in watershed runoff can accelerate the 
eutrophication of surface waters, nitrate leaching through the soil 
profile can contaminate groundwater aquifers, and ammonia 
volatilization and odors from manure storage and land application 
degrade air quality. The rapid growth and intensification of animal 
production in many areas has created regional imbalances in nutrient 
inputs from feed and fertilizer, and nutrient output in crops and 
animals. In many of these areas, nutrients produced in animal manures 
exceed crop needs and pose risks to the environment.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The Clean Water Act (CWA) requires EPA to establish effluent 
limitations guidelines and standards to regulate the quality of point 
source discharges. In addition, EPA is required to periodically review 
and revise, if appropriate, the existing effluent guidelines and 
standards and the existing implementing regulations for NPDES permits. 
EPA is also required to revisit these effluent guidelines to satisfy a 
provision in a Consent Decree entered in settlement of Natural 
Resources Defense Council et al v. Reilly, (D.D.C No. 89-2980).


Alternatives:


The CWA requires effluent guidelines to be established on a technology 
basis. Limitations are to be based on the performance of specific 
technology levels, such as the best available technology economically 
achievable. For animal feeding operations, EPA is considering a range 
of regulatory alternatives that includes management practices, 
traditional pollution control technologies, and alternative 
technologies/practices that recover the energy value or alter the 
handling/marketability characteristics of animal wastes. EPA is also 
considering whether alternative pollution control requirements should 
be established for smaller animal feeding operations, recognizing that 
circumstances at smaller operations may warrant special consideration.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The types of benefits associated with revisions to effluent guidelines 
for animal feeding operations include improvements to surface water and 
groundwater. Reduced risks to human health are expected to result from 
these improvements in environmental quality. Surface water benefits 
will principally derive from reduced loadings of nutrients in runoff 
from animal confinement, manure storage, and land application areas. 
Discharges of metals and pathogens to surface waters will also be 
reduced. This reduction in pathogens will result in fewer beach and 
shellfish bed closings. Revisions to effluent guidelines will lessen 
the degree to which nitrate leaches through the soil and contaminates 
groundwater. The costs associated with this regulation will include 
capital expenses to purchase or install facility upgrades to the 
existing manure storage structures and feedlot stormwater diversions. 
There may be capital expenditures associated with manure application 
equipment


Risks:


The changes under consideration for effluent guidelines will reduce 
adverse water quality impacts caused by runoff from animal feeding 
operations, thereby reducing risks to aquatic habitat and public 
health.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           12/00/99
Final Action                                                   12/00/01
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined

[[Page 64047]]

Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local, Tribal, Federal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 4153


Sectors Affected:


11221 Hog and Pig Farming; 11232 Broilers and Other Meat Type Chicken 
Production; 11231 Chicken Egg Production; 112112 Cattle Feedlots; 11212 
Dairy Cattle and Milk Production; 11241 Sheep Farming; 11233 Turkey 
Production; 11292 Horse and Other Equine Production; 11239 Other 
Poultry Production


Agency Contact:
Jan Goodwin
Environmental Protection Agency
Water
4303
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 260-7152
Fax: 202 260-7185
Email: [email protected]

Shelley Fudge
Environmental Protection Agency
Water
4203
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 260-8496
Fax: 202 260-1460
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2040-AD19
_______________________________________________________________________



EPA
122. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS FOR THE FEEDLOTS 
POINT SOURCE CATEGORY, DAIRY AND BEEF CATTLE SUBCATEGORIES
Priority:


Other Significant


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined


Legal Authority:


33 USC 1311, CWA sec 301; 33 USC 1314, CWA sec 304; 33 USC 1316, CWA 
sec 306; 33 USC 1317, CWA sec 307; 33 USC 1318, CWA sec 308; 33 USC 
1342, CWA sec 402; 33 USC 1361, CWA sec 501


CFR Citation:


40 CFR 412


Legal Deadline:


NPRM, Judicial, December 31, 2000.


Final, Judicial, December 31, 2002.


Abstract:


Feedlot operations are covered by existing effluent guidelines at 40 
CFR 412. This new regulatory action will revise the existing 
regulations for two of the subcategories--dairy and beef cattle 
operations. The existing regulations, which require the largest 
confined animal feeding operations to achieve zero discharge of wastes 
to surface waters except for certain storm related discharges, have not 
been sufficient to resolve water quality impairment from feedlot 
operations. Beef and dairy cattle operations represent a large segment 
of the feedlot industry and have been identified as substantial 
contributors of nutrients in surface waters that have severe anoxia 
(low levels of dissolved oxygen) and affect drinking water sources in 
some regions of the country.


Statement of Need:


Inputs of nutrients, most notably nitrogen and phosphorus, are 
essential for profitable crop and animal agriculture. However, nitrogen 
and phosphorus export in watershed runoff can accelerate the 
eutrophication of surface waters, nitrate leaching through the soil 
profile can contaminate groundwater aquifers, and ammonia 
volatilization and odors from manure storage and land application 
degrade air quality. The rapid growth and intensification of animal 
production in many areas has created regional imbalances in nutrient 
inputs from feed and fertilizer, and nutrient output in crops and 
animals. In many of these areas, nutrients produced in animal manures 
exceed crop needs and pose risks to the environment.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The Clean Water Act (CWA) requires EPA to establish effluent 
limitations guidelines and standards to regulate the quality of point 
source discharges. In addition, EPA is required to periodically review 
and revise, if appropriate, the existing effluent guidelines and 
standards. EPA is also required to revisit these effluent guidelines to 
satisfy a provision in a Consent Decree entered in settlement of 
Natural Resources Defense Council et al v. Reilly, (D.D.C No. 89-2980).


Alternatives:


The CWA requires effluent guidelines to be established on a technology 
basis. Limitations are to be based on the performance of specific 
technology levels, such as the best available technology economically 
achievable. For animal feeding operations, EPA is considering a range 
of regulatory alternatives that includes management practices, 
traditional pollution control technologies, and alternative 
technologies/practices that recover the energy value or alter the 
handling/marketability characteristics of animal wastes. EPA is also 
considering whether alternative pollution control requirements should 
be established for smaller animal feeding operations, recognizing that 
circumstances at smaller operations may warrant special consideration.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The types of benefits associated with revisions to effluent guidelines 
for animal feeding operations include improvements to surface water and 
groundwater. Reduced risks to human health are expected to result from 
these improvements in environmental quality. Surface water benefits 
will principally derive from reduced loadings of nutrients in runoff 
from animal confinement, manure storage, and land application areas. 
Discharges of metals and pathogens to surface waters should also be 
reduced. Revisions to effluent guidelines will lessen the degree to 
which nitrate leaches through the soil and contaminates groundwater. 
The costs associated with this regulation will include capital expenses 
to purchase or install facility upgrades to the existing manure storage 
structures and feedlot stormwater diversions. There may be capital 
expenditures associated with manure application equipment as well as 
operation & maintenance costs.


Risks:


The changes under consideration for effluent guidelines will reduce 
adverse water quality impacts caused by runoff from animal feeding 
operations, thereby reducing risks to aquatic habitat and public 
health.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           12/00/00
Final Action                                                   12/00/02
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


State, Tribal, Federal

[[Page 64048]]

Additional Information:


SAN No. 4167


Sectors Affected:


112112 Cattle Feedlots; 11212 Dairy Cattle and Milk Production


Agency Contact:
Ron Jordan
Environmental Protection Agency
Water
4303
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 260-7115
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2040-AD21
_______________________________________________________________________



EPA

                              -----------

                               Final Rule

                              -----------

123. 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 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 grew 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 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 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 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 Cost 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 the recipient 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            64 FR 63731                                    07/23/99
Final Action                                                   02/00/00
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 Resource Management
3903R
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 564-5376
RIN: 2030-AA55


_______________________________________________________________________


[[Page 64049]]

EPA
124. 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 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 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 Cost 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 the recipient 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            64 FR 63732                                    07/23/99
Final Action                                                   02/00/00
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


Governmental Jurisdictions, Organizations


Government Levels Affected:


Tribal, Federal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 4128


Agency Contact:
Michelle McClendon
Environmental Protection Agency
Administration and Resource Management
3903R
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 564-5357
Fax: 202 565-2470
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2030-AA56
_______________________________________________________________________



EPA
125. 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:


CAA as amended, title I

[[Page 64050]]

CFR Citation:


40 CFR 51.160 to 51.166; 40 CFR 52.21; 40 CFR 52.24


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This action is to revise the CAA 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 NSR regulations. State, local, and tribal permitting 
agencies will be given more flexibility to implement program 
requirements in a manner that meets 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 NSR 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).


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 industry's 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 of the 
Clean Air Act Advisory Committee was formed. 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 (National Park 
Service and Forest Service, Department of Energy, and the Office of 
Management and Budget).


Summary of 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'').


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 two applicability provisions. On February 2-3, 1999, 
EPA convened a public meeting to listen to new stakeholder proposals 
for streamlining NSR applicability and control technology requirements. 
Stakeholder groups submitted written proposals during May and June 
1999. Discussions on these proposals will conclude by October 1999.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


From a cost perspective, the proposed rulemaking represents a decrease 
in applications and recordkeeping costs to 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                                                   05/00/00
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


State, Federal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 325


Agency Contact:
Dennis Crumpler
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
MD-12
Research Triangle Pa, NC 27711
Phone: 919 541-0871
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2060-AE11


_______________________________________________________________________


[[Page 64051]]

EPA
126. NONROAD SPARK-IGNITION ENGINES AT OR BELOW 19 KILOWATTS (25 
HORSEPOWER) (PHASE 2)
Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Unfunded Mandates:


Private Sector


Legal Authority:


42 USC 7547, CAA 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 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 Cost 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 Non-hand-he63 FR 3950                                     01/27/98
NPRM Hand-held e63 FR 3950                                     01/27/98
Final Action Non64 FR 15207engines                             03/30/99
Final Action Hand-held engines                                 03/00/00
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
127. IMPLEMENTATION OF OZONE AND PARTICULATE MATTER (PM) NATIONAL 
AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS (NAAQS) AND REGIONAL HAZE REGULATIONS
Priority:


Other Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Unfunded Mandates:


Private Sector


Legal Authority:


Clean Air Act, title I


CFR Citation:


40 CFR 50; 40 CFR 51; 40 CFR 52; 40 CFR 81


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


On July 18, 1997, EPA 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 July 
16, 1997 memorandum to EPA Administrator Carol Browner, EPA had been 
developing guidance and rules for sensibly and cost-effectively meeting 
the new standards. For ozone, the implementation plan will emphasize a 
regional, State-sponsored approach that addresses the long-distance 
transport of ozone. On October 27, 1998, EPA published a final rule 
(sometimes referred to as the NOx SIP Call) to require broad regional 
emissions reductions of NOx gases which contribute to the formation of 
ozone (63 FR 57356, October 27, 1998). On November 17, 1998, EPA made 
available for comment proposed implementation guidance on implementing 
the revised ozone and PM NAAQS and regional haze program. On May 14, 
1999, however, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued an 
opinion concerning the

[[Page 64052]]

revised ozone and particulate matter NAAQS (American Trucking Assoc., 
Inc. et al. v. USEPA, No. 97-1440 (May 14, 1999)) in which the Court 
stated, among other things, that the revised 8-hour ozone standard 
``cannot be enforced.'' The Court also vacated the revised PM10 NAAQS 
and remanded the PM2.5 NAAQS. On June 28, 1999, EPA requested a 
rehearing of the case before the Court on three issues, including 
enforcement of the 8-hour standard. Until the appeals process is 
exhausted, EPA does not intend to issue final guidance for 
implementation of the standards affected by the Court's decision. In 
final rules promulgated on June 5, 1998 (63 FR 31013), July 22, 1998 
(63 FR 39432), and June 9, 1999 (64 FR 30911), EPA identified areas 
that have air quality meeting the 1-hour ozone standard and revoked 
that standard for those areas.


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.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Title I 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 Cost and Benefits:


EPA prepared a regulatory impact analysis (RIA) for the final ozone and 
PM NAAQS, as well as the regional haze reduction program.


Risks:


The risks addressed by this implementation plan are those of not 
attaining the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone and 
Particulate Matter.


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
Supplemental NPR63 FR 25902all Supplemental NPRM               05/11/98
Final Rule Areas63 FR 31013hour ozone standard                 06/05/98
Final Rule Addit63 FR 39432 meeting 1-hour ozone standard      07/22/98
Final Rule NOx R63 FR 57356ategy SIP Call                      10/27/98
Draft Guidance I63 FR 65593on Planning                         11/17/98
Final Rule Regio64 FR 35713                                    07/01/99
Final Guidance  Determined                                        To Be
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local, Tribal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 3553


Agency Contact:
Denise Gerth
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
MD-15
Research Triangle Pa, NC 27711
Phone: 919 541-5550
Email: [email protected]

John Silvasi
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
MD-15
Research Triangle Pa, NC 27711
Phone: 919 541-5666
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2060-AF34
_______________________________________________________________________



EPA
128. 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 or overlapping.


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 provisions. 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.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Clean Air Act Section 111, 112.

[[Page 64053]]

Alternatives:


The main alternative is to do nothing and let the many rules with their 
many provisions remain the only compliance mechanism.


Anticipated Cost 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            63 FR 57748                                    10/28/98
Final Action                                                   12/00/99
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
Phone: 919 541-5262
Fax: 919 541-3470
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2060-AG28
_______________________________________________________________________



EPA
129. TIER II LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLE AND LIGHT-DUTY TRUCK EMISSION STANDARDS 
AND GASOLINE SULFUR STANDARDS
Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Unfunded Mandates:


Private Sector


Legal Authority:


42 USC 7521; 42 USC 7545


CFR Citation:


40 CFR 86 (Revision); 40 CFR 80


Legal Deadline:


None


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 provided evidence 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 and light-duty 
trucks. 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. The rulemaking will also propose 
limitations on the sulfur content of gasoline available nationwide. 
Sulfur in gasoline 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, and sulfur levels in gasoline in order to 
protect the public health and welfare.


Summary of 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 
gasoline sulfur levels are authorized under Clean Air Act Section 211.


Alternatives:


EPA considered various alternatives for control levels, gasoline sulfur 
levels, and timing of the rule. These are discussed in the proposed 
rule, published on May 13, 1999 in the Federal Register at 64 FR 26003.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The benefits of the rule are the emission reductions described below. 
The cost estimates presented in the proposed rule are an average cost 
increase of less than $100 per passenger car, less than $200 per light 
truck, and an increase of less than 2 cents per gallon of gasoline.


Risks:


The risks addressed by this program are primarily those associated with 
nonattainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone. 
This rule will help States achieve the emission reductions needed to 
achieve these standards. The proposed rule projected a reduction in 
oxides of nitrogen emissions of nearly 800,000 tons per year by 2007 
and 1,200,000 by 2010. Emission reductions would continue increasing 
for many years, reaching almost 2,200,000 tons per year in 2020. In 
addition, the proposed program would reduce the contribution of 
vehicles to other serious public health and environmental problems, 
including particulate matter pollution, regional visibility problems, 
toxic air pollution, acid rain, and nitrogen loading of estuaries.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            64 FR 26004                                    05/13/99
Supplemental NPR64 FR 26053                                    06/30/99
Final Action                                                   12/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Yes


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local, Tribal, Federal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 4211


Agency Contact:
Tad Wysor
Environmental Protection Agency
Air and Radiation
Ann Arbor, MI 48105
Phone: 734 214-4332
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2060-AI23


_______________________________________________________________________


[[Page 64054]]

EPA
130. GROUND WATER AND PESTICIDE MANAGEMENT PLAN
Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Unfunded Mandates:


State, Local or Tribal Governments


Legal Authority:


7 USC 136(a), FIFRA sec 3; 7 USC 136(w)


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. Unless a State or 
tribal authority has 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 by States and tribal authorities.


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 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 Cost 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                                                   02/00/00
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


Governmental Jurisdictions


Government Levels Affected:


Federal, Tribal, State, Local


Additional Information:


SAN No. 3222


Sectors Affected:


9241 Administration of Environmental Quality Programs

[[Page 64055]]

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]

Jean Frane
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
7506C
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 703 305-5944
Fax: 703 305-5884
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2070-AC46
_______________________________________________________________________



EPA
131. LEAD; TSCA SECTION 403; IDENTIFICATION OF DANGEROUS LEVELS OF LEAD
Priority:


Economically Significant


Legal Authority:


15 USC 2683


CFR Citation:


40 CFR 745


Legal Deadline:


NPRM, Judicial, May 26, 1998.


Final, Judicial, December 22, 2000.


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., renovation and remodeling). 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 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 Cost 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 P63 FR 39262ded to 10/01/98                     07/22/98
Notice Comment P63 FR 52662ded to 11/30/98                     10/01/98
NPRM Correction 63 FR 70087                                    12/18/98
Notice Reopens C64 FR 2460iod to 03/01/99                      01/14/99
Final Action                                                   12/00/00
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


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
Fax: 202 260-0770
Email: [email protected]

Jonathan Jacobson
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
7404
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 260-3779
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 2070-AC63
_______________________________________________________________________



EPA
132. TRI; REPORTING THRESHOLD AMENDMENT FOR CERTAIN PERSISTENT AND 
BIOACCUMULATIVE TOXIC CHEMICALS (PBTS)
Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Unfunded Mandates:


State, Local or Tribal Governments


Legal Authority:


42 USC 11013, EPCRA 313; 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

[[Page 64056]]

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.


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 publics right to know what is happening to the 
environment near their homes, schools, and businesses.


