[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]
The Regulatory Plan
____________________________________________________________________
[[Page 64085]]
INTRODUCTION TO THE FALL 2005 REGULATORY PLAN
Federal regulation is a fundamental instrument of
national policy. It is one of the three major tools --
in addition to spending and taxing -- used to implement
policy. It is used to advance numerous public
objectives, including homeland security, environmental
protection, educational quality, food safety,
transportation safety, health care quality, equal
employment opportunity, energy security, immigration
control, and consumer protection. The Office of
Management and Budget's (OMB) Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) is responsible for overseeing
and coordinating the Federal Government's regulatory
policies.
The Regulatory Plan is published as part of the fall
edition of the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and
Deregulatory Actions, and serves as a statement of the
Administration's regulatory and deregulatory policies
and priorities. The purpose of the Plan is to make the
regulatory process more accessible to the public and to
ensure that the planning and coordination necessary for
a well-functioning regulatory process occurs. The Plan
identifies regulatory priorities and contains
information about the most significant regulatory
actions that agencies expect to undertake in the coming
year. An accessible regulatory process enables citizen
centered service, which is a vital part of the
President's Management Agenda.
Federal Regulatory Policy
The Bush Administration supports Federal regulations
that are sensible and based on sound science,
economics, and the law. Accordingly, the Administration
is striving for a regulatory process that adopts new
rules when markets fail to serve the public interest,
simplifies and modifies existing rules to make them
more effective or less costly or less intrusive, and
rescinds outmoded rules whose benefits do not justify
their costs. In pursuing this agenda, OIRA has adopted
an approach based on the principles of regulatory
analysis and policy espoused in Executive Order 12866,
signed by President Clinton in 1993.
Effective regulatory policy is not uniformly pro-
regulation or anti-regulation. It begins with the
authority granted under the law. Within the discretion
available to the regulating agency by its statutory
authority, agencies apply a number of principles
articulated in Executive Order 12866 (as well as other
orders, such as Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' signed May 18, 2001, 66
FR 28355), in order to design regulations that achieve
their ends in the most efficient way. This means
bringing to bear on the policy problem sound economic
principles, the highest quality information, and the
best possible science. This is not always an easy task,
as sometimes economic and scientific information may
point in very different directions, and therefore
designing regulations does not mean just the rote
application of quantified data to reach policy
decisions. In making regulatory decisions, we expect
agencies to consider not only benefit and cost items
that can be quantified and expressed in monetary units,
but also other attributes and factors that cannot be
integrated readily in a benefit-cost framework, such as
fairness and privacy. However, effective regulation is
the result of the careful use of all available high-
quality data, and the application of broad principles
established by the President.
[[Page 64086]]
In pursuing this goal of establishing an effective,
results-oriented regulatory system, the Bush
Administration has increased the level of public
involvement and transparency in its review and
clearance of new and existing regulations.
For new rulemakings and programs, OIRA has enhanced the
transparency of OMB's regulatory review process. OIRA's
website now enables the public to find which rules are
formally under review at OMB and which rules have
recently been cleared or have been returned to agencies
for reconsideration. OIRA has also increased the amount
of information available on its website. In addition to
information on meetings and correspondence, OIRA makes
available communications from the OIRA Administrator to
agencies, including ``prompt letters,'' ``return
letters,'' and ``post clearance letters,'' as well as
the Administrator's memorandum to the President's
Management Council (September 20, 2001) on presidential
review of agency rulemaking by OIRA.
For existing rulemakings, OIRA has initiated a modest
series of calls for reform nominations in 2001, 2002,
and 2004. In the draft 2001 annual Report to Congress
on the Costs and Benefits of Federal Regulation, OMB
asked for suggestions from the public about specific
regulations that should be modified in order to
increase net benefits to the public. We received
suggestions regarding 71 regulations, 23 of which OMB
designated as high priorities. After a similar call for
reforms in the 2002 draft Report, OMB received
recommendations on 316 distinct rules, guidance
documents, and paperwork requirements from over 1,700
commenters. Of the 156 reform nominations that OMB
determined were ripe for consideration by Cabinet-level
agencies and the Environmental Protection Agency,
agencies decided to pursue 34 rules and 11 guidance
documents for reform. Finally, in the 2004 draft
Report, OMB requested public nominations of promising
regulatory reforms relevant to the manufacturing
sector. In particular, commenters were asked to suggest
specific reforms to rules, guidance documents, or
paperwork requirements that would improve manufacturing
regulation by reducing unnecessary costs, increasing
effectiveness, enhancing competitiveness, reducing
uncertainty, and increasing flexibility. In response to
the solicitation, OMB received 189 distinct reform
nominations from 41 commenters. Of these, Federal
agencies and OMB have determined that 76 of the 189
nominations have potential merit and justify further
action. For further information, all of these Reports
are available on OIRA's website at http://
www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/regpol.html.
The Bush Administration has also moved aggressively to
establish basic quality performance goals for all
information disseminated by Federal agencies, including
information disseminated in support of proposed and
final regulations. The Federal agencies issued
guidelines on October 1, 2002 under the Information
Quality Act to ensure the ``quality, objectivity,
utility, and integrity'' of all information
disseminated by Federal agencies. Under these
guidelines, Federal agencies are taking appropriate
steps to incorporate the information quality
performance standards into agency information
dissemination practices, and developing pre-
dissemination review procedures to substantiate the
quality of information before it is disseminated. Under
the agency information quality guidelines, ``affected
persons'' can request that the agencies correct
information if they believe that scientific, technical,
economic, statistical or other information disseminated
does not meet the agency and OMB standards. If the
requestor is dissatisfied with the initial agency
response to a correction request, an appeal opportunity
is provided by the agencies. Although we are still in
the early phases of implementation, agencies are aware
that ensuring the high quality of government
information disseminations is a high priority of the
Administration. Further information on OIRA's
activities implementing the Information Quality Act is
available on OIRA's website at http://
www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/infopoltech.html.
[[Page 64087]]
As part of its efforts to improve the quality,
objectivity, utility, and integrity of information
disseminated by the Federal agencies, on December 16,
2004, OMB issued a Final Information Quality Bulletin
for Peer Review. This Bulletin establishes
Governmentwide guidance aimed at enhancing the practice
of peer review of government science documents.
The Bulletin describes minimum standards for when peer
review is required and how intensive the peer review
should be for different information. The Bulletin
requires the most rigorous form of peer review for
highly influential scientific assessments. Further
information on peer review is available on OIRA's
website at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/
fy2005/m05-03.pdf.