Summary of 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 Cost and Benefits:


EPA has proposed to lower the EPCRA section 313 reporting thresholds to 
10 pounds for 13 chemicals/chemical categories, to 100 pounds for 5 
chemicals, and to .01 grams for 1 chemical category. Under this 
proposal the estimated aggregate industry cost in the first year would 
be $145 million and in subsequent years would be $80 million. 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 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            64 FR 688                                      01/05/99
Notice Notice of64 FR 8766ity and Clarification of Proposed Rul02/23/99
Final Action    64 FR 58370                                    10/29/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions


Government Levels Affected:


State, Federal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 3880


OTHER DEADLINE: Vice-President directed the Agency to finalize any 
necessary regulatory changes by December 1999. 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).


Sectors Affected:


42269 Other Chemical and Allied Products Wholesalers


Agency Contact:
Daniel R. Bushman
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
7408
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 260-3882
Email: [email protected]

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
133. TRI; LOWERING OF EPCRA SECTION 313 REPORTING THRESHOLDS FOR LEAD 
AND LEAD COMPOUNDS
Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Legal Authority:


42 USC 11001 et seq


CFR Citation:


40 CFR 372


Legal Deadline:


None

[[Page 64057]]

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 pounds 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 certain persistent bioaccumulative toxic (PBT) chemicals 
and has issued a proposed rule that sets out the criteria EPA intends 
to use for determining if a chemical is persistent and bioaccumulative 
under EPCRA section 313. EPA is currently conducting analysis to 
determine if lead and lead compounds meet the proposed criteria for 
persistence and bioaccumulation and whether the EPCRA section 313 
reporting thresholds should be lowered. EPA is also evaluating the 
environmental fate of lead.


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 lead and 
lead compounds that may persist and bioaccumulate in the environment. 
Even small releases of lead and lead compounds 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 Legal Basis:


42 USC 11023(f)(2); 42 USC 11048; EPCRA sec 313; EPCRA sec 328.


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 Cost and Benefits:


EPA has proposed to lower the EPCRA section 313 reporting thresholds 
for Lead and Lead Compounds to 10 pounds. Under this proposal the 
estimated aggregate industry cost in the first year would be $116 
million and in subsequent years would be $60 million. The information 
reported in TRI increases the knowledge levels of lead and lead 
compounds 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 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 lead and lead 
compounds 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 
lead and lead compounds the public will be able to determine if these 
chemicals are being released into their communities and whether any 
action should be taken to reduce potential risks.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            64 FR 42222                                    08/03/99
Comment Extensio64 FR 583701999                                10/29/99
Final Action                                                   04/00/00
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


State, Federal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 4259


By Statute and Regulation, this rule will affect SIC codes 20-39, 10 
(except SIC codes 1011, 1081, 1094), 12 (except SIC code 1241), 4911, 
4931, 4939, 4953, 5169, 5171, and 7389.


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]

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-AD38
_______________________________________________________________________



EPA
134. NPDES COMPREHENSIVE STORM WATER PHASE II REGULATIONS
Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Unfunded Mandates:


State, Local or Tribal Governments


Legal Authority:


33 USC 1311, CWA sec 301; 33 USC 1314, CWA sec 304; 33 USC 1318, CWA 
sec 308; 33 USC 1342, CWA sec 402; 33 USC 1361, CWA sec 501


CFR Citation:


40 CFR 122; 40 CFR 123


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, October 1, 1993.


Final, Judicial, October 29, 1999.


NPRM, Judicial, December 15, 1997.


Abstract:


The Phase II NPDES storm water regulations expand the existing national 
program to storm water discharges from small municipal separate storm 
sewer systems (MS4s) and construction sites

[[Page 64058]]

that disturb 1 to 5 acres. The rule includes waiver provisions based on 
the lack of impact on water quality and allows designation of other 
sources based on a likelihood of localized adverse impact on water 
quality. The regulations also exclude from the NPDES program storm 
water discharges from industrial facilities that have ``no exposure'' 
of industrial activities or materials to storm water. This rule 
establishes a cost effective, flexible approach for reducing 
environmental harm by storm water discharges from currently unregulated 
storm water point sources. EPA believes that the implementation of the 
six minimum measures for small MS4s should significantly and cost-
effectively reduce pollutants in urban storm water. Similarly, EPA 
believes that implementation of best management practices (BMPs) at 
small construction sites will cause a significant reduction in 
pollutant discharges and an improvement in surface water quality. EPA 
expects significant monetized financial, recreational and health 
benefits, as well as benefits that EPA has been unable to monetize. 
These include reduced scouring and erosion of streambeds, improved 
aesthetic quality of waters, reduced eutrophication of aquatic systems, 
benefit to wildlife and endangered and threatened species, tourism 
benefits, biodiversity benefits and reduced costs for sitting 
reservoirs. In addition, the costs of industrial storm water controls 
will decrease due to the exclusion of storm water discharges from 
facilities where there is ``no exposure'' of storm water to industrial 
activities and materials.


Statement of Need:


Data collected under sections 305(b) and 402(p)(5) of the CWA indicate 
that uncontrolled storm water discharges from municipalities serving 
population 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 storm water regulations 
would address these currently unregulated storm water discharges. The 
proposed changes would also provide needed regulatory relief to Phase I 
facilities that have no exposure to storm water and do not cause water 
quality use impairment.


Summary of 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 October 29, 1999 (NRDC v. Browner, Civ. No. 95-
634 PLF (D.D.C., April 6, 1995)).


Alternatives:


The proposed changes to the NPDES storm water regulations were 
developed with significant input from the FACA subcommittee. 
Alternative options, as well as successive drafts of the proposed rule 
was distributed to FACA members for comment. The language of the 
proposed changes are the result of extensive stakeholder input. The 
Agency solicited comments on alternative approaches in the preamble to 
the proposed rule.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


EPA estimates that the rule would result in an annual cost of $803 
million, with expected annual monetized benefits from implementation of 
the requirements of $814 million to $1.62 billion. EPA also estimated 
that the ``no exposure'' waiver for Phase I industrial facilities would 
result in expected annual cost savings of $317 million to $1.86 
billion.


Risks:


The proposed changes to the NPDES storm water regulations will reduce 
adverse water quality impacts from storm water, thereby reducing risks 
to aquatic habitat and public health.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            63 FR 1535                                     01/09/98
Final Action                                                   11/00/99
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
_______________________________________________________________________



EPA
135. 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 300(f) et seq


CFR Citation:


40 CFR 141.32; 40 CFR 142.14; 40 CFR 142.15; 40 CFR 142.16; 40 CFR 
143.5


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This action revises an existing regulation to incorporate the new 
public notification provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act. A Public 
Water System is required 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) required results from unregulated contaminant monitoring are 
received. The Administrator is required to prescribe by regulation the 
manner, frequency, form, and content for giving notice. States are 
required to adopt this rule to retain primacy. The 1996 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

[[Page 64059]]

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 
customers of the risk to their health from the drinking water.


Statement of Need:


The public notification rule is being revised to incorporate the 
legislative changes contained in the 1996 SDWA amendments under Section 
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 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 Cost and Benefits:


The preliminary cost estimate of the proposed rule for public water 
systems (PWS) and State primacy agencies is $17,956,117 per year, or 
$351.96 per violating PWS and $27,944 per primacy State. This would be 
a decrease of $9,100,000 (or 33 percent) per year from the costs under 
the existing public notification rule. There are no capitol costs 
associated with this rulemaking. The benefits would be more effective 
public notices allowing consumers to make more informed choices about 
protecting their public health from drinking water.


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, 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            64 FR 25963                                    05/13/99
Final Action                                                   12/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, Organizations


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local, Tribal, Federal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 4


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
136. TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD (TMDL) PROGRAM REGULATIONS REVISIONS
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


33 USC 1313


CFR Citation:


40 CFR 130.7


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


EPA is proposing changes to the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) 
regulations for implementing State, Territorial, authorized Tribal 
(collectively referred to as ``States''), and EPA responsibilities 
under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. The purpose of Section 
303(d) is to identify remaining sources of pollution, after technology-
based controls have been required, and to allocate pollutant reductions 
at a level that will ensure attainment and maintenance of water quality 
standards. These allocations are contained in a TMDL, which is the 
maximum amount of a pollutant that a waterbody can absorb and still 
meet water quality standards. The proposed revisions provide States 
with clear, consistent, and balanced direction for listing waters and 
developing TMDLs, resulting in restoration of waterbodies not meeting 
water quality standards.


Statement of Need:


Listing impaired and threatened waters and establishing TMDLs are 
fundamental tools for identifying remaining sources of water pollution 
and achieving water quality goals. In 1996, EPA determined that there 
was a need for a comprehensive evaluation of EPA's and the States' 
implementation of their Section 303(d) responsibilities. EPA convened a 
committee under the Federal Advisory Committee Act to make 
recommendations for improving such implementation, including 
recommended changes to the TMDL regulations and guidance. The 
committee, comprised of 20 individuals with diverse backgrounds, 
submitted its final report to EPA on July 28,1998. The report contained 
more than 100 consensus recommendations, a subset of which would 
require regulatory changes. The committee's recommendations helped to 
guide the development of the proposed revisions.

[[Page 64060]]

 The proposed regulatory revisions address issues of fundamental 
importance to cleaning up our Nation's polluted waters. States and 
territories have identified over 20,000 individual river segments, 
lakes, and estuaries across America as polluted. These polluted waters 
include approximately 300,000 miles of river and shoreline and 
approximately 5 million acres of lakes -- polluted mostly by 
sedimentation, nutrients, and harmful microorganisms. With the 
overwhelming majority of the population living within 10 miles of these 
polluted waters, these proposed regulatory revisions will have a 
profound impact on the environment and health of communities across the 
country.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires the identification of 
waters not meeting water quality standards and the establishment of the 
TMDSs for such waters. Section 303(d) gives States responsibility for 
listing impaired waterbodies and establishing TMDLs. In addition, 
Section 303(d) authorizes EPA to review and approve or disapprove State 
lists and TMDLs within 30 days of final submission. If EPA disapproves 
lists or TMDLs, EPA has 30 days to establish lists and TMDLs. Section 
501 authorizes the Administrator to prescribe regulations as necessary 
to carry out the purposes of the Clean Water Act.


Alternatives:


The preamble to the proposed revisions explains the various options 
that EPA considered on each of the major issue areas as part of the 
rule development process. These alternatives generally include 
maintaining the existing regulatory requirements, as well as options 
other than those selected for the proposed rule language. In the 
proposal, EPA explicitly solicits comments on the approach set out in 
the proposed rule and on the other options considered.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The supporting economic analysis found that the proposed TMDL 
regulation is expected to increase the costs to States by approximately 
$10.3 - $24.4 million annually from the present through 2015. The bulk 
of the additional costs ($10.1 - $23.8 million) are associated with the 
proposed rule's provisions addressing TMDL development. The increased 
costs associated with the proposed revisions to the listing 
requirements are estimated to be $0.23 million annually -- these 
increased costs might be offset if the listing cycle is lengthened. The 
analysis also found that EPA's costs associated with the listing and 
TMDL requirements of the proposed regulation are likely to increase by 
$18,000 annually. The estimated increased costs to States associated 
with the proposed TMDL changes represent only three to eight percent of 
the amount of support provided annually by the Federal government to 
States for water quality management programs, and undoubtedly a much 
smaller proportion of the total State spending for these activities. 
Moreover, the intent of many of the proposed regulatory changes is to 
improve efficiency and national consistency by establishing uniform 
formats, eliminating ambiguities, encouraging prudent planning, and 
improving information for public participation. The benefits from the 
proposed revisions will be sizeable. Clean-up plans developed under the 
proposal will help to restore the health of thousands of miles of river 
and shoreline, and make millions of acres safe for fishing, swimming, 
and other activities.


Risks:


Not applicable.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            64 FR 46011                                    08/23/99
Final Action                                                   05/00/00
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


State, Tribal, Federal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 4145


Agency Contact:
Hazel Groman
Environmental Protection Agency
Water
4305F
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 260-7074
Fax: 202 401-4078
RIN: 2040-AD22
_______________________________________________________________________



EPA
137.  TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD (TMDL) - NPDES AND WQS 
REGULATIONS REVISIONS
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


33 USC 1311 CWA sec 301; 33 USC 1313 CWA sec 303; 33 USC 1314 CWA sec 
304; 33 USC 1318 CWA sec 308; 33 USC 1342 CWA sec 402; 33 USC 1361 CWA 
sec 501


CFR Citation:


40 CFR 122; 40 CFR 123; 40 CFR 124; 40 CFR 131


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


On August 12, 1999, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator 
Carol Browner signed proposed revisions to the Total Maximum Daily Load 
(TMDL) regulations (40 CFR Part 130) for implementing state, 
territorial, authorized tribal, and EPA responsibilities under Section 
303(d) of the Clean Water Act. Administrator Browner also signed 
proposed revisions to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 
System (NPDES) and Water Quality Standards regulations to facilitate 
implementation of TMDLs and to improve water quality in impaired waters 
before TMDLs are established.


The Federal Advisory Committee (FACA) on the Total Maximum Daily Load 
Program recommended a number of ways to improve the effectiveness and 
efficiency of EPA, State, Territorial and Tribal programs under section 
303(d) of the CWA. These recommendations address many of the TMDL 
program's complex technical and policy issues, and include 
recommendations on several new policy and program directions some of 
which are included in the proposed revisions to the NPDES and water 
quality standards regulations. These proposed revisions are aimed at 
achieving reasonable further progress toward attainment of water 
quality standards in impaired waterbodies pending TMDL establishment 
and providing reasonable assurance that TMDLs, once completed, will be 
adequately implemented. EPA may also, in the future, promulgate federal 
water quality standards for states, pursuant to section 303(c)(2)(B), 
to ensure consistent, nationwide application of the new requirements in

[[Page 64061]]

the period between listing and TMDL establishment. Federal 
implementation through NPDES permits, in the absence of State, 
Territorial, or Tribal implementation, will ensure that the clean-up 
plans will work.


Statement of Need:


These proposed regulatory revisions address issues of fundamental 
importance to cleaning up our Nation's polluted waters. States and 
territories have identified over 20,000 individual river segments, 
lakes, and estuaries across America as polluted. These polluted waters 
include approximately 300,000 miles of river and shoreline and 
approximately 5 million acres of lakes -- polluted mostly by 
sedimentation, nutrients, and harmful microorganisms. With the 
overwhelming majority of the population living within 10 miles of these 
polluted waters, these proposed regulatory revisions will have a 
profound impact on the environment and health of communities across the 
country.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The Clean Water Act establishes the goal to `` .... restore and 
maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the 
Nation's waters.'' CWA section 101(a). EPA believes extending Tier 1 of 
the federal antidegradation policy to include a provision aimed at 
promoting reasonable further progress toward restoring water quality in 
impaired waterbodies is both consistent with the goals of the Act, and 
is a logical means for meeting those goals. The current antidegradation 
requirements were establishedpurusant to section 303.


The language in today's proposal about the Agency's intention and 
authority to designate unregulated animal production sources in 
authorized States and silvicultural operations both in authorized and 
unauthorized States -- where EPA establishes a TMDL--supports the 
fulfillment of the CWA goals to attain and maintain water quality 
standards. The proposal also supports EPA's authority, as specified in 
CWA section 303(d)(2), to establish TMDLs (including all required 
elements) for waterbodies for which the State fails to do so. The same 
purposes are served by the proposal for EPA to object to State-issued 
permits that are administratively extended. EPA is implementing its 
authorities under sections 402 and 501 in this proposal.


Alternatives:


The FACA recommended an optional stabilization plan that would identify 
mechanisms that might allow for exceptions from point source discharge 
restrictions upon demonstration that the optional stabilization plan 
results in parameter specific net progress in water quality through 
means other than those restrictions. EPA considered these optional 
stabilization plans as a means to achieve parameter specific net 
progress but instead, chose to propose an offset requirement under the 
federal antidegradation policy for certain dischargers as a means to 
achieve parameter specific net progress. In implementing the offset 
requirement, EPA is considering a wide range of regulatory alternatives 
to address: enforceability issues; how offsets are implemented through 
different permitting schemes; the magnitude, duration and location of 
the offset; and who is subject to the requirements. EPA is also 
soliciting comments on alternatives to the proposed revisions aimed at 
facilitating the implementation of established TMDLs.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


EPA estimated that the costs to State, local and tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year to implement the 
requirements in today's proposal are not expected to exceed $65.2 
million in any one year. The total cost to State, local and tribal 
governments is not expected to exceed $0.96 Million in any one year, 
with a majority of these costs born by State government. The remaining 
$64.24 million is expected to be born by the private sector.


The types of benefits associated with the proposed revisions include 
improvements to the water quality of waters that are not meeting water 
quality standards. Reduced risks to human health and an increase in the 
number of waterbodies fit for fishing and swimming are expected to 
result from these improvements.


Risks:


The proposed changes to the NPDES and WQS regulations will reduce 
adverse water quality impacts from dischargers discharging to 
waterbodies not meeting water quality standards, thereby reducing risks 
to aquatic habitat and public health.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            64 FR 46057                                    08/23/99
Final Action                                                   05/00/00
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


State, Tribal, Federal


Additional Information:


SAN No. 4294


Agency Contact:
Kim Kramer
Environmental Protection Agency
Water
4203
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: 202 260-7933
Fax: 202 260-9544
RIN: 2040-AD36
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F




[[Page 64062]]

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 a 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 two significant actions of a regulatory 
nature. One has been published for public comment and the other will be 
published for public comment.
The Commission proposes to issue legislative regulations to provide 
detailed guidance for employers and employees on the status of 
consideration paid for a waiver of rights and claims under the laws it 
enforces. These issues were addressed by the United States Supreme 
Court's decision in Oubre v. Entergy Operations, Inc., 522 U.S. 422 
(1998). The proposed rule would provide guidance on the meaning and 
implications of the Oubre decision. The proposed rule is titled 
``Waivers of Rights and Claims: Tender Back of Consideration,'' and was 
published for public comment (NPRM) on April 23, 1999, 64 FR 19952. The 
Commission is now assessing all comments received in response to this 
NPRM.
The second significant action of a regulatory nature being considered 
by the Commission is amendment of its regulation governing federal 
sector equal employment opportunity, 29 CFR 1614.203, to reflect the 
1992 amendments of section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. 
Congress amended section 501 to state that the nondiscrimination 
standards of Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act apply to 
section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act.
(Consistent with section 4(c) of Executive Order 12866, this statement 
was reviewed and approved by the Chairwoman of the Agency. The 
statement has not been reviewed or approved by the other members of the 
Commission).
_______________________________________________________________________



EEOC

                              -----------

                             Proposed Rule

                              -----------

138. FEDERAL SECTOR EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


PL 102-569, The Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1992; 42 USC 2000e-16; 
29 USC 794a


CFR Citation:


29 CFR 1614


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Commission proposes to change its Federal sector equal employment 
opportunity regulations to implement the Rehabilitation Act Amendments 
of 1992. The 1992 amendments provide that the standards used to 
determine if title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act has been 
violated will apply to complaints of nonaffirmative action employment 
discrimination under section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act.


Statement of Need:


The Commission promulgated its latest regulation under section 501 of 
the Rehabilitation Act in April 1992, several months before Congress 
enacted the 1992 Rehabilitation Act Amendments. The Commission is thus 
proposing to amend its section 501 regulation, found at 29 CFR 
1614.203, to implement the Rehabilitation Act Amendments.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Pursuant to sections 501 and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act, the 
Commission is authorized to issue such regulations as it deems 
necessary to carry out its responsibilities under the Act. The proposed 
regulatory revisions are not required by statute or court order.


Alternatives:


The Commission has consulted with stakeholders and has considered their 
suggested alternatives in developing this regulatory proposal. In 
addition, EEOC will publish the proposed regulatory amendments for 
public comment and will consider all offered alternatives prior to 
adoption of a final rule.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The proposed regulatory changes will enhance enforcement of the 
statutory requirements. Federal agencies and individuals will have a 
clearer understanding of their respective obligations and rights under 
the Rehabilitation Act. It is not anticipated that this proposal will 
result in increased costs.

[[Page 64063]]

Risks:


The proposed regulatory changes will lessen the risk of noncompliance 
with statutory requirements by identifying and providing detailed 
guidance on the appropriate legal standards governing Federal sector 
claims of nonaffirmative action employment discrimination under section 
501 of the Rehabilitation Act. This proposal does not address risks to 
public health, safety, or the environment.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           04/00/00
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Federal


Agency Contact:
Carol Miaskoff
Assistant Legal Counsel, Office of Legal Counsel
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Room 6037
1801 L Street NW
Washington, DC 20507
Phone: 202 663-4689
TDD Phone: 202 663-7026
Fax: 202 663-4639
RIN: 3046-AA57
_______________________________________________________________________



EEOC

                              -----------

                               Final Rule

                              -----------

139. WAIVERS OF RIGHTS AND CLAIMS: TENDER BACK OF CONSIDERATION
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


5 USC 522; 29 USC 628; 42 USC 2000e; 42 USC 12101; 29 USC 206(d)


CFR Citation:


29 CFR 1625


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


Following the United States Supreme Court's decision in Oubre v. 
Entergy Operations, Inc., 522 US 422 (1998), the Commission has 
developed proposed regulatory guidance on the status of consideration 
paid for a waiver of rights and claims under the laws it enforces.


Statement of Need:


The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) is 
proposing to adopt legislative regulations addressing issues relating 
to the ``tender back of consideration'' in connection with waivers of 
rights and claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 
1967 (ADEA). This issue was addressed by the United States Supreme 
Court in Oubre v. Entergy Operations, Inc., 522 U.S. 422 (1998). In 
that decision, the Supreme Court held that an individual was not 
required to return (tender back) consideration (such as improved 
severance benefits, extra money, or early retirement) for a waiver in 
order to allege a violation of the ADEA. Prior to the Supreme Court's 
decision in Oubre, the Federal courts of appeals were split on the 
issue of whether an individual who signed a waiver agreement was 
required to tender back any consideration paid by the employer in order 
to bring a claim under the ADEA. The Commission's proposed legislative 
rule would provide detailed regulatory guidance to the public on the 
tender back issue addressed by the Supreme Court's Oubre decision.


The ADEA was amended by title II of the Older Worker Benefits 
Protection Act of 1990 (OWBPA) to regulate the use of waivers for 
employees 40 years of age or older. Title II of OWBPA sets forth the 
statutory requirements for a valid waiver of rights under the ADEA. The 
Commission conducted a negotiated rulemaking in 1995 and 1996 on ADEA 
waivers under OWBPA. The Rulemaking Committee considered, but agreed 
not to resolve, the tender back issue, and it was not included in the 
regulatory language recommended by the Committee to the Commission. 
EEOC promulgated a final regulation on ADEA waivers at 29 CFR 1625.22 
on June 5, 1998, 63 FR 30624. The preamble to the final regulation 
confirmed that the issues raised in the Supreme Court's Oubre decision 
would not be addressed in that regulation, but that the tender back 
issue would be covered in other EEOC guidance.


Since the enactment of OWBPA, employer and employee representatives 
have expressed continuing interest in receiving guidance on the issue 
of waiver agreements. The use of waiver agreements in the workplace is 
an increasingly common practice, particularly in connection with 
layoffs and reductions-in-force. The Supreme Court recognized in Oubre 
that requiring tender back of consideration, as a condition of bringing 
an ADEA suit, could frustrate the purposes of the statute and lead to 
evasion of OWBPA's waiver requirements. Because of the importance of 
the tender back issue to both employers and employees, and based on 
input from stakeholders, the Commission believes that the public would 
benefit from regulatory guidance in this area.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Section 9 of ADEA authorizes the Commission to issue such rules and 
regulations as it may consider necessary or appropriate for carrying 
out the Act. This regulatory proposal is not required by statute or 
court order.


Alternatives:


The Commission will consider all alternatives offered by public 
commenters.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Providing a clear outline of what is and is not permissible concerning 
issues raised by the Supreme Court's Oubre decision will reduce 
employment disputes and save both employers and employees time and 
unnecessary costs. In addition, regulatory guidance on the issue of 
waiver agreements should result in increased voluntary resolution of 
potential employment disputes, and thereby reduce the likelihood of 
protracted and costly litigation. Finally, when necessary, regulatory 
guidance on tender back of consideration paid under waiver agreements 
will ensure that employees are able to challenge the validity of such 
agreements. It is not anticipated that any costs will arise from 
issuing the proposed regulatory guidance.


Risks:


Regulatory guidance on tender back issues will lessen the risk that 
employees will be forestalled from challenging the validity of waivers 
under the laws enforced by EEOC in the event that they are unable to 
tender back consideration. The Commission has a substantial interest in 
addressing this risk. The right of individual employees to challenge 
waiver agreements is essential to implement the strong public interest 
in eradicating discrimination in the workplace and is also a vital part 
of the statutory enforcement scheme of the ADEA, as well as the other 
laws enforced by the

[[Page 64064]]

Commission. The proposed regulation does not address risks to public 
health, safety, or the environment.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            64 FR 19952                                    04/23/99
NPRM Comment Period End                                        06/22/99
Final Action                                                   07/00/00
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


State, Local, Federal


Agency Contact:
Carol Miaskoff
Assistant Legal Counsel, Office of Legal Counsel
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Room 6037
1801 L Street NW
Washington, DC 20507
Phone: 202 663-4689
TDD Phone: 202 663-7026
Fax: 202 663-4639
RIN: 3046-AA68
BILLING CODE 6570-01-F




[[Page 64065]]

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 2000 are to continue to 
issue regulations that reflect the President's philosophy of being 
consistent, sensible, and do not place an undue burden on the public. 
Further, GSA's regulations are being written in a plain language, 
question and answer format, to make the regulations easier to read and 
understand.
Toward that end, GSA is improving its regulatory system by establishing 
the Federal Management Regulation (FMR) as the successor regulation to 
the Federal Property Management Regulations (FPMR). As parts of the 
FPMR are updated and rewritten, they are being moved into the FMR. The 
FMR will provide Federal managers with streamlined regulatory material 
they need to efficiently manage real and personal property and 
administrative services.
Content changes will also bring the FMR into conformance with 
recommendations from the National Partnership for Reinventing 
Government to reduce regulations and use plain language. Parts of the 
Federal Travel Regulation have already been issued in the new plain 
language format and the effort continues. Completion is anticipated by 
the end of calendar year 1999.
BILLING CODE 6820-34-F




[[Page 64066]]

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 (the 
Act), 42 United States Code (U. S. C.) 2451 et seq., which laid the 
foundation for NASA's mission. The Act authorizes NASA, among other 
things, to conduct space activities devoted to peaceful purposes for 
the benefit of humankind; to preserve the leadership of the United 
States in aeronautics and space science and technology; and 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 space transportation systems, including the Space Shuttle, and 
the International Space Station; 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, 
robotic, 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 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) 2000.
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 2000, except to conform to FAR changes that are currently being 
promulgated in Part 12, Acquisition of Commercial Items; Part 25, 
Foreign Acquisitions; 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 will 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, which 
will 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, regulations governing Grant and Cooperative Agreements at 14 
CFR Parts 1260, 1273, and 1274 are being rewritten to incorporate 
improvements and streamlining initiatives.
NASA is working on revising its environmental policy and procedures 
regulations, which appear at 14 CFR Subparts 1216.1 and 1216.3. Changes 
are being considered to streamline and clarify the Agency's policy, and 
its implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 
process.
NASA is continuing consideration of revisions to the cross-waiver of 
liability in NASA contracts and agreements, involving activities such 
as launch services.
NASA is also continuing consideration of a new regulation that would 
clarify, and provide procedures for exercising, its claims authority 
under 42 U.S.C. 2473(c)(13), section 203(c)(13) of the Act, as amended, 
especially as applied to Agency functions such as launches of NASA 
missions.
BILLING CODE 7510-01-F




[[Page 64067]]

NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION (NARA)

Statement of Regulatory Priorities
The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) issues 
regulations directed to other Federal agencies and to the public. 
Records management regulations directed to Federal agencies concern 
proper management and disposition of Federal records. Through the 
Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO), NARA also issues 
Governmentwide regulations concerning information security 
classification and declassification programs. NARA regulations directed 
to the public address access to and use of our historically valuable 
holdings, including archives, donated historical materials, Nixon 
Presidential materials, and Presidential records. NARA also issues 
regulations relating to the National Historical Publications and 
Records Commission (NHPRC) grant programs.
NARA's regulatory priorities for fiscal year 2000 are (1) developing 
regulations relating to storage standards for archival records and 
measures to protect underground records storage facilities from 
catastrophic fires; (2) reinventing our program for periodically 
reviewing all NARA regulations; and (3) reviewing, updating and 
streamlining NARA regulations relating to the Freedom of Information 
Act, records declassification, and use of NARA facilities.
_______________________________________________________________________



NARA

                              -----------

                               Final Rule

                              -----------

140. 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 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.


Anticipated Cost 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            64 FR 23504                                    04/30/99
NPRM Comment Per64 FR 30276                                    07/07/99
Final Action                                                   11/00/99
Final Action Effective                                         11/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No

[[Page 64068]]

Government Levels Affected:


Federal


Agency Contact:
Nancy Allard
Regulatory Contact
National Archives and Records Administration
Room 4100, NPLN
8601 Adelphi Road
College Park, MD 20740-6001
Phone: 301 713-7360
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 3095-AA81
_______________________________________________________________________



NARA
141. STORAGE OF FEDERAL RECORDS
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


44 USC 2907; 44 USC 3103


CFR Citation:


36 CFR 1220; 36 CFR 1222; 36 CFR 1228; 36 CFR 1236


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 update 
records management regulations relating to the storage of Federal 
records.


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 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 Cost 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            64 FR 23510                                    04/30/99
NPRM Comment Period End                                        06/29/99
Final Action                                                   11/00/99
Final Action Effective                                         11/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Federal


Agency Contact:
Nancy Allard
Regulatory Contact
National Archives and Records Administration
Room 4100, NPLN
8601 Adelphi Road
College Park, MD 20740-6001
Phone: 301 713-7360
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 3095-AA86
BILLING CODE 7515-05-F




[[Page 64069]]

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 
improvements that will enable the Federal Government to recruit, manage 
and retain the high quality, diverse workforce needed by agencies to 
deliver their respective missions to the American public.
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 370,000 to its lowest point in 30 years, and at the 
same time focusing on improving quality, effectiveness and customer 
service. Continued progress toward Governmentwide improvements 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.
Clearly, under the President's leadership, we are now a Government that 
does work better and cost less. We are also a Government that leads 
with compassion and an understanding of the real every day needs of the 
people who form the backbone of our workforce. Ours is a commitment not 
only to the workforce of today which continually strives to balance the 
needs of work and family, but to the safety and well-being of those who 
represent the workforce of tomorrow. With that in mind we will be 
proposing regulations to enable Federal employees to use up to 12 weeks 
of sick leave each year to care for a family member with a serious 
health condition.
We will soon be issuing regulations to permit agencies to use 
appropriated funds to reduce child care costs for lower income Federal 
employees. Striving to provide affordable, safe child care for our 
workforce is not only our moral obligation, it is simply good 
management. When human resource systems are designed to address 
employee needs, agencies immediately benefit by better recruitment and 
retention of qualified personnel which can result in significant 
recruitment and training cost savings, lower absenteeism and improved 
employee morale.
We must also open wide the doors of opportunity to every segment of our 
society. The President addressed the underemployment of people with 
disabilities by signing Executive Order 13078 establishing the 
Presidential Task Force on Employment of Adults with Disabilities. The 
Task Force's mission is to create a coordinated and aggressive national 
policy to bring adults with disabilities into gainful employment. OPM 
fully supports the Task Force's recommendation that the Government's 
hiring standards for individuals with psychiatric disabilities parallel 
the hiring standards of individuals with mental retardation and severe 
physical disabilities. Regulations will soon be promulgated to 
implement both this recommendation and the President's Executive Order 
which directed the Office of Personnel Management to implement changes 
necessary to improve Federal employment policy for adults with 
disabilities.
Finally, we remain committed to the principle of effective performance 
management, a principle that starts with the Government's top 
management. The Senior Executive Service is the linchpin of our civil 
service system, and we owe these dedicated executives a performance 
appraisal system that is flexible enough to adapt to varying needs, 
improves linkages with agency strategic planning and emphasizing 
results, and that allows consideration of customer and employee 
satisfaction measures.
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

                              -----------

142. PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL IN THE SENIOR EXECUTIVE SERVICE
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 4315


CFR Citation:


5 CFR 430, subpart C


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


Proposed revision of SES regulations at 5 CFR 430, subpart C, will 
focus on (1) increasing agency flexibility to develop SES appraisal 
systems tailored to their needs, (2) improving linkages with agency 
strategic planning and emphasizing results, (3) allowing consideration 
of customer and employee satisfaction measures, and (4) simplifying 
agency submission requirements for approval of appraisal systems.


Statement of Need:


A regulatory proposal is the result of extensive stakeholder 
discussions about improving SES performance management, the need to 
focus on results, and agencies' needs for greater flexibility.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The legal basis for these regulations is 5 U.S.C. 4315, which 
authorizes the Office of Personnel Management to prescribe regulations 
to implement performance appraisal in the SES.


Alternatives:


While it may be possible to do this by legislation, we have not yet 
determined that this would be a more efficient or effective way to meet 
the objectives.

[[Page 64070]]

Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


There are no anticipated costs associated with the publication of 
revised regulations on SES performance appraisal. Revised regulations 
would provide additional flexibility for agencies.


Risks:


None.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           12/00/99
Final Action                                                   04/00/00
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
William C. Collins
Office of Executive Resources Management
Office of Personnel Management
1900 E Street NW
Washington, DC 20415
Phone: 202 606-2683
RIN: 3206-AI57
_______________________________________________________________________



OPM
143.  ABSENCE AND LEAVE: SICK LEAVE
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


5 USC 6311


CFR Citation:


5 CFR 630


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Office of Personnel Management is proposing regulations to expand 
the use of sick leave for family care purposes. Under the proposed 
regulations, an employee would be able to use a total of up to 12 weeks 
of sick leave to care for a family member with a serious health 
condition.


Statement of Need:


A regulatory proposal is necessary because currently employees can use 
only 13 days of sick leave for family care or bereavement purposes. The 
proposed regulations increase the amount of sick leave that may be used 
to care for a family member with a serious health condition.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The legal basis for these regulations is 5 U.S.C. 6311, which 
authorizes OPM to prescribe regulations necessary for the 
administration of annual and sick leave.


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 Cost and Benefits:


Based on our experience under the current sick leave program, we 
estimate that the cost of the new sick leave policy will be less than 
$80 million annually. This estimate is based on the assumption that 0.5 
percent of the total Federal workforce will use the maximum amount of 
sick leave provided under the new policy.


Risks:


None


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           11/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
JoAnn Perrini
Workforce Compensation and Performance Service
Office of Personnel Management
Office of Compensation Administration
1900 E Street NW
Washington, DC 20415
Phone: 202 606-2858
Fax: 202 606-0824
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 3206-AI76
_______________________________________________________________________



OPM
144.  AGENCY USE OF APPROPRIATED FUNDS FOR CHILD CARE COSTS FOR 
LOWER INCOME FAMILIES
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


PL 106-58


CFR Citation:


5 CFR 792


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Office of Personnel Management is issuing a proposed rule to 
authorize the use of Federal agency appropriated funds for child care 
tuition assistance for lower income Federal employees. The rule will 
apply to employees who enroll their children in licensed and/or 
regulated center-based child care or family child care homes. Federal 
families are more challenged than ever before to meet the expenses of 
child care. This law will give lower income Federal families financial 
relief with their child care expenses. It is left to the discretion of 
the agencies to use appropriated funds from their salaries and expense 
accounts to be used for this purpose. Agencies will make the 
determinations about lower income eligibility. OPM will provide 
guidance on the implementation of this rule. OPM is required to prepare 
a report for Congress on the results of the implementation of this law 
no later than September 1, 2000.