In addition, the Administration is currently increasing
the impact of OMB's analytical perspective. The OIRA
Administrator is using the ``prompt letter'' to
agencies as a new way to suggest promising regulatory
priorities and highlight issues that may warrant
regulatory attention. Though not meant to have legal
authority, these prompt letters are designed to bring
issues to the attention of agencies in a transparent
manner that permits public scrutiny and debate. Prompt
letters may highlight regulations that should be
pursued, rescinded, revised, or further investigated.
For example, OIRA's first set of prompts suggested
lifesaving opportunities at FDA, NHTSA, OSHA and EPA.
In a letter to FDA, OIRA suggested that priority be
given to completing a promising rulemaking (started in
the previous Administration), to require that food
labels report the trans-fatty acid content of foods.
(Trans-fats are now recognized as a significant
contributor to coronary heart disease.) FDA has issued
a final rule that will require the disclosure of trans-
fat content in food labels. Similarly, OSHA has
responded to an OIRA prompt letter by notifying each
employer in the country of the lifesaving effects and
cost-effectiveness of automatic defibrillators, a
lifesaving technology designed to save lives during
sudden cardiac arrest. A list of all of the prompt
letters is available at OIRA's website at http://
www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/prompt--letter.html.
In addition to increasing the level of public
involvement and transparency in its review of
regulations, the Bush Administration has sought to
enhance the role of analysis in the development of
effective regulations. On September 17, 2003, OMB
issued revised guidance to agencies on regulatory
analysis.\1\ Key features of the revised guidance
include more emphasis on cost-effectiveness, more
careful evaluation of qualitative and intangible
values, and a greater emphasis on considering the
uncertainty inherent in estimates of impact. OIRA was
very interested in updating the guidance in light of
these and other innovations now commonplace in the
research community. The 2005 Regulatory Plan continues
OIRA's effort to ensure coordination across Federal
agencies in pursuing analytically sound regulatory
policies.
The Administration's 2005 Regulatory Priorities
With regard to Federal regulation, the Bush
Administration's objective is quality, not quantity.
Those rules that are adopted promise to be more
effective, less intrusive, and more cost-effective in
achieving national objectives while demonstrating
greater durability in the face of political and legal
attack. The Regulatory Plan is integral to enhancing
the quality of Federal regulations, and OMB seeks to
ensure that the public is provided with the information
needed to understand and comment on the Federal
------------
\1\ See Circular A-4, ``Regulatory Analysis,''
published as part of OMB's 2003 Report to Congress on
the Costs and Benefits of Federal Regulations. The
report is available on OMB's website at http://
www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/2003--cost-ben--final--
rpt.pdf
[[Page 64088]]
regulatory agenda. Accordingly, the 2005 Regulatory
Plan highlights the following themes:
Regulations that are particularly good
examples of the Administration's ``smart''
regulation agenda to streamline regulations
and reporting requirements, which is a key
part of the President's economic plan.
Regulations that are of particular
concern to small businesses.
Regulations that respond to public
nominations submitted to OMB in 2001 or
2002.
Regulations that address 2004
nominations for promising regulatory
reforms in the manufacturing sector.
Conclusion
Smarter regulatory policies, created through public
participation, transparency, and cooperation across
Federal agencies, are a key Administration objective.
The following department and agency plans provide
further information on regulatory priorities. All
agencies' plans are a reflection of the
Administration's Federal Regulatory Policy objectives,
which aim at implementing an effective and results-
oriented regulatory system.
[[Page 64089]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence Title Identifier Rulemaking Stage
Number Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 National Organic Program: Harvey v. Johanns 0581-AC54 Proposed Rule
Stage
2 Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling of Beef, Pork, Lamb, Fish, Perishable Agricultural 0581-AC26 Final Rule Stage
Commodities, and Peanuts (LS-03-04)
3 California Clingstone Peach Diversion Program (Tree Pull), FV05-82-01 0581-AC45 Final Rule Stage
4 Tuberculosis in Cattle; Import Requirements 0579-AB44 Proposed Rule
Stage
5 Animal Welfare; Regulations and Standards for Birds, Rats, and Mice 0579-AB69 Proposed Rule
Stage
6 Revision of Fruits and Vegetables Import Regulations 0579-AB80 Proposed Rule
Stage
7 Revision of the Nursery Stock Regulations 0579-AB85 Proposed Rule
Stage
8 Importation of Boneless Beef from Japan 0579-AB93 Proposed Rule
Stage
9 Importation of Small Lots of Seed Without Phytosanitary Certificates 0579-AB78 Final Rule Stage
10 Phytophthora Ramorum; Quarantine and Regulations 0579-AB82 Final Rule Stage
11 FSP: Discretionary Quality Control Provisions of Title IV of Public Law 107-171 0584-AD37 Proposed Rule
Stage
12 Special Nutrition Programs: Fluid Milk Substitutions 0584-AD58 Proposed Rule
Stage
13 Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC): Revisions in the WIC 0584-AD77 Proposed Rule
Food Packages Stage
14 FSP: Eligibility and Certification Provisions of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 0584-AD30 Final Rule Stage
15 FSP: Non-Discretionary Quality Control Provisions of Title IV of Public Law 107-171 0584-AD31 Final Rule Stage
16 FSP: Employment and Training Program Provisions of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 0584-AD32 Final Rule Stage
2002
17 Categorical Eligibility and Direct Certification for Free and Reduced Price Meals and Free Milk in 0584-AD60 Final Rule Stage
Schools
18 Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC): WIC Vendor Cost 0584-AD71 Final Rule Stage
Containment
19 Performance Standards for Pumped or Massaged Bacon 0583-AC49 Proposed Rule
Stage
20 Egg Products Inspection Regulations 0583-AC58 Proposed Rule
Stage
21 Performance Standard for Chilling of Ready-To-Cook Poultry 0583-AC87 Proposed Rule
Stage
22 Sharing of Firms' Distribution Lists of Retail Consignees During Meat or Poultry Product Recalls 0583-AD10 Proposed Rule
Stage
23 Performance Standards for the Production of Processed Meat and Poultry Products 0583-AC46 Final Rule Stage
24 Nutrition Labeling of Single-Ingredient Products and Ground or Chopped Meat and Poultry Products 0583-AC60 Final Rule Stage
25 Food Standards; General Principles and Food Standards Modernization 0583-AC72 Final Rule Stage
26 Prohibition of the Use of Specified Risk Materials for Human Food and Requirements for the 0583-AC88 Final Rule Stage