Statement of Need:


A regulatory proposal is necessary to meet requirement set forth in 
Section 643, subpart (c) of Pub.L. 106-58 that state that REGULATIONS 
-- The Office of Personnel Management shall, within 180 days after the 
enactment of this Act, issue regulations necessary to carry out this 
section.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Section 643 of Pub. L. 106-58 authorizes the use of appropriated funds 
to assist lower income Federal workers to access child care services. 
This law, enacted by Congress, became effective on September 29, 1999, 
and remains in effect for one year. The law enables Federal agencies, 
for the first time, to assist their civilian employees with costs of 
child care.


Alternatives:


The regulation is required by Public Law.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The law permits Federal agencies to use appropriated funds from their 
salaries and expense accounts to assist lower income Federal employees 
with the costs of child care. Employees can

[[Page 64071]]

benefit from reduced tuition rates at Federal child care centers, non-
Federal child care centers, and in family child care homes. Benefits to 
the agencies include better recruitment and retention of qualified 
personnel, lower absenteeism and improved employee morale. Improved 
retention can result in significant recruitment and training cost 
savings to agencies. Over the past ten years, anecdotal evidence from 
on-site Federally sponsored child care centers has shown that more and 
more employees consider the availability of affordable child care as a 
major reason for choosing one job over another.


Risks:


None.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           12/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Anice V. Nelson
Office of Personnel Management
Family-Friendly Workplace Advocacy Office
1900 E St. NW.
Washington, DC 20415
Phone: 202 606-2011
Fax: 202 606-2091
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 3206-AI93
_______________________________________________________________________



OPM
145.  APPOINTMENTS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


E.O. 13124


CFR Citation:


5 CFR 213; 5 CFR 315


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The regulations will create a new Governmentwide excepted appointing 
authority for persons with psychiatric disabilities, with 
noncompetitive conversion to the competitive service; amend the 
excepted service appointing authorities for individuals with mental 
retardation and severe physical disabilities; and make technical 
corrections. The regulations will help further the President's goal of 
assuring equality of opportunity, full participation, independent 
living, and economic self-sufficiency for persons with disabilities.


Statement of Need:


The regulations will create a new Governmentwide excepted appointing 
authority for persons with psychiatric disabilities, with 
noncompetitive conversion to the competitive service. The regulations 
will also make technical corrections. Noncompetitive conversion is 
authorized under Executive Order 13124. The regulations will help 
further the President's goal of assuring equality of opportunity, full 
participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency for 
persons with disabilities.


Summary of Legal Basis:


OPM has the authority under Civil Service Rule 6.1 to except positions 
from the competitive service when it determines that the appointments 
to these positions through competitive examination are not practicable. 
Noncompetitive conversion is authorized under Executive Order 13124, 
which amended Executive Order 12125.


Alternatives:


After reviewing the current Governmentwide excepted appointing 
authorities, it was apparent that no current authorities were defined 
broad enough to encompass persons with psychiatric disabilities


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Any costs are reflected in the expenses of an agency when hiring an 
individual under the authority. The benefit is the increase in persons 
with psychiatric disabilities employed in the workforce


Risks:


None.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           12/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Christina Vay
Employment Service
Office of Personnel Management
Staffing Reinvention Office
1900 E Street NW.
Washington, DC 20415
Phone: 202 606-0830
Fax: 202 606-0390
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 3206-AI94
BILLING CODE 6325-01-F




[[Page 64072]]

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 private 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 44,000 private 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 1998, the PBGC was trustee of 
almost 2,700 plans and paid $848 million in benefits to about 209,000 
people during 1998. Another 263,000 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, 1998, and 1999 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.
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 Income Security Enhancement Act of 1999 (S. 8), the Employee 
Pension Portability and Accountability Act of 1999 (H.R. 1213), and the 
Retirement Security Act of 1999 (H.R. 1590).) 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.
Additional Administration proposals to encourage defined benefit plans 
include reduced PBGC premiums for new plans and improved benefit 
guarantees for owners of small businesses (these can be severely 
limited under current law).
 Reduced premiums for newly established plans. For small 
            employers, a flat-rate per participant premium of $5 
            (rather than $19) and no variable rate premium during the 
            first five plan years of a plan

[[Page 64073]]

            established by a small employer. For larger employers, 
            phase-in of the variable rate premium ($9 per $1,000 of 
            unfunded vested current liability) in newly established 
            plans at 20% per year.
 Improved benefit guarantees for owners of small businesses. 
            For an owner with less than 50% ownership, the guarantee 
            limits would be the same as for non-owner participants. 
            After a plan has been in effect for ten years, owners with 
            a 50% or greater ownership interest would have the same 
            guarantee limits as other participants.
Regulatory and Deregulatory Initiatives
The PBGC issued regulations implementing the Retirement Protection Act 
through the end of 1996. In FY 1997 through FY 1999, 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).
 Proposed to simplify its valuation assumptions by adopting a 
            single set of assumptions for allocation purposes (proposed 
            rule, October 26, 1998).
 Extended the filing date for PBGC premiums to match the latest 
            Form 5500 filing date (final rule, December 14, 1998).
 Proposed to amend its premium regulation to encourage self-
            correction of premium underpayments by making it easier to 
            qualify for safe-harbor penalty relief (proposed rule, May 
            26, 1999).
The PBGC is continuing to review its regulations to look for further 
simplification opportunities.
The PBGC's regulatory plan for October 1, 1999, to September 30, 2000, 
consists of one significant regulatory action.
_______________________________________________________________________



PBGC

                              -----------

                             Proposed Rule

                              -----------

146. 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 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 Cost 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

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM           62 FR 12982                                    03/19/97
ANPRM Comment Period End                                       05/19/97
NPRM                                                           03/00/00
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 Street NW.
Washington, DC 20005-4026
Phone: 202 326-4024
TDD Phone: 800 877-8339
Fax: 202 326-4112
RIN: 1212-AA55
BILLING CODE 7708-01-F




[[Page 64074]]

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 1999 Regulatory Plan
Section 7(a) of the Small Business Act states that 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, fourteen 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 continues to draft 
regulations that govern the oversight and operation of the SBLC 
Program.
SBA's 2000 Regulatory Plan
Small Business Lending Company Oversight Regulations
As discussed earlier as part of SBA's 1999 Regulatory Plan, SBA's 
drafting process with regard to the SBLC program continues.
Business Loan Programs -- Multi-Lender Securitizations
Also, SBA seeks to allow small volume SBA Lenders to get less costly 
means of financing their small business loan-making while protecting 
the safety and soundness of the 7(a) program. SBA is drafting a rule to 
aid in such cost savings. The rule is intended to level the playing 
field between large and small volume Lenders and will have a long-term 
benefit of increasing the number of small business loans.
Business Loan Program: Modifications to CDC Operations
Another important change to an SBA loan program will be a new rule 
modifying the operating rules applicable to certified development 
companies (CDCs). There are currently approximately 270 active CDCs. In 
1998, CDCs made approximately four thousand 504 loans to small 
businesses. SBA will publish a proposed rule to allow active CDCs to 
service locations that do not receive adequate 504 loans. SBA hopes 
that this will encourage active CDCs to provide 504 services to 
underserved areas. Thus, additional small businesses and the local 
economies in which they operate will benefit.
New Markets Venture Capital Program
This fall, SBA believes that a bill based on a Presidential initiative 
designed to bring small business economic growth to previously 
underserved areas (``new markets'') will be introduced in Congress. SBA 
expects to issue regulations based on this bill when and if it is 
enacted into law. The regulations would implement the New Markets 
Venture Capital Program, which would help spur economic development in 
some of America's under-invested communities. The rule would initiate a 
public-private partnership encouraging venture capital investing and 
intensive technical assistance to small businesses in low and moderate 
income areas.
Local Economic Development and For-Profit CDCs
Finally, SBA`s Office of Financial Assistance plans to publish a 
``Notice of Intent'' to develop a regulation to better define the term 
``local economic development'' and the organizational and program 
requirements CDCs must satisfy to comply with this concept. As part of 
this rulemaking, for-profit CDCs' organizational requirements will be 
dealt with specifically to ensure that they comply with Congressional 
intent for the program.
_______________________________________________________________________



SBA

                              -----------

                             Proposed Rule

                              -----------

147. SMALL BUSINESS LENDING COMPANY 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 Legal Basis:


Not required by statute or court order.


Alternatives:


This rulemaking amends and expands SBA's existing regulations on the 
SBLC Program.


Anticipated Cost 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

[[Page 64075]]

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                                                           01/00/00
NPRM Comment Period End                                        03/00/00
Final Action                                                   05/00/00
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Charles D. Tansey
Associate Deputy Administrator, Office of Financial Assistance
Small Business Administration
409 Third Street SW
Washington, DC 20416
Phone: 202 205-6485
RIN: 3245-AE14
_______________________________________________________________________



SBA
148.  BUSINESS LOAN PROGRAMS--MULTI-LENDER SECURITIZATIONS
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


15 USC 634(b)(6); 15 USC 634(a)


CFR Citation:


13 CFR 120


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This regulation will allow multiple lenders to pool and securitize the 
unguaranteed portion of 7(a) loans (``multi-lender securitizations'').


Statement of Need:


SBA published a final rule, at the request of Congress and after 
appropriate rulemaking procedures, on single-lender securitizations in 
February 1999 (64 FR 6503). In that rule, SBA stated that it would 
consider multi-lender securitizations on a case-by-case basis. On July 
30, 1998, SBA met with lenders, trade groups, and rating agencies to 
discuss multi-lender securitizations. Based on that meeting, SBA is 
formulating a rule which allows multi-lender securitizations based on 
the same framework established for single-lender securitizations.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Not required by statute or court order.


Alternatives:


This rulemaking expands the single-lender securitization rules mandated 
by Congress.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The purpose of this rule is to allow small volume SBA lenders to get 
less costly means of financing their small business loan-making while 
protecting the safety and soundness of the 7(a) program. SBA is 
drafting the rule to limit or eliminate costs. The rule will level the 
playing field between large and small volume lenders and has a long-
term benefit of increasing the number of small business loans.


Risks:


This regulation addresses no risks to the public health and safety or 
to the environment. SBA does not anticipate substantial costs or risks 
associated with the proposed regulations.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           01/00/00
NPRM Comment Period End                                        03/00/00
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
James W. Hammersley
Director for Secondary Market Sales
Small Business Administration
8th Floor
409 Third Street SW
Washington, DC 20416
Phone: 202 205-6490
RIN: 3245-AE26
_______________________________________________________________________



SBA
149.  BUSINESS LOAN PROGRAM; MODIFICATIONS TO CDC OPERATIONS
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


15 USC 636(b)(6); 15 USC 636(a); 15 USC 636(h); 15 USC 696(3); 15 USC 
697(a)(2)


CFR Citation:


13 CFR 802; 13 CFR 810; 13 CFR 820; 13 CFR 822-825; 13 CFR 835, 837


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


This would amend the rules governing CDC Area of Operations (the 
geographic area where SBA authorizes a CDC to make loans under SBA's 
development company loan program (``504 loan'')).


The rule would cover an applicant requesting to become a CDC; an 
existing CDC applying to expand its Area of Operations within the State 
in which it is chartered; an existing CDC applying to expand its Area 
of Operations beyond the State in which it is chartered into a 
contiguous bisected local economic area (``Local Economic Area''); and 
an existing CDC applying to expand its Area of Operations outside the 
State in which it is chartered into another State beyond a Local 
Economic Area.


This rule also revises when SBA considers a county ``adequately 
served'' (when the 504 loan activity within a county precludes the 
county from being available for inclusion in a new CDC's Area of 
Operations or an existing CDC's expansion request). In some cases, 
counties would be available for inclusion in a new CDC's Area of 
Operations or an existing CDC's expansion request under the proposed 
rule that are not available under the current regulations.


The rule would clarify under what circumstances and conditions a CDC 
may contract out its management and staff functions. It also would 
address the purposes for which a CDC may use its net income generated 
in different States. The rule would eliminate a limited liability 
company from the types of organizations that may apply to become a CDC.


Finally, the rule would expressly authorize CDCs to establish Loan 
Committees and set forth conditions under which they may be used.

[[Page 64076]]

Statement of Need:


Since the inception of the Certified Development Company Program (``504 
Program''), no CDC has been certified to operate permanently in more 
than one State, except for relatively few circumstances when a CDC's 
operations are in an area local to the CDC which is bisected by a State 
line. Given the low 504 lending volume in several parts of the country, 
SBA believes that it is in the best interests of underserved 
communities to permit active CDCs in good standing to permanently 
expand their Areas of Operations beyond their State of incorporation 
and beyond a Local Economic Area. SBA proposes to call such a CDC a 
``Foreign CDC'' (a CDC that is operating as a foreign corporation in 
another State and is permitted by SBA under certain circumstances to 
include in the CDC's permanent Area of Operations counties in that 
State that are located beyond a Local Economic Area). SBA will ensure 
that the congressional intent for CDCs is followed and that they are 
formed by local citizens whose primary purpose is to improve their 
community's economy.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Not required by statute or court order.


Alternatives:


This rulemaking expands CDC operations, allowing 504 services to reach 
more small businesses.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


This rule modifies the operating rules applicable to certified 
development companies (CDCs). There are currently approximately 270 
active CDCs. In 1998, CDCs made approximately 4000 504 loans to small 
businesses. The proposed rule would allow active CDCs to apply to 
service locations that are not receiving adequate 504 loan activity. 
SBA hopes that this will encourage active CDCs to provide 504 services 
to underserved areas. Thus, additional small businesses and the local 
economies in which they operate will benefit.


Risks:


This regulation addresses no risks to the public health and safety or 
to the environment. SBA does not anticipate substantial costs or risks 
associated with the proposed regulations.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           12/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Michael Dowd
Director, Loan Programs Division
Small Business Administration
409 Third Street SW
8th Floor
Washington, DC 20416
Phone: 202 205-6570
RIN: 3245-AE39
_______________________________________________________________________



SBA
150.  NEW MARKETS VENTURE CAPITAL PROGRAM
Priority:


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


Legal Authority:


Not Yet Determined


CFR Citation:


Not Yet Determined


Legal Deadline:


NMVC Bill introduced in Congress in September 1999.


Abstract:


The New Markets Venture Capital (NMVC) program will help spur economic 
development in some of America's under-invested communities through a 
public-private partnership encouraging venture capital investing and 
intensive technical assistance to small businesses in low- and 
moderate-income areas.


Statement of Need:


This initiative provides equity-type capital to smaller businesses 
located in low- and moderate-income areas whose needs are more modest 
than the typical recipient of SBIC financing ($50,000 - $300,000, vs. 
$300,000 - $5 million for SBICs) and where significant technical 
assistance is an essential element of investment.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Not yet required by statute or court order. An NMVC bill is expected to 
be introduced in Congress in the fall of 1999.


Alternatives:


SBA expects that Congress will construct a statute based on a 
Presidential initiative to create this program. The NMVC program will 
confer benefits and is not designed to address a risk for which there 
may be alternative solutions.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


This rulemaking will require a small SBA staff to administer. No 
Federal agency other than SBA will incur costs. This program will 
benefit small businesses by providing equity-type capital and 
specialized technical assistance to previously underserved small 
businesses in low- and moderate-income areas.


Risks:


This regulation addresses no risks to the public health and safety or 
to the environment. SBA does not anticipate substantial costs or risks 
associated with the proposed regulations.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           06/00/00
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Saunders Miller
Senior Policy Advisor
Small Business Administration
Suite 6300
409 Third Street SW
Washington, DC 20416
Phone: 202 205-3646
RIN: 3245-AE40
_______________________________________________________________________



SBA
151.  LOCAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND FOR-PROFIT CDCS
Priority:


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


Legal Authority:


15 USC 695


CFR Citation:


13 CFR 120

[[Page 64077]]

Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Office of Financial Assistance proposes to publish a ``Notice of 
Intent'' regarding a proposed regulation to better define ``local 
economic development'' and the organizational and program requirements 
CDCs must satisfy in order to be in compliance with this concept. As 
part of the regulation, for-profit CDCs' organizational requirements 
will be dealt with specifically to ensure that they are in compliance 
with the congressional intent for the program.


Statement of Need:


This regulation is needed to better define ``local economic 
development'' and the organizational and program requirements CDCs must 
satisfy in order to be in compliance with this concept.


Summary of Legal Basis:


This rulemaking is not required by any statute or court order.


Alternatives:


SBA is exploring possible alternatives. The rulemaking will solicit 
comments geared towards developing alternatives.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


There may be minimal opportunity costs to Lenders associated with this 
rulemaking. It will allow Lenders to reinvest revenues from their 
operations in their local communities for the benefit of small 
businesses.


Risks:


This rulemaking addresses no risks to public health and safety or to 
the environment. SBA does not anticipate economic or financial risks. 
If there were such risks, the magnitude of these risks compared to 
those of other SBA programs would be minimal.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           06/00/00
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Agency Contact:
Michael Dowd
Director, Loan Programs Division
Small Business Administration
409 Third Street SW
8th Floor
Washington, DC 20416
Phone: 202 205-6570
RIN: 3245-AE41
BILLING CODE 8025-01-F




[[Page 64078]]

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. Generally, SSA's regulations 
do not impose burdens on the private sector or on State or local 
governments. Our regulations codify the requirements for eligibility 
and entitlement to benefits under the programs that we administer.
Our six entries for the Regulatory Plan represent areas of major 
importance to the administration of the retirement, survivors, 
disability, and SSI benefit programs.
Included in this year's Plan is a proposed regulation that will provide 
more choices for people with disabilities who seek Return-to-Work 
services so that they may become self-sufficient. This proposed 
regulation parallels provisions of pending legislation, the Work 
Incentives Improvement Act of 1999, which would remove barriers to work 
for individuals with disabilities.
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 has the capacity to 
perform no more than the full range of sedentary work.
Providing world-class service to our customers remains a principal 
objective of SSA. One of the items in the Plan--Expansion of the Use of 
Video Teleconference Technology in Hearings Before Administrative Law 
Judges of the Social Security Administration--is expected to improve 
customer service by providing faster access to a hearing.
We list one regulatory initiative, Assessing Attorney Representatives 
for Direct Payment, which parallels provisions of a legislative 
proposal included in the President's Fiscal Year (FY) 2000 Budget. 
Under this proposed regulation, SSA would, in favorably-decided cases, 
assess an attorney representative for withholding authorized attorney 
fees from a claimant's past-due Social Security benefits and paying all 
or part of the withheld fees directly to the attorney. This is expected 
to generate $19 million in additional revenues in FY 2000 to meet SSA's 
administrative expenses and $26 million in succeeding years.
We have also included in this year's Plan proposed regulations that 
would provide SSA with additional tools to strengthen the integrity of 
the Social Security and SSI programs. These proposed regulations would 
implement provisions of pending legislation, the Foster Care 
Independence Act of 1999 (H.R. 1802). There are several provisions in 
the bill that relate to program integrity. For example, one provision 
would give SSA the authority to administratively impose nonpayment of 
benefits on certain individuals who misstate or withhold material 
facts. Another provision would authorize SSA to obtain information from 
financial institutions in order to determine initial or continuing 
eligibility for SSI benefits.
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

                              -----------

152. OASDI AND SSI; EXPANSION OF THE USE OF VIDEO TELECONFERENCE 
TECHNOLOGY IN HEARINGS BEFORE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES OF THE SOCIAL 
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (737P)
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


42 USC 205(a); 42 USC 205(b); 42 USC 902(a)(5); 42 USC 1383


CFR Citation:


20 CFR 404.929; 20 CFR 416.1438; 20 CFR 404.936(b); 20 CFR 404.936(c); 
20 CFR 404.936(d)(8) (New); 20 CFR 404.938; 20 CFR 416.1429; 20 CFR 
416.1436(b); 20 CFR 416.1436(c); 20 CFR 416.1436(d)(8) (New)


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


We propose to amend our regulations to permit us to conduct hearings 
before an administrative law judge (ALJ) by video teleconference (VTC). 
We also propose to add new sections to the regulations that state an 
ALJ will find good cause to change the time and place of a hearing if 
we schedule a VTC hearing, and the individual tells us he/she does not 
want a VTC hearing.


Statement of Need:


Our regulations provide for a hearing in person before an ALJ. 
Traditionally, this has meant that the individual requesting a hearing 
and the ALJ were present in the same room. The proposed changes will 
allow us to schedule a VTC hearing without requiring prior written 
consent, and set out the right to decline such a hearing. We believe 
that conducting hearings by VTC will improve our efficiency and allow 
us to serve our customers better.


Providing VTC hearings is one initiative of the Hearings Process 
Improvement Plan we issued in August 1999. We expect that the plan, 
when fully implemented, will reduce the average processing time for 
hearings from 313 days in Fiscal Year 1999 to less than 200 days in 
Fiscal Year 2002. The VTC provision would aid in this reduction by 
eliminating much of the time some ALJ's must spend to travel to remote 
sites to conduct hearings face-to-face.


Summary of Legal Basis:


None.


Alternatives:


Require participation in a scheduled VTC hearing, i.e., no right to 
decline a VTC hearing.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Improved customer service by providing faster access to a hearing.


Risks:


None.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           10/00/99
Final Action                                                   01/00/00
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No

[[Page 64079]]

Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Lawrence V. Dudar
Social Security Administration
Office of Process and Innovation Management
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21235-6401
Phone: 410 965-5995
RIN: 0960-AE97
_______________________________________________________________________



SSA
153.  ASSESSING ATTORNEY REPRESENTATIVES FOR DIRECT PAYMENT 
(763P)
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


42 USC 406 (proposed amendment)


CFR Citation:


20 CFR 404.1700 et seq


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


We propose to amend our regulations on payment of the fees authorized 
by the Social Security Administration (SSA) or by a Federal court for 
services an attorney representative provided to a claimant for Social 
Security benefits. SSA would, in favorably decided cases, assess an 
attorney representative for withholding from a claimant's past-due 
Social Security benefits and paying all or part of the authorized fee 
directly to the attorney. SSA would assess 6.3 percent of the amount 
subject to withholding and direct payment, and deduct the assessment 
from the amount payable to the attorney.


Statement of Need:


Currently, SSA does not assess a charge for approving, withholding, and 
certifying the direct payment of the attorney's fee. This proposal 
would allow SSA to receive compensation from attorneys for the services 
we provide.


Summary of Legal Basis:


None at this time. SSA has included this proposal in our Fiscal Year 
2000 legislative agenda.


Alternatives:


None.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


SSA expects to achieve $19 million administrative savings the first 
year.


Risks:


We have not identified any risks associated with the changes.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           06/00/00
Final Action                                                   09/00/00
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses


Government Levels Affected:


Federal


Agency Contact:
Georgia E. Myers
Acting SSA Regulations Officer
Social Security Administration
Office of Process and Innovation Management
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21235-6401
Phone: 410 965-3632
RIN: 0960-AF08
_______________________________________________________________________



SSA
154.  ANTI-FRAUD PROVISIONS (765P)
Priority:


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


Legal Authority:


Not Yet Determined


CFR Citation:


Not Yet Determined


Legal Deadline:


Undetermined at this time.


Abstract:


These regulations would implement new authorities to be granted to SSA 
upon enactment of H.R. 1802, the Foster Care Independence Act of 1999, 
to strengthen the integrity of the SSI and OASDI programs. Currently, 
the bill is pending in the Senate after passing the House on June 25, 
1999. One provision concerns adding a new penalty of non-payment of SSI 
and/or OASDI benefits for individuals found to have made a material 
statement or representation concerning eligibility for benefits that 
the individual knew was false or misleading. Another provision would 
bar for a specified period of time representatives and health-care 
providers from the program, if they are found to have helped commit 
fraud.


Statement of Need:


Eliminating fraud and abuse in Social Security's programs is a vital 
goal of SSA. SSA's Strategic Plan asserts zero tolerance for fraud and 
abuse, and states that we will increase our attention on deterring 
fraudulent activities. This reflects our ideal that we must remain 
vigilant if we are to fulfill our role as capable stewards of the 
public trust. These regulations would implement anti-fraud legislation 
included in the Foster Care Independence Act of 1999, now pending in 
congress.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Undetermined at this time.


Alternatives:


Undetermined at this time.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Undetermined at this time.


Risks:


Undetermined at this time.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           09/00/00
Final Action                                                   09/00/01
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Agency Contact:
Georgia E. Myers
Acting SSA Regulations Officer
Social Security Administration
Office of Process and Innovation Management
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21235-6401
Phone: 410 965-3632
RIN: 0960-AF09
_______________________________________________________________________



SSA
155.  WORK INCENTIVES IMPROVEMENT ACT (767P)
Priority:


Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.


Unfunded Mandates:


Undetermined

[[Page 64080]]

Legal Authority:


42 USC 405 (proposed amendment); 42 USC 1383 (proposed amendment)


CFR Citation:


Not Yet Determined


Legal Deadline:


Section 201 of S. 331--within one year of enactment, including 
necessary regulation.


Sections 211 and 212 of S. 331--upon enactment.


Abstract:


One of SSA's most important initiatives is to assure that Social 
Security and SSI beneficiaries with disabilities who want to work have 
the opportunity to do so. Individuals with disabilities face multiple 
barriers in attempting to return to work. The provisions in the Work 
Incentive Improvement Act of 1999 would remove such barriers by, for 
example, providing the opportunity for disability beneficiaries to 
obtain, from an approved vocational rehabilitation provider of their 
choice, the help they need to go to work.


Statement of Need:


This regulatory action will be necessary to implement the provisions of 
the legislation currently pending in Congress. The specific provisions 
of S. 331 requiring rulemaking are shown below.


Section 201 would establish the Ticket to Work and Self-Sufficiency 
Program, requiring regulation of the following:


ensp;Outcome Payment and Milestone-Outcome payment systems


ensp;Program Manager/Employment Network standards


ensp;Employment Network services


ensp;Individual Work Plan requirements


ensp;Suspension of continuing disability reviews based on work 
activity for beneficiaries using a Ticket, requiring revision of 
current CDR regulations.


Section 211 would suspend CDRs based on work activity for beneficiaries 
receiving Title II disability benefits for at least 24 months, 
requiring revision of current CDR regulations.


Section 212 would provide for expedited reinstatement of disability 
benefits terminated due to work activity based on a request within 5 
years.


Section 221 would require regulation of requirements for the operation 
of a Work Incentives Specialist corps within SSA.


Section 302 would require regulation of a demonstration project to 
evaluate a program to reduce Title II disability benefits by $1 for 
every $2 of earnings above a level to be determined by the 
Commissioner, including waiver of current benefit provisions and 
procedures for the conduct of the demonstration projects in selected 
areas.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Undetermined at this time. Various provision of the WIIA will require 
this regulatory action.


Alternatives:


None--this regulatory action will be necessary to implement 
Administration-sponsored legislation presently pending in Congress.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Anticipated costs are undetermined at this time. The anticipated 
benefits of this legislation include allowing individuals with 
disabilities to seek the services necessary to obtain employment and 
reduce their dependency on cash benefit programs, including SSI and 
SSDI.


Risks:


None.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           04/00/00
Final Action                                                   10/00/00
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Small Entities Affected:


Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions, Organizations


Government Levels Affected:


State


Agency Contact:
Marianne Daley
Social Insurance Specialist
Social Security Administration
Office of Employment Support Programs
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21235-6401
Phone: 410 965-9173
RIN: 0960-AF11
_______________________________________________________________________



SSA

                              -----------

                               Final Rule

                              -----------

156. 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 will make clarifications to 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 
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. 
Process unification is an ongoing initiative designed to foster similar 
results on similar cases at all stages of the administrative review 
process, from the initial decision through hearings and appeals, by the 
consistent application of laws, regulations and rulings. Where needed, 
clarifying our intent in our regulations is an important part of 
process unification.


Summary of Legal Basis:


None.


Alternatives:


None.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


Since these regulations merely clarify existing policy, they impose no 
additional program or administrative costs.

[[Page 64081]]

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                                                   01/00/00
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Federal


Agency Contact:
Robert J. Augustine
Social Insurance Specialist
Social Security Administration
Office of Process and Innovation Management
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21235-6401
Phone: 410 966-5121
RIN: 0960-AE42
_______________________________________________________________________



SSA
157. 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 416.927; 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


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. 
Process unification is an ongoing initiative designed to foster similar 
results on similar cases at all stages of the administrative review 
process, from the initial decision through hearings and appeals, by the 
consistent application of laws, regulations and rulings. Where needed, 
clarifying our intent in our regulations is an important part of 
process unification.


Summary of Legal Basis:


None.


Alternatives:


None.


Anticipated Cost 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                                                   11/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Small Entities Affected:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Federal


Agency Contact:
Lawrence V. Dudar
Social Security Administration
Office of Process and Innovation Management
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, MD 21235-6401
Phone: 410 965-5995
RIN: 0960-AE56
BILLING CODE 4190-29-F




[[Page 64082]]

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.
BILLING CODE 6351-01-F




[[Page 64083]]

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;
 Costs 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 2000, the Commission's significant rulemaking 
activities will involve addressing risks of fire associated with 
ignition of upholstered furniture by small open flames, a standard for 
multi-purpose lighters to make those products resistant to operation by 
young children, and entrapment risks to young children in bunk beds. 
These projects are described in detail below.
 All three of the rulemaking proceedings in the Commission's FY 2000 
regulatory plan are related to protection of vulnerable populations. 
Upholstered furniture fires disproportionately kill and injure 
children, the elderly, and families and individuals with lower incomes.
 With regard to multi-purpose lighters, children younger than five 
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 reported to the Commission from the fires resulting 
from children playing with multi-purpose lighters were the children who 
started the fires. The proposed bunk bed rule is intended to reduce the 
hazard that young children can be suffocated or strangled when they 
become entrapped in the beds' structure or become wedged between the 
upper bunk and a wall.
 The emphasis on these three rulemaking activities in the Commission's 
FY 2000 regulatory plan is consistent with the Commission's statutory 
mandate and its criteria for setting priorities. Additionally, the 
Commission's FY 2000 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 incidents associated 
with the use of consumer products.
_______________________________________________________________________



CPSC

                              -----------

                             Proposed Rule

                              -----------

158. 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. 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 
analyzing data from the hearing and completing other technical studies. 
In CPSC's 1999 appropriations legislation Congress directed the 
Commission to contract with the National Academy of Sciences for a 12-
month independent study of potential health hazards associated with the 
use of flame retardant chemicals that might be used in upholstered 
furniture fabrics to meet a CPSC standard. This contract was awarded in 
January 1999. Upon completion of this study, the staff will present 
alternatives for future action by the Commission. CPSC is also

[[Page 64084]]

considering possible impacts of flame retardant chemical use on worker 
safety and the environment. At the CPSC staff's request, the National 
Institute of Occupational Safety and Health will assess potential 
worker exposure to and risks from certain flame retardant chemicals 
that may be used by textile and furniture producers to comply with an 
upholstered furniture flammability standard. The CPSC staff is also 
working with the Environmental Protection Agency to consider possible 
controls on flame retardant compounds used in residential upholstered 
furniture fabrics, under that agency's Toxic Substances Control Act 
Authority.


Statement of Need:


In 1996, approximately 650 deaths, more than 1,600 injuries, and about 
$250 million in property damage resulted from 13,100 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 an average of approximately 90 deaths, 420 injuries 
and $40 million in property losses each year from 1992 to 1996.


The total societal cost attributable to upholstered furniture fires was 
approximately $3.75 billion in 1996. A significant portion of that 
total -- $560 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 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 Cost 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 $500 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 1996. 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 $3.75 billion in 1996.


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 NPRM                           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
NAS Study Completed (required by Congress)                     01/00/00
Commission DecisDeterminedM                                       To Be
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

                              -----------

                               Final Rule

                              -----------

159. 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:


16 CFR 1212


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, December 31, 1999, Unless the time is extended by the 
Commission, this rule must either be

[[Page 64085]]

issued or the proposal must be withdrawn by December 31, 1999.


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, also known 
as grill lighters, utility lighters, and micro-torches, would require 
these lighters to have a child-resistant mechanism to prevent operation 
by most children younger than 5 years of age. Child resistance would be 
measured by a panel of children who would attempt to operate lighters 
that would not produce a flame. 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.


On September 30, 1998, a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) was 
published in the Federal Register. On August 4, 1999, a supplemental 
NPRM was published, seeking comment on a change that would require the 
test lighters to be given to the panel of children with the lighters' 
on-off switches in the on, or unlocked position.


Statement of Need:


The Commission staff has obtained information about 178 incidents 
occurring from January 1988 to August 6, 1998 in which children younger 
than 5 years of age started fires using multi-purpose lighters. These 
fires resulted in 29 deaths and 71 injuries. Because these data are 
actual incidents rather than national estimates, the extent of the 
total problem may be greater.


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 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 71 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 5 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 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 NPRM 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 
NPRM.


Anticipated Cost 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 $35 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 at least $27 million a year. Costs of 
compliance are expected to result in increased consumer expenditures of 
around $17 million per year, resulting in net benefits of over $10 
million annually. This annual net benefit will increase if sales of 
multi-purpose lighters increase.


Risks:


The Commission has information indicating that from January 1988 
through August 6, 1998, children younger than five years of age started 
at least 178 fires using multi-purpose lighters. These fires resulted 
in 29 deaths and 71 injuries. Based on available fire incident and 
sales information, the Commission staff estimates that the total cost 
to society of these fires is about $35 million a year.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM           62 FR 2327                                     01/16/97
ANPRM Comment Period End                                       03/17/97
NPRM            63 FR 52397                                    09/30/98
NPRM Comment Period End                                        12/14/98
Supplemental NPR64 FR 42302                                    08/04/99
Second NPRM Comment Period End                                 10/18/99
Staff Sends Briefing Package to Commission                     11/00/99
Final Action                                                   12/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Agency Contact:
Barbara Jacobson
Project Manager
Consumer Product Safety Commission
Directorate for Health Sciences
Washington, DC 20207
Phone: 301 504-0477
RIN: 3041-AB66


_______________________________________________________________________


[[Page 64086]]

CPSC
160. REQUIREMENTS FOR BUNK BEDS
Priority:


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


Legal Authority:


15 USC 2051 Consumer Product Safety Act; 15 USC 1261 Federal Hazardous 
Substances Act


CFR Citation:


16 CFR 1213; 16 CFR 1500; 16 CFR 1513


Legal Deadline:


Final, Statutory, March 3, 2000, Unless the time is extended by the 
Commission, the NPRM must either be issued as a final rule or the 
proposal must be withdrawn.


Abstract:


On March 3, 1999, the Commission published a notice of proposed 
rulemaking (NPRM) and proposed mandatory rules that would contain 
performance requirements for bunk beds to reduce the hazard that 
children can be suffocated or strangled when they become entrapped in 
the beds' structure or become wedged between the upper bunk and a wall. 
The proposed rule contains requirements for the presence of guardrails, 
the height and extent of guardrails, and the height of, and the 
openings in, the beds' end structures to address entrapment hazards.


On July 9, 1999, the Commission published a notice requesting comment 
on an additional requirement addressing entrapment in end structures.