Disposition of Non-Ambulatory Disabled Cattle
27 Travel Management (Proposed Directives, Forest Service Manual 2300 and 7700) 0596-AC39 Proposed Rule
Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence Title Identifier Rulemaking Stage
Number Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
28 Northwest Hawaiian Islands National Marine Sanctuary; Designation and Implementation of Regulations 0648-AS83 Proposed Rule
Stage
29 Fisheries of the United States; National Standard 1 0648-AQ63 Final Rule Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 64090]]
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence Title Identifier Rulemaking Stage
Number Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
30 Assistance to States for the Education of Children With Disabilities; Preschool Grants for Children 1820-AB57 Final Rule Stage
With Disabilities; and Service Obligations Under Special Education--Personnel Development
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence Title Identifier Rulemaking Stage
Number Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
31 Rulemaking To Determine Whether the Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Central Air 1904-AB47 Prerule Stage
Conditioners and Air Conditioning Heat Pumps Should Be Amended
32 Rulemaking To Determine Whether the Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Water Heaters 1904-AB48 Prerule Stage
Should Be Amended
33 Rulemaking To Determine Whether the Energy Conservation Standards for Electric and Gas Ranges and 1904-AB49 Prerule Stage
Ovens, and for Microwave Ovens Should Be Amended
34 Rulemaking To Determine Whether the Energy Conservation Standards for Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts 1904-AB50 Prerule Stage
Should Be Amended
35 Rulemaking To Determine Whether the Energy Conservation Standards for Room Air Conditioners Should 1904-AB51 Prerule Stage
Be Amended
36 Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential Furnaces and Boilers 1904-AA78 Proposed Rule
Stage
37 Energy Efficiency Standards for Electric Distribution Transformers 1904-AB08 Proposed Rule
Stage
38 Acquisition of Petroleum for Strategic Petroleum Reserve 1901-AB16 Proposed Rule
Stage
39 Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environment 1901-AA38 Final Rule Stage
40 Worker Safety and Health 1901-AA99 Final Rule Stage
41 Standby Support for Advanced Nuclear Facility Delays 1901-AB17 Final Rule Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence Title Identifier Rulemaking Stage
Number Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
42 Control of Communicable Diseases, Interstate and Foreign Quarantine 0920-AA12 Proposed Rule
Stage
43 Foreign and Domestic Establishment Registration and Listing Requirements for Human Drugs, Including 0910-AA49 Proposed Rule
Drugs that are Regulated Under a Biologics License Application, and Animal Drugs Stage
44 Submission of Standardized Electronic Study Data From Clinical Studies Evaluating Human Drugs and 0910-AC52 Proposed Rule
Biologics Stage
45 Content and Format of Labeling for Human Prescription Drugs and Biologics; Requirements for 0910-AF11 Proposed Rule
Pregnancy and Lactation Labeling Stage
46 Expanded Access to Investigational Drugs for Treatment Use 0910-AF14 Proposed Rule
Stage
47 Requirements on Content and Format of Labeling for Human Prescription Drugs and Biological Products 0910-AA94 Final Rule Stage
48 Current Good Manufacturing Practice in Manufacturing, Packing, or Holding Dietary Ingredients and 0910-AB88 Final Rule Stage
Dietary Supplements
49 Toll-Free Number for Reporting Adverse Events on Labeling for Human Drugs 0910-AC35 Final Rule Stage
50 Innovations in Fee-for-Service Payment Systems to Improve Quality and Outcomes (CMS-1298-ANPR) 0938-AN91 Prerule Stage
51 Competitive Acquisition for Certain Durable Medical Equipment (DME), Prosthetics, Orthotics, and 0938-AN14 Proposed Rule
Supplies and Residual Issues (CMS-1270-P) Stage
[[Page 64091]]
52 Changes to the Hospital Inpatient Prospective Payment Systems and FY 2007 Rates (CMS-1488-P) 0938-AO12 Proposed Rule
Stage
53 Organ Procurement Organization Conditions for Coverage (CMS-3064-IFR) 0938-AK81 Final Rule Stage
54 Changes to the Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment System and Calendar Year 2006 Payment Rates 0938-AN46 Final Rule Stage
(CMS-1501-FC)
55 Revisions to Payment Policies Under the Physician Fee Schedule for Calendar Year 2006 (CMS-1502-FC) 0938-AN84 Final Rule Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence Title Identifier Rulemaking Stage
Number Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
56 Procedures for Handling Critical Infrastructure Information 1601-AA14 Final Rule Stage
57 Regulations Implementing the Support Antiterrorism by Fostering Effective Technologies Act of 2002 1601-AA15 Final Rule Stage
(the SAFETY Act)
58 Protection of Human Subjects 1601-AA29 Final Rule Stage
59 Marine Casualties and Investigations; Chemical Testing Following Serious Marine Incidents (USCG- 1625-AA27 Final Rule Stage
2001-8773)
60 Validation of Merchant Mariners' Vital Information and Issuance of Coast Guard Merchant Mariner's 1625-AA85 Final Rule Stage
Licenses and Certificates of Registry (USCG-2004-17455)
61 Vessel Requirements for Notices of Arrival and Departure, and Carriage of Automatic Identification 1625-AA99 Final Rule Stage
System (USCG-2005-21869)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence Title Identifier Rulemaking Stage
Number Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
62 Amendments to HUD's Environmental Regulations (FR-4954) 2501-AD11 Proposed Rule
Stage
63 Disposition of HUD-Acquired Single Family Property Amendments (FR-4952) 2502-AI27 Proposed Rule
Stage
64 Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS (HOPWA) (FR-4708) 2506-AC11 Proposed Rule
Stage
65 GNMA: Excess Yield Securities (FR-4958) 2503-AA18 Proposed Rule
Stage
66 Streamlining Public Housing Programs (FR-4990) 2577-AC59 Proposed Rule
Stage
67 Housing Choice Voucher Program Homeownership Option; Eligibility of Units Not Yet Under 2577-AC60 Proposed Rule
Construction (FR-4991) Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence Title Identifier Rulemaking Stage
Number Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
68 Valuation of Oil From Indian Leases 1010-AD00 Proposed Rule
Stage
69 Relief or Reduction in Royalty Rates - New Deep Gas and Offshore Alaska Provisions 1010-AD31 Proposed Rule
Stage
70 Placement of Excess Spoil 1029-AC04 Proposed Rule
Stage
71 Grazing Administration--Exclusive of Alaska 1004-AD42 Final Rule Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 64092]]
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence Title Identifier Rulemaking Stage
Number Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
72 Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Public Accommodations and Commercial Facilities 1190-AA44 Proposed Rule
Stage
73 Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in State and Local Government Services 1190-AA46 Proposed Rule
Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence Title Identifier Rulemaking Stage
Number Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
74 Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993; Conform to the Supreme Court's Ragsdale Decision 1215-AB35 Proposed Rule
Stage
75 Revision to the Department of Labor Benefit Regulations for Trade Adjustment Assistance for Workers 1205-AB32 Proposed Rule
Under the Trade Act of 1974, as Amended Stage
76 Revision to the Department of Labor Regulations for Petitions and Determinations of Eligibility To 1205-AB40 Proposed Rule
Apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance for Workers and Issuance of Regulations for the Alternative Stage
TAA
77 Amendment of Regulation Relating to Definition of Plan Assets--Participant Contributions 1210-AB02 Proposed Rule
Stage
78 Amendment of Section 404(c) Regulation Default Investments 1210-AB10 Proposed Rule
Stage
79 Regulations Implementing the Health Care Access, Portability, and Renewability Provisions of the 1210-AA54 Final Rule Stage
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996
80 Prohibiting Discrimination Against Participants and Beneficiaries Based on Health Status 1210-AA77 Final Rule Stage
81 Rulemaking Relating to Termination of Abandoned Individual Account Plans 1210-AA97 Final Rule Stage
82 Asbestos Exposure Limit 1219-AB24 Final Rule Stage
83 Diesel Particulate Matter Exposure of Underground Metal and Nonmetal Miners 1219-AB29 Final Rule Stage
84 Occupational Exposure to Crystalline Silica 1218-AB70 Prerule Stage
85 Assigned Protection Factors: Amendments to the Final Rule on Respiratory Protection 1218-AA05 Final Rule Stage
86 Occupational Exposure to Hexavalent Chromium (Preventing Occupational Illness: Chromium) 1218-AB45 Final Rule Stage
87 Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act Regulations 1293-AA09 Final Rule Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence Title Identifier Rulemaking Stage
Number Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
88 Aging Aircraft Program (Widespread Fatigue Damage) 2120-AI05 Proposed Rule
Stage
89 Transport Airplane Fuel Tank Flammability Reduction 2120-AI23 Proposed Rule
Stage
90 Enhanced Airworthiness Program for Airplane Systems (EAPAS) and SFAR 88 2120-AI31 Proposed Rule
Stage
91 Aging Aircraft Safety--Development of TC and STC Holder Data 2120-AI32 Proposed Rule
Stage
92 Medical Certification Requirements as Part of the CDL 2126-AA10 Proposed Rule
Stage
93 Unified Registration System 2126-AA22 Final Rule Stage
94 Reduced Stopping Distance Requirements for Truck Tractors 2127-AJ37 Proposed Rule
Stage
95 Light Truck Average Fuel Economy Standards, Model Year 2008 and Possibly Beyond 2127-AJ61 Proposed Rule
Stage
96 5th Percentile Dummy Belted Barrier Crash Test Requirements -- Standard 208 2127-AI98 Final Rule Stage
97 Side Impact Protection Upgrade - FMVSS No. 214 2127-AJ10 Final Rule Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 64093]]
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence Title Identifier Rulemaking Stage
Number Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
98 Implementation of a Revised Basel Capital Accord (Basel II) 1557-AC91 Proposed Rule
Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence Title Identifier Rulemaking Stage
Number Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
99 Enrollment--Provision of Hospital and Outpatient Care to Veterans--Subpriorities of Priority 2900-AL51 Final Rule Stage
Categories 7 and 8 and Enrollment Level Decision
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence Title Identifier Rulemaking Stage
Number Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
100 Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter 2060-AI44 Proposed Rule
Stage
101 Control of Hazardous Air Pollutants From Mobile Sources 2060-AK70 Proposed Rule
Stage
102 Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule 2060-AK74 Proposed Rule
Stage
103 Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment New Source Review (NSR): Allowables 2060-AL75 Proposed Rule
Plantwide Applicability Limit (PAL), Aggregation, and Debottlenecking Stage
104 Control of Emissions From New Locomotives and New Marine Diesel Engines Less Than 30 Liters Per 2060-AM06 Proposed Rule
Cylinder Stage
105 Control of Emissions from Spark-Ignition Engines and Fuel Systems from Marine Vessels and Small 2060-AM34 Proposed Rule
Equipment Stage
106 Implementing Periodic Monitoring in Federal and State Operating Permit Programs 2060-AN00 Proposed Rule
Stage
107 Fuel Economy Labeling of Motor Vehicles: Revisions to Improve Calculation of Fuel Economy Estimates 2060-AN14 Proposed Rule
Stage
108 Amendment of the Standards for Radioactive Waste Disposal in Yucca Mountain, Nevada 2060-AN15 Proposed Rule
Stage
109 Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone 2060-AN24 Proposed Rule
Stage
110 Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Nonattainment New Source Review: Alternative 2060-AN28 Proposed Rule
Applicability Test for Electric Generating Units Stage
111 Renewable Fuel Standards Requirements for 2006 2060-AN51 Proposed Rule
Stage
112 Lead-Based Paint Activities; Amendments for Renovation, Repair and Painting 2070-AC83 Proposed Rule
Stage
113 Notification of Chemical Exports Under TSCA Section 12(b) 2070-AJ01 Proposed Rule
Stage
114 Administrative Reporting Exemption for Certain Air Releases of NOx 2050-AF02 Proposed Rule
Stage
115 Revisions to the Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Rule, 40 CFR Part 112 2050-AG16 Proposed Rule
Stage
116 Regulatory Actions Associated with the Notices of Data Availability on the Spill Prevention, 2050-AG23 Proposed Rule
Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Rule, 40 CFR Part 112 Stage
117 Expanding the Comparable Fuels Exclusion Under RCRA 2050-AG24 Proposed Rule
Stage
[[Page 64094]]
118 Toxics Release Inventory Reporting Burden Reduction Rule 2025-AA14 Proposed Rule
Stage
119 Inclusion of Delaware and New Jersey in the Clean Air Interstate Rule 2060-AM95 Final Rule Stage
120 Rule on Section 126 Petition from NC to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine PM and O3; FIPs to 2060-AM99 Final Rule Stage
Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine PM & O3; Revisions to CAIR Rule; Revisions to Acid Rain Program
121 Regional Haze Regulations; Revisions to Provisions Governing Alternative to Source-Specific Best 2060-AN22 Final Rule Stage
Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Determinations
122 Implementation Rule for 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS - Phase 2 2060-AN23 Final Rule Stage
123 Test Rule; Testing of Certain High Production Volume (HPV) Chemicals 2070-AD16 Final Rule Stage
124 Pesticides; Procedures for the Registration Review Program 2070-AD29 Final Rule Stage
125 Pesticides; Emergency Exemption Process Revisions 2070-AD36 Final Rule Stage
126 Protections for Test Subjects in Human Research 2070-AD57 Final Rule Stage