Statement of Need:


Bunk beds have been long recognized as a potential cause of children's 
deaths. From January 1990 through October 23, 1998, CPSC received 
reports of 89 bunk-bed-related deaths of children under age 15. Of the 
89 fatalities, 56 (64%) resulted from entrapment. Over 96% (55 of 57) 
of those who died in entrapment incidents were age 3 and younger, and 
all but one were younger than 5. There is an ASTM voluntary standard 
addressing entrapment deaths in bunk beds. Nevertheless, using 
statistical methodology, the CPSC estimated that about 10 bunk-bed-
related entrapment deaths have occurred in the United States each year 
since 1990.


Generally, these deaths involve suffocation or strangulation when a 
child either becomes wedged between the upper bunk's structure or 
mattress and a wall or becomes trapped by the head when the child's 
torso slips through an opening in the bed that the head cannot pass 
through. CPSC is also aware of an incident where a child inserted his 
head through an opening in the end structure of the bed, moved to 
another part of the opening where the head could not be pulled directly 
out, and then lost his footing and was strangled. The proposed standard 
addresses all these scenarios.


Summary of Legal Basis:


The Federal Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA) authorizes the regulation 
of unreasonable risks of injury associated with articles intended for 
use by children that present mechanical (or electrical or thermal) 
hazards. FHSA sec. 2(f)(1)(D), 15 U.S.C. 1261(f)(1)(D). The hazards 
associated with bunk beds that are described above are mechanical. See 
FHSA sec. 2(s), 15 U.S.C. 1261(s). The Consumer Product Safety Act 
(CPSA) authorizes the regulation of unreasonable risks of injury 
associated with ``consumer products,'' which include bunk beds -- 
whether intended for the use of children or adults. CPSA sec. 3(a)(1), 
15 U.S.C. sec. 2052(a)(1). Thus, bunk beds intended for the use of 
adults can be regulated only under the CPSA, while bunk beds intended 
for the use of children potentially could be regulated under either the 
FHSA or the CPSA.


Alternatives:


The Commission considered two alternatives to the proposed rule:


(a) Defer to the voluntary standard.


(b) Third-party certification.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The CPSC estimates that the present value of the benefits of averting 
the entrapment fatalities addressed by the voluntary standard ranges 
from about $175 to $350 per noncomplying bed. If the standard prevents 
all of the deaths addressed, the benefits would be much higher than the 
costs of implementing the standard. In fact, the net benefits per 
otherwise noncomplying bed, over its expected product life, would range 
from a low of $135 ($175 - $40) to a high of $335 ($350 - $15). The 
benefits of these provisions are about 4 to 23 times their costs. The 
Commission's staff expects a mandatory standard to be highly effective.


Risks:


The estimated total cost to society from entrapment deaths to children 
in the upper bunk and end structures of bunk beds that would be 
addressed by the proposed rule is from $6.75 million to $16.75 million 
per year.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM           63 FR 3280                                     01/22/98
ANPRM Comment Period End                                       04/07/98
Staff Sends Briefing Package to Commission                     12/16/98
Commission Decision                                            02/03/99
NPRM            64 FR 10245                                    03/03/99
NPRM Comment Period End                                        05/17/99
Staff Sends Briefing Package to Commission                     06/16/99
Request for Addi64 FR 37051ent                                 07/09/99
NPRM Comment Period End                                        09/22/99
Staff Sends Briefing Package to Commission                     11/00/99
Commission Decision                                            12/00/99
Final Action                                                   12/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Agency Contact:
John D. Preston
Project Manager
Consumer Product Safety Commission
Directorate for Engineering Sciences
Washington, DC 20207
Phone: 301 504-0494
RIN: 3041-AB75
BILLING CODE 6355-01-F




[[Page 64087]]

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION (FERC)

Statement of Regulatory Priorities
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission regulates key interstate 
aspects of the electric power, natural gas, oil pipeline, and 
hydroelectric industries. The Commission chooses regulatory approaches 
that foster competitive markets whenever possible, assures access to 
reliable service at a reasonable price, and gives full and fair 
consideration to environmental and community impacts in assessing the 
public interest of energy projects.
 The 1999 regulatory plan reflects the Commission's commitment to the 
elements of its strategic goals:
 promoting competitive markets;
 protecting customers;
 respecting the environment; and
 serving and safeguarding the public.
 While much of the Commission's regulatory activity continues to be 
done in case-specific adjudications, the Commission has increasingly 
employed informal rulemaking as a critical process tool in pursuing 
these strategic goals and carrying out its statutory responsibilities.
 The industries the Commission regulates are changing very rapidly in 
response to increasing competition and environmental awareness. The 
Commission is responding with the following integrated package of 
initiatives.
Energy Markets. Make natural gas and electric markets both more 
competitive and less costly to use. These measures will bring more of 
the benefits of competitive markets to more customers more quickly.
 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) on Formation of Regional 
            Transmission Organizations
 NOPR on Regulation of Natural Gas Transportation Services
Energy Projects. Improve the Nation's ability to site new energy 
projects -- primarily natural gas pipelines -- quickly, fairly and 
(where possible) consensually. These measures will improve the 
Commission's ability to ensure that essential pipeline infrastructure 
is in place to support competitive gas markets and competitive gas-
fired electric generation.
 Policy Statement on Determining Need for New Pipeline 
            Facilities
 Final Rule on Landowner Notification
 Final Rule on Collaborative Procedures for Energy Facility 
            Applications
Procedural Reforms. Improve the Commission's processes for handling 
information, complaints and communications with the public. These 
measures will give the Commission state-of-the-art electronic filing 
and encourage much greater use of informal, less costly ways of 
resolving regulatory issues.
 Final Rule on Complaint Procedures
 Final Rule on Off-the-Record Communications
 Pilot Program on Electronic Filing
 Together, these measures will implement policies and processes that 
match the fast-paced, competitive energy industry of the future and the 
increasingly important environmental impacts of that industry.
Energy Markets
In carrying out its statutory responsibilities for economic regulation 
of interstate aspects of electricity and natural gas markets, the 
Commission is pursuing policies designed to promote competitive markets 
and protect customers. To support competition in electricity and 
natural gas markets, the Commission regulates access to and pricing of 
essential electricity transmission and natural gas transportation 
services so as to eliminate undue discrimination and mitigate market 
power. The Commission has two pending rulemaking initiatives to advance 
these important goals: one relating to formation of regional 
transmission organizations in the electric industry, and the other 
reforming regulation of the natural gas industry.
Regional Transmission Organizations; 1902-AB77, Docket No. RM99-2-000. 
In May 1999, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on 
Regional Transmission Organizations (RTOs). The Commission supports the 
creation of RTOs to promote efficient operation of the transmission 
grid, eliminate residual discrimination by transmission owners, promote 
grid reliability, and facilitate regional grid planning. This 
rulemaking advances the Commission goal of promoting competition in 
bulk power markets as a means of encouraging efficient operation of, 
and investment in, generation facilities, and thereby reducing consumer 
prices.
 The Commission has proposed to amend its regulations under the Federal 
Power Act to facilitate the formation of RTOs. The Commission proposes 
that each public utility that owns, operates or controls facilities for 
the transmission of electric energy in interstate commerce make certain 
filings with respect to forming and participating in an RTO. The 
Commission also proposes certain minimum characteristics and functions 
that must be satisfied in order to be considered to be an RTO.
 The Commission has proposed that RTOs have a minimum of four 
characteristics:
 independent governance;
 appropriate scope and regional configuration;
 adequate operational authority; and
 responsibility for short-term reliability.
 It further proposed that RTOs would have at least these seven 
functions:
 designing and administering tariffs;
 providing ancillary services;
 managing congestion;
 operating an Open Access Same-Time Information System (OASIS) 
            and determining available transmission capacity (ATC);
 monitoring markets;
 addressing a parallel path flow; and
 regional planning and expansion.
 The NOPR proposes a framework for supporting and encouraging voluntary 
RTO formation. The NOPR invites comment on how regulatory mandates, 
ratemaking incentives, or other tools should be employed to advance RTO 
formation.
 After the Commission issues the final rule, which is expected by the 
end of 1999, it proposes to initiate a collaborative process to 
facilitate RTO formation that will involve jurisdictional and 
nonjurisdictional utilities, state officials and other affected 
interest groups through regional workshops across the country. 
Commission staff will share information and explore processes to 
facilitate RTO formation.
Gas Policy Initiative; 1902-AB74, Docket No. RM98-10-000. The 
Commission is undertaking a natural gas policy initiative to improve 
the efficiency, transparency, and competitiveness of natural gas 
markets. Further, it is exploring expanded reliance on competitive 
market forces in its oversight of the natural gas transportation 
market.
 The market-oriented goals of the natural gas initiative are to foster 
competitive markets and mitigate residual market power. In selecting 
regulatory strategies to achieve these goals, this initiative sets 
forth four subsidiary objectives:
 provide appropriate incentives for efficient pipeline 
            operations, efficient customer choices, and optimal level 
            of construction;

[[Page 64088]]

 monitor for discrimination and the exercise of market power;
 minimize any adverse financial impact from regulatory changes; 
            and
 use fair and administratively efficient regulatory approaches.
 As part of the natural gas initiative, the Commission issued a NOPR 
proposing a more market-based approach to regulation of the short-term 
transportation market. The primary proposals included removing the rate 
cap for all short-term transportation services, requiring auctions for 
all short-term transportation capacity, and permitting negotiation of 
terms and conditions of services. The Commission simultaneously issued 
a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) requesting comments on a variety of long-term 
transportation issues in light of market changes and the regulatory 
changes proposed in the NOPR. The NOI sought comments on whether the 
Commission should modify its long-term market pricing policies by 
moving away from traditional cost-of-service ratemaking or by modifying 
the current ratemaking methods.
Energy Projects
The Commission's rulemaking activities in the area of authorizing gas 
pipeline and hydroelectric project development are aimed at protecting 
the environment and the public, while at the same time serving customer 
interests and promoting competition. The key rulemakings in the energy 
projects area are: (1) a policy statement articulating the Commission's 
approach to determining need for new pipeline development; (2) a 
rulemaking to give earlier notification to landowners affected by 
pipeline project proposals, to facilitate their participation in 
project review; and (3) a rulemaking to enable pipeline certificate 
applicants to employ the type of pre-filing collaborative procedures 
that have been used successfully to identify and resolve issues in the 
hydroelectric licensing program.
Policy Statement on Determination of Need; 1902-AB86, Docket No. PL-3-
000. As articulated in a recent policy statement, in deciding whether a 
proposed pipeline project is required by the public convenience and 
necessity, the Commission considers the effects of the project on all 
affected parties. This means considering not only the interests of the 
applicant and potential new customers, but also those of the 
applicant's existing customers, existing pipelines that serve the 
market and their captive customers, landowners, and communities. One 
key element of the policy is that a project must not rely on subsidies 
from existing customers. With a policy favoring incremental pricing, 
the market will decide whether a project is financially viable. 
Moreover, under this policy, construction projects that will have 
adverse effects on relevant interests can be approved only if on 
balance the benefits outweigh the harm.
 The new policy is designed to provide incentives for pipelines to 
eliminate or minimize adverse effects before filing, through correctly 
structured financial arrangements, careful project design, and 
negotiations with landowners. By working out contentious issues in 
advance and mitigating impacts where impacts cannot be avoided, the 
applicant can develop a record in support of the project, reducing time 
required for the Commission's deliberative process.
Landowner Notification, Expanded Categorical Exclusions, and Other 
Environmental Filing Requirements; 1902-AB83, Docket No. RM98-17-000. 
On October 13, 1999, the Commission issued a final rule amending its 
regulations under the Natural Gas Act by adding certain early landowner 
notification requirements that will ensure that landowners who may be 
affected by a pipeline's proposal to construct natural gas pipeline 
facilities have sufficient opportunity to participate in the 
Commission's certificate process. The Commission also amended its 
regulations to provide pipelines with greater flexibility and to 
further expedite the certificate process.
Extension of Pre-filing Collaborative Process; 1902-AB81, Docket No. 
RM98-16-000. The Commission recently revised its regulations to offer 
prospective applicants seeking to construct, operate or abandon natural 
gas facilities or services the option, prior to filing an application, 
of employing a collaborative process that includes environmental 
analysis and issue resolution. This pre-filing collaborative process is 
comparable to the process the Commission successfully adopted two years 
ago with respect to applications for hydroelectric licenses, amendments 
and exemptions and, like those regulations, is optional and is designed 
to be adaptable to the facts and circumstances of the particular case.
Procedural Reforms
The Commission has undertaken several important initiatives to reform 
and streamline its procedures, with the goals of expediting Commission 
action, emphasizing use of alternative dispute resolution (ADR), and 
improving access to information. The key rulemaking initiatives in this 
area include: (1) reforms to complaint procedures to facilitate 
expedited review and encourage use of ADR; (2) reforms to rules 
governing off-the-record communications designed to enhance the 
Commission's access to information consistent with preserving the 
fairness and integrity of the decisional process; and (3) a pilot 
program, which will lead to a rulemaking, on electronic filing.
Complaint Procedures; 1902-AB, Docket No. RM98-13-000. The Commission 
recently issued revised regulations governing complaints filed under 
the Federal Power Act, the Natural Gas Act, the Natural Gas Policy Act, 
the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978, the Interstate 
Commerce Act, and the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. The new 
complaint rule sets forth clear requirements for issues that must be 
addressed in a complaint filed at the Commission, including listing 
whether any informal attempts at resolution were tried and whether ADR 
would be appropriate. The new rule sets forth a variety of possible 
resolution paths, including alternative dispute resolution, 
arbitration, and settlement judge procedures, as well as the more 
traditional administrative hearing or Commission procedures. A feature 
of the new rule is ``fast track'' processing, which allows expedited 
action on complaints that clearly state why such expedition is 
necessary.
The complaint rule was designed to encourage and support consensual 
resolution of complaints, and to organize the complaint process so that 
all complaints are handled fairly and expeditiously. As the Commission 
moves toward lighter-handed methods of regulation for increasingly 
market-driven energy industries, it must have a fast and fair complaint 
process to ensure adequate protection and redress to complainants.
Off-the-Record Communications; 1902-AB80, Docket No. RM98-1-000. The 
Commission recently revised its regulations governing off-the-record 
communications between the Commission and persons outside of the 
Commission. The rulemaking creates one uniform set of rules regarding 
off-the-record communications, and clarifies the rules to permit fully 
informed decision making, while continuing to ensure the integrity of 
the Commission's decision-making process.
The new rule allows specified off-the-record communications, subject to 
notice and disclosure requirements that

[[Page 64089]]

will provide the public with notice of and access to relevant 
communications. For example, the rule enables more informal dialog, as 
may be useful, during the preparation of required environmental 
documentation. The rulemaking is consistent with the Commission's goals 
of fostering effective two-way communication with interested parties.
Electronic Filing; 1902-AB-89, Docket No. PL98-1-001. The Commission 
has begun implementation of its electronic filing initiative by 
amending its rules to permit electronic service of documents. In 
October 1999 the Commission is expanding this initiative to allow 
electronic filing of certain filing types. These steps will reduce 
expenses involved with paper service, such as copying and messenger 
services, and make information available more quickly.
 Besides reducing the filing burden on industry, electronic filing will 
generate information more quickly for industry by making the content of 
filings available within minutes or hours, rather than days. Electronic 
notification of filings will take much less time than is necessary for 
paper notification, giving companies earlier access to filed 
information.
 Information technology development within the Commission will make 
information available more timely through the Commission's web site and 
will facilitate searching for specific information within the large 
body of data the Commission maintains. Data will become more accurate 
and consistent, contributing to well-informed decision-making and 
streamlined workload processing.
BILLING CODE 6717-01-F




[[Page 64090]]

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 lending 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 lending mission. In furtherance of these statutory 
mandates, the Finance Board plans one significant regulatory action 
during 1999-2000.
The Finance Board is proposing new financial management and mission 
achievement regulations that would modernize policies governing the 
business activities of the FHLBanks and, for the first time, would 
establish regulatory standards for mission achievement by the FHLBanks 
and a definition of mission assets. The proposal includes a risk-based 
capital requirement, pursuant to which the amount of capital required 
to be maintained by a FHLBank would be based on the credit, market, and 
operations risks to which it is exposed, as well as a mission 
achievement requirement designed to eliminate the use of the FHLBanks' 
government sponsored enterprise advantages in issuing debt to fund 
arbitrage investments. The proposal also would define the 
responsibilities of the boards of directors and senior management of 
the FHLBanks, as a means of ensuring that they fulfill their duties in 
operating the FHLBanks in a safe and sound manner and in furtherance of 
their mission. The proposal is designed to enable the FHLBanks to help 
their members be more effective competitors in the housing finance and 
community lending marketplace, which in turn will assure that benefits 
accrue to consumers.
In addition to this regulatory initiative, 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.
_______________________________________________________________________



FHFB

                              -----------

                             Proposed Rule

                              -----------

161. FHLBANK FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND MISSION ACHIEVEMENT REGULATION
Priority:


Other Significant


Unfunded Mandates:


State, Local or Tribal Governments


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:


12 USC 1422b(a); 12 USC 1431; 12 USC 1436(a)


CFR Citation:


12 CFR 917; 12 CFR 925; 12 CFR 930; 12 CFR 940; 12 CFR 950; 12 CFR 954 
to 955; 12 CFR 958; 12 CFR 965 to 966; 12 CFR 980


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The Federal Housing Finance Board (Finance Board) proposed to adopt new 
financial management and mission achievement regulations and amend 
certain existing regulations for the Federal Home Loan Banks (Banks). 
The Finance Board has informed Congress that this regulation will be 
withdrawn upon the enactment of the Federal Home Loan Bank System 
Modernization Act of 1999 (title VI of S.900). The proposal would 
modernize policies governing the business activities of the Banks and, 
for the first time, would establish regulatory standards for mission 
achievement by the Banks and a definition of mission assets. The 
proposal includes a risk-based capital requirement, pursuant to which 
the amount of capital required to be maintained by a Bank would be 
based on the credit, market, and operations risks to which it is 
exposed. The risk-based capital regime builds upon the regulatory 
framework used by other financial institution and government-sponsored 
enterprise (GSE) regulators. The mission achievement requirement in the 
proposal would: codify the authority of the Banks to hold mortgage 
assets, including mortgage-backed securities; allow mortgage assets 
meeting certain regulatory requirements to be counted as mission 
assets; and eliminate the use of the Banks' GSE advantages in issuing 
debt to fund arbitrage investments. The proposal also sets forth in the 
regulation the responsibilities of the boards of directors and senior 
management of the Banks, as a means of ensuring that they fulfill their 
duties in operating the Banks in a safe and sound manner and in 
furtherance of their mission. The proposal will enable the Banks to 
help their members be more effective competitors in the housing finance 
and community lending marketplace, which in turn will assure that 
benefits accrue to consumers.