127 RCRA Burden Reduction Initiative 2050-AE50 Final Rule Stage
128 Revisions to the Definition of Solid Waste 2050-AE98 Final Rule Stage
129 National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Ground Water Rule 2040-AA97 Final Rule Stage
130 National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule 2040-AD37 Final Rule Stage
131 National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Stage 2 Disinfection Byproducts Rule 2040-AD38 Final Rule Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence Title Identifier Rulemaking Stage
Number Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
132 Coordination of Retiree Health Benefits With Medicare and State Health Benefits 3046-AA72 Final Rule Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence Title Identifier Rulemaking Stage
Number Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
133 Federal Records Management 3095-AB16 Proposed Rule
Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORPORATION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence Title Identifier Rulemaking Stage
Number Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
134 Allocation of Assets in Single-Employer Plans; Valuation of Benefits and Assets 1212-AA55 Final Rule Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence Title Identifier Rulemaking Stage
Number Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
135 Small Business Lending Company and Lender Oversight Regulations 3245-AE14 Proposed Rule
Stage
136 Small Business Technology Transfer Program Policy Directive 3245-AE96 Final Rule Stage
137 Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Policy Directive 3245-AF21 Final Rule Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 64095]]
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence Title Identifier Rulemaking Stage
Number Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
138 Federal Salary Offset (Withholding a Portion of a Federal Employee's Salary To Collect a Delinquent 0960-AE89 Proposed Rule
Debt Owed to the Social Security Administration) (721P) Stage
139 Exemption of Work Activity as a Basis for a Continuing Disability Review (Ticket to Work and Work 0960-AE93 Proposed Rule
Incentives Improvement Act of 1999) (725P) Stage
140 Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating Immune System Disorders (804P) 0960-AF33 Proposed Rule
Stage
141 Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating Mental Disorders (886P) 0960-AF69 Proposed Rule
Stage
142 Amendments to the Ticket to Work and Self-Sufficiency Program (967P) 0960-AF89 Proposed Rule
Stage
143 Representative Payment; Policies and Administrative Procedure for Imposing Penalties for False or 0960-AG09 Proposed Rule
Misleading Statements or Withholding of Information (2422P) Stage
144 Issuance of Work Report Receipts, Payment of TWP Months After a Fraud Conviction, Changes to the 0960-AG10 Proposed Rule
SEIE, & Expansion of the Reentitlement Period for Childhood DIB Benefits (2502P) Stage
145 Medicare Part B Income-Related Monthly Adjustment Amount (2101P) 0960-AG11 Proposed Rule
Stage
146 Nonpayment of Benefits to Fugitive Felons and Probation or Parole Violators (2222P) 0960-AG12 Proposed Rule
Stage
147 Changes to the Income and Resources Provisions for SSI Based on Sections 430, 435, and 436 of the 0960-AG13 Proposed Rule
Social Security Protection Act (SSPA) of 2004 (2482P) Stage
148 Continuing Disability Review Failure To Cooperate Process (2763P) 0960-AG19 Proposed Rule
Stage
149 Prohibition of Entitlement on Earnings Records for Certain Alien Workers (2882P) 0960-AG22 Proposed Rule
Stage
150 Limiting Replacement of Social Security Number Cards (965P) 0960-AG25 Proposed Rule
Stage
151 Age as a Factor in Evaluating Disability (3183P) 0960-AG29 Proposed Rule
Stage
152 Administrative Review Process for Adjudicating Initial Disability Claims (3203F) 0960-AG31 Proposed Rule
Stage
153 Evidentiary Requirements for Making Findings About Medical Equivalence (787F) 0960-AF19 Final Rule Stage
154 Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating Impairments of the Digestive System (800F) 0960-AF28 Final Rule Stage
155 Revised Medical Criteria for Evaluating Cardiovascular Disorders (826F) 0960-AF48 Final Rule Stage
156 Rules for Helping Blind and Disabled Individuals Achieve Self-Support (506F) 0960-AG00 Final Rule Stage
157 Medicare Part D Subsidies (1024F) 0960-AG03 Final Rule Stage
158 Civil Monetary Penalties, Assessments, and Recommended Exclusions (2362F) 0960-AG08 Final Rule Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence Title Identifier Rulemaking Stage
Number Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
159 Flammability Standard for Upholstered Furniture 3041-AB35 Proposed Rule
Stage
160 Proposed Standard To Address Open-Flame Ignition of Mattresses/Foundation Sets 3041-AC02 Final Rule Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NATIONAL INDIAN GAMING COMMISSION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation
Sequence Title Identifier Rulemaking Stage
Number Number
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
161 Technical Amendments to the Minimum Internal Control Standards 3141-AA27 Proposed Rule
Stage
[[Page 64096]]
162 Technical Standards for Gaming Machines and Gaming Systems 3141-AA29 Proposed Rule
Stage
163 Game Classification Standards 3141-AA31 Proposed Rule
Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 05-21048 Filed 10-28-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-27-S
[[Page 64097]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (USDA)
Statement of Regulatory Priorities
USDA is a primary issuer of regulations within the Federal Government
covering a broad range of issues. Within the rulemaking process is the
department-wide effort to reduce burden on participants and program
administrators alike by focusing on improving program outcomes, and
particularly on achieving the performance measures specified in the
USDA and agency Strategic Plans. Significant focus is being placed on
efficiencies that can be achieved through eGov activities, the
migration to efficient electronic services and capabilities, and the
implementation of focused, efficient information collections necessary
to support effective program management. Important areas of activity
include the following:
USDA will develop new regulations and review existing
regulations to prevent the introduction or spread of pests
and diseases into the United States. In addition, it will
continue to work to minimize impediments to trade while
protecting U.S. animal and plant resources.
In the area of food safety, USDA will continue to develop
science-based regulations that improve the safety of meat,
poultry, and egg products in the least burdensome and most
cost-effective manner. Regulations will be revised to
address emerging food safety challenges, streamlined to
remove excessively prescriptive regulations, and updated to
be made consistent with hazard analysis and critical
control point principles.
As changes are made for the nutrition assistance programs,
USDA will work to foster actions that will help improve
diets, and particularly to prevent and reduce overweight
and obesity. In 2006, this will include implementing
refinements to the nutrition assistance programs included
in reauthorization statutes as well as additional changes
that will promote healthful eating and physical activity,
while also improving the efficiency and integrity of
program operations.
USDA will finalize rulemaking for the Conservation Security
Program (CSP). The program was implemented under an interim
final rule in 2004. An amendment to the interim final rule
was published in March 2005 and the Department is now
making clarifications and modifications in response to the
comments received.
Reducing Paperwork Burden on Customers
USDA has made substantial progress in implementing the goal of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 to reduce the burden of information
collection on the public. To meet the requirements of the Government
Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA), agencies across USDA are providing
electronic alternatives to their traditionally paper-based customer
transactions. As a result, producers increasingly have the option to
electronically file forms and all other documentation online. To
facilitate the expansion of electronic government and promote
compliance with GPEA, USDA implemented an electronic authentication
capability that allows customers to ``sign-on'' once and conduct
business with all USDA agencies. Underlying these efforts are ongoing
analyses to identify and eliminate redundant data collections and
streamline collection instructions. The end result of implementing
these initiatives is better service to our customers enabling them to
choose when and where to conduct business with USDA.
The Role of Regulations
The programs of USDA are diverse and far reaching, as are the
regulations that attend their delivery. Regulations codify how USDA
will conduct its business, including the specifics of access to, and
eligibility for, USDA programs. Regulations also specify the
responsibilities of State and local governments, private industry,
businesses, and individuals that are necessary to comply with their
provisions.
The diversity in purpose and outreach of our programs contributes
significantly to USDA being 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 USDA programs has accompanying
regulatory needs, often with a significant impact. The Farm Security
and Rural Investment Act of 2002, Public Law 107-171; the Child
Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004, Public Law 108-265; and
the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000, Public Law 106-224,
affect most agencies of USDA resulting in the modification, addition,
or deletion of many programs. These statutes set in motion rulemakings
that provide for improvements in market loss and conservation
assistance, crop and livestock disease and pest protection, marketing
enhancements, pollution control, research and development for biomass,
and refinements to the nutrition assistance programs to help ensure the
best practical outcomes for beneficiaries and the taxpayer.
Major Regulatory Priorities
This document represents summary information on prospective
significant regulations as called for in Executive Order 12866. The
following agencies are represented in this regulatory plan, along with
a summary of their mission and key regulatory priorities for 2006:
Food and Nutrition Service
Mission: FNS increases food security and reduces hunger in partnership
with cooperating organizations by providing children and low-income
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
2005 regulatory plan supports the broad goals and objectives in the
Agency's strategic plan, including:
Improved nutrition of children and low-income people. This goal
represents FNS's efforts to improve nutrition by providing access to
program benefits (Food Stamps, WIC food vouchers and nutrition
services, school meals, commodities and State administrative funds),
nutrition education, and quality
[[Page 64098]]
meals and other benefits. It includes three major objectives: 1)
improved food security, which reflects nutrition assistance benefits
issued to program participants; 2) FNS program participants making
healthy food choices, which represents our efforts to improve nutrition
knowledge and behavior through nutrition education and breastfeeding
promotion; and 3) improved nutritional quality of meals, food packages,
commodities, and other program benefits, which represents our efforts
to ensure that program benefits meet the appropriate nutrition
standards to effectively improve nutrition for program participants.
In support of this goal, FNS plans to finalize rules implementing
provisions of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (P.L.
107-171), as well as under other authorities, to simplify program
administration, support work, and improve access to benefits in the
Food Stamp Program. FNS will also publish rules implementing provisions
of the Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-
265) to ensure access to the Child Nutrition Programs for low-income
children receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families through
direct certification for homeless children, and to revise requirements
allowing schools to substitute nutritionally-equivalent non-dairy
beverages for fluid milk at the request of a recipient's parent.
Finally, FNS will propose rule changes to improve food packages in the
WIC program to reflect current dietary guidance, based on
recommendations made by an Institute of Medicine expert panel.
Improved Stewardship of Federal Funds. This goal represents FNS's
ongoing commitment to maximize the accuracy of benefits issued,
maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of program operations, and
minimize participant and vendor fraud. It includes two major
objectives: 1) improved benefit accuracy and reduced fraud, which
represents the agency's effort to reduce participant and agency errors,
and to control Food Stamp and WIC trafficking and participant, vendor,
and administrative agency fraud; and 2) improved efficiency of program
administration, which represents our efforts to streamline program
operations and improve program structures as necessary to maximize
their effectiveness.
In support of this goal, FNS plans to finalize rules implementing
provisions of P.L. 107-171 to modify the system of sanctions and
incentives used to minimize certification errors in the Food Stamp
Program, and to finalize rules that will simplify funding for the Food
Stamp Employment and Training Program. FNS will also publish rules to
improve management of retail food vendors in the WIC Program and to
improve accountability and performance measurement in the Commodity
Supplemental Food Program.
Food Safety and Inspection Service
Mission: The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is responsible
for ensuring that meat, poultry, and egg products in commerce are
wholesome, not adulterated, and properly marked, labeled, and packaged.
Priorities: FSIS is committed to developing and issuing science-based
regulations intended to ensure that meat, poultry, and egg products are
wholesome and not adulterated or misbranded. FSIS continues to review
its existing authorities and regulations to ensure that emerging food
safety challenges are adequately addressed, to streamline excessively
prescriptive regulations, and to revise or remove regulations that are
inconsistent with the Agency's hazard analysis and critical control
point regulations.
In addition to preparing regulatory amendments based on this ongoing
review, FSIS has published and implemented emergency regulations that
had been developed under the Agency's proactive, risk-based policy to
head off emerging and exotic threats to the safety of the Nation's
meat, poultry, and egg product supply.
Following are some of the Agency's recent and planned initiatives:
In February 2001, FSIS proposed a rule to establish food safety
performance standards for all processed ready-to-eat (RTE) meat and
poultry products and for partially heat-treated meat and poultry
products that are not ready-to-eat. The proposal contained provisions
addressing post-lethality contamination of RTE products with Listeria
monocytogenes. In June 2003, FSIS published an interim final rule
requiring establishments that produce RTE products to apply verified
control measures to prevent such product contamination. The Agency is
evaluating the effectiveness of the interim rule and is planning
further action with respect to other elements of the 2001 proposal that
will be based on quantitative risk assessments of target pathogens in
processed products.