Statement of Need:


The proposed rule is intended primarily to establish mission 
achievement standards for the Banks and to establish a new capital 
structure and risk-management framework under which the Banks may more 
effectively pursue their public policy mission, while still ensuring 
the safety and soundness of the Bank System.


The Banks currently operate in accordance with the Finance Board's 
Financial Management Policy (FMP), under which risk management is 
accomplished principally through a list of specific restrictions and 
limitations on the Banks' investment practices and a leverage limit 
which prohibits Banks from incurring liabilities in the form of 
consolidated obligations (COs) or unsecured senior liabilities in an 
amount greater than twenty times their capital stock. Though this 
approach has served the purpose of ensuring the safety and soundness of 
the Bank System, it lacks the flexibility that would enable the Banks 
to fulfill their mission to the maximum extent.

[[Page 64091]]

To ensure that the risks taken by a Bank are adequately supported by 
capital, the proposed rule would implement, for the first time, a risk-
based capital requirement for the Banks, which builds upon the risk-
based capital regimes of other federal financial institution 
regulators.


The principal source of funding for the Banks is the COs that are 
issued in the global capital markets and for which the twelve Banks are 
jointly and severally liable. Because of the Banks' GSE status, the 
costs to the Banks of obtaining such funding are substantially less 
than the borrowing costs for comparable debt issued by other entities. 
The Banks pass the benefit of this funding advantage to their members 
through wholesale loans (called advances) priced lower than the members 
could otherwise obtain to provide support for housing finance, 
including community lending, in fulfillment of the Banks' mission.


The FMP does not expressly require the Banks to use a particular 
percentage of the funds obtained through the issuance of COs to provide 
advances to their members. In large part due to the financial burdens 
imposed on the Banks as a result of the savings and loan crisis, the 
Banks use a portion of the proceeds from COs to finance investments 
that the Finance Board does not consider to be adequately related to 
their statutory mission.


To better link the GSE advantages in the capital markets to the mission 
performance of the Bank System, the proposed rule would require, by 
January 1, 2005, that an amount equal to 100 percent of each Bank's 
outstanding COs be held by the Bank in core mission activities. ``Core 
mission activities'' would be defined as those activities that assist 
and enhance members' and eligible nonmember borrowers' financing of 
housing and community lending.


The proposed core mission activity requirement would be subordinate to 
the safe and sound financial operation of the Banks, as mandated by the 
Federal Home Loan Bank Act (Act). During any specified period in which 
a Bank's board of directors determines that the core mission activities 
requirement would be inconsistent with the safe and sound operation of 
the Bank, the Bank would be permitted to be out of compliance with the 
core mission activities requirement.


Because it allows the Banks substantially greater authority to acquire 
new assets and manage their risks, and to raise member capital 
accordingly, the proposed rule also would articulate certain minimum 
responsibilities of the Banks' boards of directors and senior 
management with regard to operating the Banks in a safe and sound 
manner and ensuring that the Banks achieve their statutory mission.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Under section 10 of the Act and part 935 of the Finance Board's 
regulations, the Banks have broad authority to make advances in support 
of housing finance, which includes community lending. See 12 U.S.C. 
1430(a), (i), (j); 12 CFR part 935. The Banks also are required to 
offer two programs - the Affordable Housing Program and the Community 
Investment Program - to provide subsidized or at-cost advances, 
respectively, in support of unmet housing finance or targeted economic 
development credit needs. See 12 U.S.C. 1430(i), (j); 12 CFR parts 960, 
970. In addition, section 10(j)(10) of the Act, as implemented by a 
recently-issued Finance Board regulation, authorized the Banks to 
establish Community Investment Cash Advance (CICA) programs for 
community lending. See 12 U.S.C. 1430(j)(10); 12 CFR part 970; 63 FR 
65536 (Nov. 27, 1998).


The Banks' investment authority is set forth primarily in sections 
11(j) and 16(a) of the Act, which govern the investment of the Banks' 
surplus and reserve funds, respectively. See 12 U.S.C. 1431(h), 
1436(a). Under both sections, the Banks are authorized to invest in 
obligations of the United States, certain obligations of Fannie Mae, 
Ginnie Mae or Freddie Mac, and in such securities in which fiduciary 
and trust funds may be invested under the law of the state in which the 
Bank is located. Section 11(h) also authorizes investments in the 
securities of certain small business investment companies. In addition, 
the Banks are required to have liquidity reserves in an amount equal to 
deposits from their members invested in obligations of the United 
States, deposits in banks or trust companies, and certain specified 
short-term advances to their members. See 12 U.S.C. 1431(g).


Currently, the Finance Board regulates the Banks' investments and 
investment practices through its regulations, as well as through the 
FMP. Section 934.1 of the regulations provides that the Banks may 
acquire or dispose of investments only with the prior approval of the 
Finance Board, or in conformity with authorizations of the Finance 
Board or ``stated [Finance] Board policy.'' 12 CFR 934.1. By 
resolution, the Finance Board adopted the FMP, in part, as its ``stated 
policy'' regarding permissible Bank investments. The FMP generally 
provides a framework within which the Banks may implement their 
financial management strategies in a prudent and responsible manner. 
See 62 FR 13146 (Mar. 19, 1997); Finance Board Res. No. 96-45 (July 3, 
1996), as amended by Finance Board Res. No. 96-90 (Dec. 6, 1996), 
Finance Board Res. No. 97-05 (Jan. 14, 1997), and Finance Board Res. 
No. 97-86 (Dec. 17, 1997).


The Banks' current capital requirements are based on the asset size of, 
or the dollar amount of advances outstanding to, their members. 
Specifically, a member must maintain a minimum investment in the 
capital stock of a Bank in an amount equal to the greater of: (1) 1 
percent of the member's mortgage assets; (2) 0.3 percent of the 
member's total assets; or (3) 5 percent of total advances outstanding 
to the member (with a somewhat higher percentage for any member that is 
not a ``qualified thrift lender''). See 12 U.S.C. 1426(b)(1), (b)(2), 
(b)(4); 1430(c), (e)(1), (e)(3); 12 CFR 933.20(a).


The proposed Financial Management and Mission Achievement regulation 
would build on the statutory provisions outlined here, and would 
supplement or replace current Finance Board regulations and the FMP on 
matters related to investments, mission and capital. Section 2B(a) of 
the Act authorizes the Finance Board to supervise the Banks 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 
continue to conduct risk management at the Banks through the list of 
specific restrictions and limitations on the Banks' investment 
practices in the FMP and the current regulatory leverage limit which 
prohibits Banks from incurring liabilities in the form of consolidated 
obligations (COs) or unsecured senior liabilities in an amount greater 
than twenty times their capital stock. The Finance Board could decide 
to amend and expand the listed restrictions and limitations in the FMP, 
and permit the Banks to engage in other investment activities only 
pursuant to a staff legal interpretation of the statute,

[[Page 64092]]

or to decide these issues on a case-by-case basis. The Finance Board 
could choose not to establish a modern risk-based capital structure for 
the Banks, or could choose variations of the model proposed. The agency 
will consider all alternatives suggested by the public during the 
notice and comment period.


Anticipated Cost 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 the Banks and their members 
by giving the Banks greater operational flexibility, thereby enabling 
the Banks to help their members compete more effectively in the housing 
finance and community lending marketplace, which in turn will assure 
that the GSE benefit will accrue more efficiently and effectively to 
consumers.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            64 FR 52163                                    09/27/99
NPRM Comment Period End                                        12/27/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Undetermined


Agency Contact:
James L. Bothwell
Chief Economist, Director, Policy, Research & Analysis
Federal Housing Finance Board
1777 F Street N.W.
Washington, DC 20006
Phone: 202 408-2821
Fax: 202 408-2850
Email: [email protected]

Deborah F. Silberman
General Counsel
Federal Housing Finance Board
1777 F Street NW.
Washington, DC 20006
Phone: 202 408-2570
Fax: 202 408-2580
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 3069-AA84
BILLING CODE 6725-01-F




[[Page 64093]]

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. The Commission's 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.
Recent legislation altered significantly the Federal regulatory scheme 
regarding international ocean shipping. The legislation required new 
regulations as well as the revision of many of the Commission's 
substantive regulations. One of the principal changes was the 
elimination of the requirement that carriers file tariffs with the 
Commission listing their rates and charges. Carriers are now required 
to publish their rates in private automated systems. The Commission 
will assess continually its regulations implementing this requirement 
as well as other requirements of the new legislation.
The recent rulemaking process uncovered concern by common carriers as 
to the content requirements of agreements filed with the Commission. 
Carriers have expressed a desire for better delineation as to what 
matters do or do not have to be filed, and have suggested that the 
Commission's rules should provide protections for confidential business 
information, provide maximum flexibility for carriers to modify 
cooperative arrangements, and include guidance tailored for different 
types of agreements. Therefore, the Commission has initiated an inquiry 
to solicit comments from the ocean transportation industry and the 
general public to assist the Commission in formulating new rules 
governing content requirements.
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. In 
addition, the Commission currently is seeking comment on a definition 
of ocean 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 64094]]

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION (FTC)

Statement of 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 missions make the Commission unique insofar as it is the 
nation's only Federal agency to be given this combination of statutory 
authority to protect consumers.
The Commission is, first and foremost, a law enforcement agency. It 
pursues its mandate primarily through case-by-case enforcement of the 
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.
Children's Online Privacy Rule Initiative
The Internet offers children unprecedented opportunities for learning, 
recreation, and communication in ways scarcely imagined a decade ago. 
Despite its obvious attraction for children, the Internet is also a 
medium that may entail risks for children. As they use the Internet, 
children, like others, are often asked to provide a wide variety of 
personal information about themselves and their parents. Web sites and 
online services collect this information by such means as registration 
pages, order forms, contests, surveys, chat rooms, and bulletin boards. 
In some instances, those collecting the information have shared it with 
third parties, without notice to children or their parents. In 
addition, public posting of children's personal information makes it 
available to anyone on the Internet, including those who would harm 
children. The FTC recommended in June 1998 that Congress enact 
legislation after a March 1998 survey of 212 commercial children's web 
sites revealed that only 24 percent posted privacy policies and only 
one percent required prior parental consent to the collection or 
disclosure of children's information.
On October 21, 1998, Congress enacted the Children's Online Privacy 
Protection Act of 1998 (``COPPA''). Title XIII, Omnibus Consolidated 
and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999, Pub. L. 105-277, 
112 Stat. 2681-728 (Oct. 21, 1998), reprinted in 144 Cong. Rec. H11240-
42 (Oct. 19, 1998). The Act prohibits unfair and deceptive acts and 
practices in connection with the collection and use of personal 
identifying information from and about children on the Internet. 
Section 1303 of the Act directs the FTC to adopt regulations by October 
21, 1999 to prohibit unfair and deceptive acts and practices in 
connection with the collection and use of personal information from and 
about children on the Internet. The Act specifies that operators of web 
sites directed to children or who knowingly collect personal 
information from children (1) provide parents notice of their 
information practices; (2) obtain prior parental consent for the 
collection, use and/or disclosure of personal information from children 
(with certain limited exceptions for the collection of on-line contact 
information, e.g., an e-mail address); (3) provide a parent, upon 
request, with the ability to review the personal information collected 
from his/her child; (4) provide a parent with the opportunity to 
prevent the further use of personal information that has already been 
collected, or the future collection of personal information from that 
child; (5) limit collection of personal information for a child's 
online participation in a game, prize offer, or other activity to 
information that is reasonably necessary for the activity; and (6) 
establish and maintain reasonable procedures to protect the 
confidentiality, security, and integrity of the personal information 
collected. The Act authorizes the FTC to bring enforcement actions for 
violations of the final rule in the same manner as for other rules 
defining unfair and deceptive acts or practices under section 5 of the 
FTC Act. In addition, section 1305 of the Act authorizes State 
attorneys general to enforce compliance with the final rule by filing 
actions in Federal court after serving prior written notice upon the 
FTC when feasible.
Earlier in 1999, the Commission issued a proposed rule designed to 
achieve the objectives of the COPPA. The proposed rule, which was 
subject to public comment, applies to commercial web sites directed to, 
or that knowingly collect information from, children under 13. With 
certain exceptions, these sites will have to obtain parental consent 
before collecting, using, or disclosing personal information from 
children. To inform parents of their information practices, these sites 
also will be required to provide notice on the site and to parents 
about their policies with respect to the collection, use and disclosure 
of children's personal information. Parental consent would have to be 
verifiable. Operators may develop any number of ways to implement this 
requirement. As part of its review of the issues raised by the comments 
in preparation for publishing the final rule, the Commission held a 
public workshop to obtain additional comment regarding the issue of 
appropriate mechanisms for obtaining verifiable parental consent. The 
proposed rule also requires sites to give parents a choice as to 
whether their child's information can be disclosed to third parties, 
and give parents a chance to prevent further use or future collection 
of personal information from their child. Parents must also, upon 
request, be given access to the personal information collected from 
their child and a means of reviewing that information. Both the statute 
and proposed rule include a ``safe harbor'' program for industry groups 
or others who wish to create self-regulatory

[[Page 64095]]

programs to govern participants' compliance. Commission-approved safe 
harbors will provide web site operators the opportunity to tailor 
compliance obligations to their business models with assurance that if 
they follow the safe harbor they will be in compliance with the new 
law. The proposed rule outlines the process by which industry groups 
and others may obtain certification of their guidelines.
Ten-Year Review Program
In 1992, the Commission implemented a program to review its rules and 
guides on a regular basis. 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 ten years, not just once as usually required by 
section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. This program is also 
broader than the review contemplated under the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act, in that it provides the Commission with an ongoing systematic 
approach for seeking information about the costs and benefits of its 
rules and guides and whether there are changes that could minimize any 
adverse economic effects, not just a ``significant economic impact upon 
a substantial number of small entities.'' 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 ten-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% of both its trade regulation rules and guides since 1992.
Calendar Year 1999 Reviews
As part of the Commission's ten-year review program, in 1999 the 
Commission initiated reviews of one statutory rule (Regulations under 
the Comprehensive Smokeless Tobacco Health Education Act of 1986, 16 
CFR Part 307); one trade regulation rule (Trade Regulation Rule on 
Funeral Industry Practices, 16 CFR Part 453); and three guides (the Dog 
and Cat Food Industry Guides, 16 CFR Part 241, the Law Book Industry 
Guides, 16 CFR Part 256, and the Fuel Economy Advertising Guide, 16 CFR 
Part 259).
Two additional reviews, previously scheduled to commence in 1999 under 
the Commission's tentative review schedule, have been deferred.\1\ The 
Commission will commence its review of the Advertising Allowance and 
Other Merchandising Payments and Services Guides (``Fred Meyer 
Guides''), 16 CFR Part 240, at a later date in the ten-year review 
cycle due to the press of other agency priorities. In addition, review 
of the Statements of General Policy or Interpretations under the Fair 
Credit Reporting Act (``FCRA''), 16 CFR Part 600, tentatively scheduled 
for this year, is also deferred until later. Congress significantly 
amended the FCRA, effective September 1997, and as a result, 
significant portions of Part 600 may require revision or have become 
obsolete. Commission staff has been interacting with the public on a 
variety of issues and continuing to assess the implications of these 
statutory amendments. Accordingly, the Commission has determined that 
it would be premature to review and amend Part 600 at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In publishing the regulatory review schedule each year, the 
Commission indicates that the tentative timetable may be modified in 
the future to incorporate new legislative rules, or to respond to 
external factors (such as changes in the law) or other considerations. 
See, e.g., 64 FR 3668 (Jan. 25, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
All of the matters scheduled for review this year 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 Regulations under the 
Comprehensive Smokeless Tobacco Health Education Act of 1986, 16 CFR 
Part 307, issued in 1987, were designed to implement a law requiring 
health warnings for labeling and advertising smokeless tobacco 
products. The regulations specify the format, type size, and style of 
the required warnings for both product labels and advertisements. 
Although the regulations, as originally promulgated, specified that 
utilitarian objects for personal use that are sold or given away by the 
smokeless tobacco industry, such as pens, pencils, clothing, or 
sporting goods, were not required to carry health warnings, the 
Commission's 1991 amendments to the regulations eliminated this 
exemption from the health warning requirement. This fall, the 
Commission will commence its regulatory review of these regulations.
Earlier this year, the Commission began its regulatory review of 
certain aspects of the Funeral Industry Practices Rule (``Funeral 
Rule''), 16 C.F.R. Part 453. The Funeral Rule, which became effective 
in 1984, and was amended in 1994, requires providers of funeral goods 
and services to give consumers itemized lists of funeral goods and 
services that not only state price and descriptions, but also contain 
specific disclosures. The rule enables consumers to select and purchase 
only the goods and services they want, except for those which may be 
required by law and a basic services fee. Also, funeral providers must 
seek authorization before performing some services, such as embalming. 
In addition to an assessment of the rule's overall costs and benefits 
and continuing need for the rule, the Commission's review will examine 
whether changes in the funeral industry warrant broadening the scope of 
the rule to include non-traditional providers of funeral goods or 
services and revise or clarify certain prohibitions in the rule. See 64 
FR 24249 (May 5, 1999). In response to requests of industry members, 
the Commission determined to extend the comment period. A public 
workshop conference will be held this fall to explore issues raised in 
the comments submitted.
The Commission has begun a review of the Guides for the Dog and Cat 
Food Industry, 16 CFR Part 241 (``Dog and Cat Food Guides''). The Dog 
and Cat Food Guides, effective since 1969, advise industry members not 
to misrepresent dog or cat food in any material respect, including the 
composition, quality, dietary and nutritional value, or processing 
methods used in the manufacture or processing of dog or cat food. 
Industry members are also advised, inter alia, against misrepresenting 
information about the dog or cat food company (e.g., length of time in 
business, ranking in the industry or ownership of laboratory or other 
testing facilities) and using deceptive endorsements or testimonials or 
deceptively claiming that any dog or cat food has received an award. 
The Commission has published a Federal Register notice seeking comment 
on several questions concerning the Guides' provisions. See 64 FR 13368 
(March 18, 1999).
The Commission has requested comments on its Guides for the Law Book 
Industry, 16 CFR Part 256 (``Law Book Guides''). See 64 FR 13369 (March 
18, 1999). Effective since 1976, the Law Book Guides contain seventeen 
sections, or guides, that provide guidance

[[Page 64096]]

regarding the sale of legal reference materials to the law profession 
and law schools. The seventeen covered practices range from the 
marketing of legal reference materials to consumers, to the 
supplementation of these materials and billing practices employed by 
sellers.
In addition, the Commission has solicited comments on its Guide 
Concerning Fuel Advertising for New Automobiles (``Fuel Economy 
Guiderdquo;), 16 CFR Part 259, adopted in 1975. See 64 FR 19720 (Apr. 
22, 1999). The Fuel Economy Guide is designed to prevent deceptive fuel 
economy advertising and to facilitate the use of fuel economy in 
advertising. Since its enactment, the Fuel Economy Guide has advised 
marketers to disclose the established fuel economy of the vehicle as 
determined by EPA's Automobile Information Disclosure Act, 15 U.S.C. 
2206, in advertisements that make representations regarding the fuel 
economy of a new vehicle. These EPA fuel economy numbers also appear on 
window labels attached to new automobiles. The Commission amended the 
Fuel Economy Guide in 1978 and 1995 to make it consistent with EPA 
Information Disclosure Act changes regarding fuel economy disclosures.
Final Actions and Continuing Reviews
Since publication of the 1998 Regulatory Plan, the Commission has 
completed several regulatory reviews. The Commission has determined to 
retain its warranty-related rules and guides, 16 CFR Parts 239 and 701-
703, issued under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, in their current 
form, 64 FR 19700 (April 22, 1999). The agency also has determined to 
rescind three industry guides that were either outdated or otherwise 
unnecessary in light of industry self-regulation: (1) Guides Against 
Deceptive Labeling and Advertising of Adhesive Compositions; (2) Guides 
for the Decorative Wall Paneling Industry; and (3) Guides for the Watch 
Industry. In addition, the Commission has completed its periodic review 
of the Procedures for State Application for Exemption from the 
Provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and determined to 
amend the exemption procedures. These actions are described more fully 
below.
The Commission has rescinded the Guides Against Deceptive Labeling and 
Advertising of Adhesive Compositions, 16 CFR Part 235, which counseled 
against the use of terms that suggested that various adhesive products 
contained or had the properties of metal, solder or weld, porcelain, 
epoxy, and rubber if those products did not, in fact, have the same 
chemical or physical properties as the specified products. In 
rescinding the Adhesive Compositions Guides, the Commission noted that 
industry compliance with the Guides appeared to be satisfactory and 
that in the 31 years since the Guides were issued, the Commission had 
not received any complaints or initiated any enforcement actions 
relating in any way to the Guides. Further, if future deceptive 
practices prove to be a problem in this industry, the Commission may 
pursue enforcement actions under Section 5 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 
45, as needed on a case-by-case basis. See 63 FR 70332 (Dec. 21, 1998).
The Commission also rescinded the Guides for the Decorative Wall 
Paneling Industry, 16 CFR Part 243. The Wall Paneling Guides advised 
manufacturers, retail distributors, and other suppliers of decorative 
wall panels with regard to labeling, advertising, and promoting their 
products in a manner consistent with section 5 of the FTC Act. The 
Guides were designed to protect purchasers from being misled by the 
appearance of a product, or by deceptive descriptions, depictions, 
designations, or representations in advertisements, labels, or other 
promotional materials. The agency's review revealed that a voluntary 
industry standard, effective in various versions since 1983, sets forth 
detailed product quality, labeling and testing requirements for a 
variety of wood- and veneer-finished products. The Commission 
determined that, although the voluntary industry standard does not 
expressly prohibit sellers from misrepresenting the composition of a 
particular wood or simulated wood product, it indeed provides an 
adequate basis for a common understanding among industry members 
through its highly specific descriptions of the qualities and 
characteristics of hardwood and decorative plywood products. In 
rescinding the Wall Paneling Guides, the Commission emphasized that 
industry compliance with both the Guides and the industry standard 
appeared to be exemplary. In the 27 years since the Guides were issued, 
the agency neither received any complaints nor initiated any 
enforcement actions relating to the Guides. Further, the Commission's 
ability to pursue actions against industry members for unfair and 
deceptive acts and practices under section 5 of the FTC Act persuaded 
the agency to rescind the Guides because they were no longer necessary. 
See 63 FR 70333 (Dec. 21, 1998).
Earlier this year, the Commission also rescinded the Guides for the 
Watch Industry, 16 CFR Part 245, adopted in 1968. The Watch Guides 
addressed claims made about watches, watchcases, watch accessories and 
watch bands that are permanently attached to watchcases. The Guides 
specifically addressed representations and markings regarding a watch`s 
metallic composition, protective and other special features, movement 
and country of origin. The Commission completed its review and has 
concluded that the Watch Guides, which were significantly outdated, are 
no longer needed to resolve uncertainty among businesses over what 
claims are likely to be considered deceptive. The Commission determined 
that, in most instances, international standards provided substantial 
guidance to the industry regarding watch markings and claims. For those 
topics not addressed by international standards, principles of law 
articulated in FTC policy statements and pertinent Commission and court 
decisions on deception provide guidance regarding watch sellers' 
obligations to refrain from unfair or deceptive acts or practices under 
section 5 of the FTC Act. The Commission further noted that if 
deceptive practices prove to be a problem in this industry, agency 
investigations and law enforcement actions may be appropriate and 
necessary. See 64 FR 30898 (June 9, 1999).
The Commission completed its regulatory review of its warranty-related 
rules and guides in 1999. The review encompassed the following 
regulatory provisions: (1) Interpretations of Magnuson-Moss Warranty 
Act, 16 CFR Part 700; (2) the Rule Governing Disclosure of Written 
Consumer Product Warranty Terms and Conditions, 16 CFR Part 701 (``Rule 
701''); (3) the Rule Governing Pre-Sale Availability of Written 
Warranty Terms, 16 CFR Part 702 (``Rule 702''); (4) the Rule Governing 
Informal Dispute Settlement Procedures, 16 CFR Part 703 (``Rule 703''); 
and (5) Guides for the Advertising of Warranties and Guarantees, 16 CFR 
Part 239. The Interpretations represent the agency's views on various 
aspects of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. 2301, et seq., and 
are intended to clarify the Act's requirements. They are similar to 
industry guides in that they are advisory in nature, although failure 
to comply with the Act and the Rules under the Act as elucidated by the 
Interpretations may result in corrective

[[Page 64097]]

action by the Commission. Rule 701 specifies the information that must 
appear in a written warranty on a consumer product. Rule 702 details 
the obligations of sellers and warrantors to make warranty information 
available to consumers prior to purchase. Rule 703 specifies the 
minimum standards which must be met by any informal dispute settlement 
mechanism that is incorporated into a written consumer product warranty 
and which the consumer must use prior to pursuing any legal remedies in 
court. The Guides are intended to help advertisers avoid unfair or 
deceptive practices in the advertising of warranties or guarantees. 
After careful review of the comments received in response to agency 
requests, the Commission has determined to retain the Interpretations, 
Rules 701, 702, and 703 and the Guides without change.
In addition, the Commission completed its periodic review of the 
Procedures for State Application for Exemption from the Provisions of 
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (``FDCPA''). The FDCPA, 15 
U.S.C. 1692, prohibits the use of deceptive, unfair and abusive 
practices by third-party debt collectors. The statute also requires 
that the FTC, by regulation, exempt from its requirements any class of 
debt collection practices within any State if the Commission determines 
that under the law of that State, the class of debt collection 
practices is subject to requirements substantially similar to those 
imposed by [the FDCPA], and that there is adequate provision for 
enforcement. Pursuant to that requirement, the Commission promulgated 
procedures for State applications for exemption from the provisions of 
the FDCPA. 16 CFR Part 901. After extensive review and consideration of 
public comments, the Commission determined to amend the exemption 
procedures to make them more convenient and less burdensome by 
permitting supporting documents to be submitted in either paper or 
electronic form and by eliminating the requirement that States submit 
certain information that is not essential in determining that State law 
and administrative enforcement offer at least as much protection as the 
FDCPA. See 64 FR 34532 (June 28, 1999).
Calendar Year 2000 Reviews
In calendar year 2000, the Commission expects to initiate a review of 
one rule and four industry guides. The rule scheduled for review in 
2000 is the Telemarketing Sales Rule, 16 CFR Part 310. The guides 
scheduled for review in 2000 are: (1) Guides Against Deceptive Pricing, 
16 CFR Part 233; (2) Guides Against Bait Advertising, 16 CFR Part 238; 
(3) Guides for the Household Furniture Industry, 16 CFR Part 250; and 
(4) Guide Concerning Use of the Word Free and Similar Representations, 
16 CFR Part 251.
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 burdens on business. The Commission will continue working 
toward these goals. The Commission's ten-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 ten-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. In addition, the 
proposed Children's Online Privacy Protection Rule is consistent with 
the President's Statement of Regulatory Philosophy and Principles, E.O. 
12866 Section 1(a), which directs agencies to promulgate only such 
regulations as are, inter alia, required by law or are made necessary 
by compelling public need, such as material failures of private markets 
to protect or improve the health and safety of the public.
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 comment from affected consumers, businesses, and the public at 
large. As stated above, since 1992 the Commission has repealed 48 
percent of both its trade regulation rules and industry guides 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, Sec. 1.
Regulatory Actions
The Commission has no rules that constitute significant regulatory 
actions under the definition in Executive Order 12866.
BILLING CODE 6750-01-F




[[Page 64098]]

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. Develop standards for constructing and maintaining gaming facilities 
            operated on Indian lands.
2. Develop regulations to establish processes for the classification, 
            review, and approval of games and devices used in tribal 
            gaming.
_______________________________________________________________________



NIGC

                              -----------

                          PROPOSED RULE STAGE

                              -----------

162. 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 Legal Basis:


The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act specifically defines both Class II and 
Class III gaming (25 USC 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 
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 Cost 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:


There are no known risks to this regulatory action.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM                                                           12/00/99
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


Undetermined


Government Levels Affected:


State, Tribal


Agency Contact:
Penny J. Coleman
Deputy General Counsel
National Indian Gaming Commission
Suite 9100
1441 L Street NW.
Washington, DC 20005
Phone: 202 632-7003
RIN: 3141-AA12
_______________________________________________________________________



NIGC
163. ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY
Priority:


Other Significant


Legal Authority:


25 USC 2710(b)(2)(E)


CFR Citation:


25 CFR 573


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


It is necessary for the NIGC to promulgate regulations which ensure 
that tribal gaming facilities are constructed and maintained in a 
manner which protects the environment and the public health and safety.


Statement of Need:


The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) requires that an approved 
tribal gaming ordinance contain a provision requiring each tribal 
gaming facility to be constructed and maintained in a manner which 
adequately protects the environment and the public health and safety. 
(25 U.S.C. 2710(b)(2)(E)) The Commission has determined that standards 
are needed to ensure compliance with this statutory requirement.


Summary of Legal Basis:


IGRA expressly authorizes the Commission to ``promulgate such 
regulations and guidelines as it deems appropriate to implement the 
provisions of the [Act].'' (25 U.S.C. 2706(b)(10)) The Commission 
relies on this section of the statute to authorize the promulgation of 
standards for constructing and maintaining gaming facilities operated 
on Indian lands in a manner which adequately protects the environment 
and the public health and safety.


Alternatives:


The Commission has no alternative but to promulgate these 
environmental,

[[Page 64099]]

health and safety standards for gaming facilities operated on Indian 
lands.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The potential benefits to this regulatory action are to establish and 
define for the regulated community the environmental, health, and 
safety standards it must follow in order to comply with the IGRA, 
regulations promulgated thereunder, and tribal gaming ordinances. This 
regulatory action will provide the regulated public with guidance as to 
the standards the Chairman will use to determine what constitutes an 
environmental, health, or safety problem sufficient to warrant an 
enforcement action.


Risks:


There are no known risks to this regulatory action.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM           64 FR 22588                                    04/27/99
ANPRM Comment Period End                                       06/28/99
NPRM                                                           09/00/00
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


Tribal


Agency Contact:
Mr. Todd J. Araujo
Attorney
National Indian Gaming Commission
9th Floor
1441 L Street NW.
Washington, DC 20005
Phone: 202 632-7003
RIN: 3141-AA17
BILLING CODE 7565-01-F




[[Page 64100]]

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 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 medical, industrial, 
and research applications of nuclear material; 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; disposal of 
radioactive waste; import and export of nuclear materials; and related 
activities.
The NRC regulatory priority 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 and the environment. 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.
The NRC will change the provisions for safety analysis used to evaluate 
emergency core cooling systems (ECCS) under loss-of-coolant-accident 
conditions. The revised rule would allow reactor licensees to take 
advantage of the improved accuracy of power measurement achieved 
through the use of enhanced instrumentation. Specifically, licensees 
using improved instrumentation that reduces the uncertainties 
associated with power measurement could propose increases in licensed 
power levels in plants using the evaluation models in Appendix K of 10 
CFR part 50.
_______________________________________________________________________



NRC

                              -----------

                             Proposed Rule

                              -----------

164. ECCS EVALUATIONS MODELS
Priority:


Economically 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 5841


CFR Citation:


10 CFR 50


Legal Deadline:


None


Abstract:


The proposed rule would amend the Commission's regulations by changing 
the provision that requires safety analyses used for evaluation of 
emergency core cooling system (ECCS) under loss-of-coolant-accident 
(LOCA) conditions be conducted at 1.02 times the licensed power for the 
plant. The proposed rule would allow licensees to propose increases in 
licensed power levels less than the current requirement. Licensees 
would need to demonstrate that the reduced margin for assumed power 
level in the analyses for their facility is justified in terms of the 
effect on plant risk.


Statement of Need:


The proposed rule revision would change the provision that requires 
safety analyses used for evaluation of emergency core cooling systems 
(ECCS) under loss-of-coolant-accident (LOCA) conditions be conducted at 
1.02 times the licensed power for the plant. The current provision is 
intended to account for uncertainties in reactor power level, such as 
instrumentation error. Licensees have proposed using instrumentation 
that would reduce the uncertainties associated with measurement of 
reactor power, thus justifying the use of a reduced analysis margin if 
a licensee chooses to do so. A reduced ECCS analysis margin could be 
used by licensees to facilitate small, cost-beneficial increases to 
licensed power. If the uncertainties associated with power measurement 
instrumentation errors are less than 2 percent, then the current rule 
unnecessarily restricts operation. Therefore, the objective of this 
rulemaking is to allow a change to an unnecessarily burdensome and 
restrictive regulatory requirement.


Summary of Legal Basis:


Not applicable.


Alternatives:


Without a revision to the regulation, many nuclear power plant 
licensees are expected to request exemptions from the existing 
provision based on the improved accuracy of power measurement possible 
with upgraded instrumentation.


Anticipated Cost and Benefits:


The proposed rulemaking would provide the benefit of removing an 
unnecessarily burdensome and restrictive regulatory requirement for 
those licensees who wish to use the option. Economic benefits are 
possible in terms of replacement energy cost savings for utilities that 
no longer need to purchase the additional power generated as a result 
of a power uprate. Considered on an industry-wide basis, utilities 
could gain a maximum of about $430 million annually, or about $4.1 
million per plant. If only 50 plant licensees pursue power uprate, they 
would share an annual benefit of about $205 million, still a 
substantial industry benefit.


Licensees electing to request a smaller margin for their analysis 
assumption along with a power uprate would incur analysis costs of 
about $140,000 to prepare their requests for NRC review, and 
implementation costs of about $5 to $10 million, for a total cost of 
$5.1 to $10.1 million. Other plants not electing to reduce their margin 
assumption would not be affected.


The NRC total cost of revising the rule and implementing the change is 
estimated to be between $150,000 and $200,000. This total does not 
include the cost to the NRC to review proposed power uprate amendments, 
or licensee justification of accuracy claims for upgraded 
instrumentation used for power measurement. An individual review could 
cost as much as $50,000 depending on plant-specific factors.


Risks:


Revising the analysis requirement by itself does not affect plant risk. 
Changes

[[Page 64101]]

to plant license limits could entail a risk impact, but for the very 
small changes expected to result from this rule change, the risk impact 
is expected to be negligible.


Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action                                 DFR Cite

_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM            64 FR 53270                                    10/01/99
NPRM Comment Period End                                        12/15/99
Final Action                                                   05/00/00
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:


No


Government Levels Affected:


None


Agency Contact:
Joseph Donoghue
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Washington, DC 20555-0001
Phone: 301 415-1131
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 3150-AG26
BILLING CODE 7590-01-F