In January 2004, FSIS published three interim final rules to prevent
the agent of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) from entering the
human food supply. FSIS took this action in response to the
confirmation of BSE in a cow in Washington State that had been imported
from Canada. In addition, FSIS issued a Federal Register Notice in
January 2004 that announced that the Agency would no longer pass and
apply the mark of inspection to carcasses and parts of cattle selected
for BSE testing by APHIS until the sample is determined to be negative.
In August 2004, FSIS, along with the USDA's Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service (APHIS) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
published a joint Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) that
describes additional Federal measures that the agencies are considering
to further mitigate the risk of BSE. FSIS is evaluating the comments
received in response to the interim final rules and the ANPRM to
determine whether FSIS should implement additional measures to prevent
human exposure to the BSE agent.
FSIS plans to propose amending the poultry products inspection
regulations by replacing, with a performance standard, the requirement
for ready-to-cook poultry products to be chilled to 40[deg]F or below
within certain time periods according to the weight of the dressed
carcasses. Under the performance standard, poultry establishments would
have to carry out slaughtering, dressing, and chilling operations in a
manner that ensured no significant growth of pathogens, as demonstrated
by control of the pathogens or indicator organisms. The existing time/
temperature chilling regulations would remain available for use by
establishments as a ``safe harbor'' for compliance with the new
standard.
FSIS also is planning to propose requirements for federally inspected
egg product plants to develop and implement HACCP systems and
sanitation standard operating procedures. The Agency will be proposing
pathogen reduction performance standards for egg products. Further, the
Agency will be proposing to remove 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 labeling for egg
products.
FSIS will also propose to remove provisions that prescribe the levels
of substances that must be used to produce massaged or pumped bacon.
FSIS will propose to replace these prescriptive
[[Page 64099]]
provisions with an upper limit for nitrite and a performance standard
that establishments producing massaged or pumped bacon would be
required to meet.
Besides the foregoing initiatives, FSIS has proposed requirements for
the nutrition labeling of ground or chopped meat and poultry products
and single-ingredient products. This proposed rule would require
nutrition labeling, on the label or at the point-of-purchase, for the
major cuts of single-ingredient, raw products and would require
nutrition information on the label of ground or chopped products.
Finally, FSIS is proposing to amend the Federal meat and poultry
products inspection regulations to provide that the Agency would make
available to individual consumers, in response to requests under the
Freedom of Information Act, lists of the retail consignees of meat and
poultry products that have been voluntarily recalled by a federally
inspected meat or poultry products establishment. FSIS believes that
this information will be of value to consumers and the industry in
clarifying which products should be removed from commerce and from
consumers' possession because the products may be adulterated or
misbranded.
``Smart'' regulation agenda: The President's smart regulation agenda
involves modernizing existing rules and adopting new rules only when
justified by sound science, economics, and law. Examples of FSIS
rulemakings that support this initiative include the planned
regulations for pumped bacon and for chilling ready-to-cook poultry.
These rulemakings are intended to streamline regulations, improve
regulatory consistency, provide science-based performance standards,
and offer flexible compliance options to regulated establishments.
Response to public nominations for regulatory reform: As mentioned,
FSIS has been evaluating the effectiveness of the interim final rule on
control of L. monocytogenes in RTE products. Responding to the May 2004
nomination of the interim final rule as a candidate for regulatory
reform, FSIS will evaluate the impacts of the rule on small businesses
and determine what relief or mitigations may be necessary.
Small business concerns: Nearly all FSIS regulations affect small
businesses in some way because the majority of FSIS-inspected
establishments and other FSIS-regulated entities are small businesses.
FSIS makes available to small and very small establishments technical
materials and guidance on how to comply with FSIS regulations. The
Agency conducts an active outreach program assisted by a network of
State coordinators to help small businesses comply with FSIS
regulations. The Agency maintains a small business outreach page on its
Web site with links to sources of technical assistance.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Mission: The mission of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
(APHIS) is to protect the health and value of American agricultural and
natural resources. APHIS conducts programs to prevent the introduction
of exotic pests and diseases into the United States and conducts
surveillance, monitoring, control, and eradication programs for pests
and diseases in this country. These activities enhance agricultural
productivity and competitiveness and contribute to the national economy
and the public health.
Priorities: APHIS continues to work on regulatory initiatives to ensure
that a comprehensive framework is in place to address the threats posed
to animal and plant resources. One important animal health initiative
underway is an update to the State classification standards and
associated interstate movement requirements contained in the domestic
bovine tuberculosis regulations and a parallel effort to harmonize the
regulations regarding the importation of cattle from regions where
bovine tuberculosis exists with the updated domestic regulations. APHIS
also continues to work with its State partners and in cooperation with
industry to develop a national animal identification system. This
national system is intended to identify specific animals in the United
States and record their movements over their lifespans, with the goal
of enabling 48-hour traceback of the movements of any diseased or
exposed animal. This will help to ensure rapid disease containment and
maximum protection of America's animals. On the plant side, the Agency
is considering revisions to its nursery stock regulations to reduce the
pest risk posed by imported plants, roots, seeds, bulbs, and other
propagative materials, and will continue to update the regulations
pertaining to Sudden Oak Death as more becomes known about this fungal
disease. APHIS is also working to revise its regulations for the
introduction of organisms and products altered or produced through
genetic engineering to reflect new consolidated authorities under the
Plant Protection Act.
In addition, recognizing the need to minimize impediments to trade
while providing necessary protection to animal and plant resources,
APHIS is developing a proposal to streamline the process for approving
new fruits and vegetables for importation and, in response to a public
nomination for regulatory reform, a rule to allow the importation of
small lots of seed under an import permit with specific conditions,
instead of requiring a phytosanitary certificate from the government of
the exporting country. The Agency is also continuing to work on
amending its regulations concerning bovine spongiform encephalopathy
(BSE) to provide for the importation of certain animals and products
that present low risk.
Further, in line with a recent amendment to the definition of
``animal'' in the Animal Welfare Act, APHIS is considering changes to
its regulations to promote the humane handling, care, treatment, and
transportation of birds, rats, and mice not specifically excluded from
coverage under the Act.
APHIS documents published in the Federal Register and related
information are available on the Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/
ppd/rad/webrepor.html.
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. f ood and fiber products.
Priorities: (1) On August 3, 2005, AMS issued a proposed rule that
created a voluntary clingstone peach diversion program that would
consist wholly of tree removal. This action would help the California
clingstone peach industry address its oversupply problems. The program
would offer payments to growers who remove a portion of their
clingstone peach trees from production for a period of 10 years. The
program would result in the removal of a maximum of 4,000 bearing acres
of clingstone peach trees. Producers would benefit from this action by
bringing supply more in line with demand. Furthermore, this action
would eliminate the need for the Agency to make emergency surplus
removal
[[Page 64100]]
purchases. The U.S. Department of Agriculture would provide $5 million
to the program while the industry would contribute $2 million. Comments
on the proposed rule were due by September 2, 2005.
(2) As mandated by the 2002 Farm Bill, AMS is establishing a mandatory
country of origin program for beef, lamb, pork, fish, perishable
agricultural commodities, and peanuts. Under current Federal laws and
regulations, country of origin labeling is not universally required for
these commodities. In particular, labeling of U.S. origin is not
mandatory, and labeling of imported products at the consumer level is
not required in all cases. Thus, consumers desiring to purchase
products based on country of origin are not fully able to do so. A
proposed rule was published October 30, 2003, based on interim
voluntary guidelines also required by the 2002 Farm Bill (that was
issued on October 8, 2002), and related input from listening sessions
held throughout the country during 2003. On October 5, 2004, the
Agricultural Marketing Service published an interim final rule with
request for comments for the labeling of fish and shellfish covered
commodities that became effective on April 4, 2005. A final regulatory
action for all covered commodities will be issued by September 30,
2006.
(3) On June 9, 2005, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maine, in the case of Harvey v. Johanns (Civil No. 02-216-P-H), issued
an order finding that, in two instances, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture exceeded its statutory authority in developing the National
Organic Program (NOP) regulations. With respect to the use of synthetic
substances in products labeled as organic (minimum 95% organic content)
and the exemption of certain dairy animals from organic feed
requirements, the court directed USDA to conduct notice and comment
rulemaking not later than 360 days from the date of the Court's order.
AMS intends to publish a proposed rule by December 31, 2005.
(4) On April 12, 2003, Congress amended the Organic Foods Production
Act (OFPA) to authorize certification of wild seafood. In response to
this, AMS plans to amend the National Organic Program (NOP) regulations
to add practice standards for organic certification of wild-caught and
aquatic farm-raised species. Under the OFPA, an organic certification
program must be established for producers and handlers of agricultural
products that have been produced using organic methods. The NOP has
been reviewing organic certification of fish including wild-caught and
aquaculture operations in response to a FY 2000 congressional mandate
to develop regulations for the certification of seafood. The NOP has
engaged in public meetings and workshops and conducted public comment
proceedings on this subject. The NOP on May 25, 2005, convened an
aquaculture working group to develop draft organic standards for the
production, handling and labeling of food derived from aquaculture.
Efforts to convene a similar group to develop draft organic standards
for the production, handling and labeling of food derived from wild-
harvest fisheries are ongoing. Draft standards developed as a result of
these groups' work will be forwarded to the NOSB for review and
consideration as recommendations to the Secretary.
AMS Program Rulemaking Pages: All of AMS's rules that are published in
the Federal Register are available on the Internet at http://
www.ams.usda.gov/rulemaking. This site also includes commenting
instructions and addresses, links to news releases and background
material, and comments received on various rules.
Forest Service
Mission: The mission of the Forest Service is to sustain the health,
productivity, and diversity of the Nation's forests and rangelands to
meet the needs of present and future generations. This includes
protecting and managing National Forest System lands; 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 forest and
range conservation.
Priorities: The Forest Service's priorities for fall 2005 are to
publish a final regulation revising 36 CFR parts 212, 251, 261, and
295, regarding travel management on National Forest System (NFS) lands
to clarify policy related to motor vehicle use; to publish a direct
final regulation revising 36 CFR parts 251 subpart B, 261 subpart A,
and 291 that implements the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act
(REA) (16 U.S.C. 6801-6814); and to publish final directives revising
Forest Service Manual, Chapters 1330, 1900, and Forest Service Handbook
1909.12, regarding National Forest System Land Management Planning.
The final regulation regarding travel management on National Forest
System lands clarifies policy related to motor vehicle use, including
the use of off-highway vehicles. This final rule requires Forest
Service administrative units and ranger districts to designate those
roads, trails, and areas that are open to motor vehicle use. The final
rule will prohibit the use of motor vehicles off the designated system,
as well as use of motor vehicles on routes and in areas that is not
consistent with the designations. The clear identification of roads,
trails, and areas for motor vehicle use on each National Forest will
enhance management of National Forest System lands; sustain natural
resource values through more effective management of motor vehicle use;
enhance opportunities for motorized recreation experiences on National
Forest System lands; address needs for access to National Forest System
lands; and preserve areas of opportunity in each National Forest for
nonmotorized travel and experiences. The final rule is consistent with
provisions of Executive Order 11644 and Executive Order 11989 regarding
off-road use of motor vehicles on Federal lands. A proposed rule was
published in the Federal Register on July 15, 2004 (69 FR 42381).
The Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act repealed and supplanted
section 4 of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (16 U.S.C. 4601-
6a) as the authority for special recreation permits issued by federal
land management agencies and for recreation fees charged by federal
land management agencies, including the Forest Service. The direct
final rule adds a definition for recreation fee and revises the
prohibition for failure to pay recreation fees in 36 CFR part 261,
subpart A, to conform to the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act.
The final Land and Resource Management Planning directives to the
Forest Service Manual 1330 -- New Management Strategies; 1900 --
Planning; 1920 -- Land and Resource Management Planning; and Forest
Service Handbook 1909.12 -- Land and Resource Management Planning
Handbook provide detailed direction to agency employees necessary to
implement the provisions in the final planning rule adopted at 36 CFR
part 219 governing land and resource management planning. The final
rule was published on January 5, 2005 (70 FR 1023), and the interim
directives were published on March 23, 2005 (70 FR 14637).
[[Page 64101]]
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Mission: The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) mission is
to provide leadership in a partnership effort to help people conserve,
maintain, and improve our natural resources and environment.
Priorities: NRCS's priority for FY 2006 will be to make final
adjustments to a few of the rules related to the conservation
provisions of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (the
2002 Farm Bill), in response to public comments received and experience
gained from the implementation of the programs. NRCS believes that
these clarifications and modifications will ensure efficient and
responsive delivery of conservation programs to landowners and land
users and help further the agency mission to help people conserve,
maintain, and improve our natural resources and the environment.
NRCS remains committed to compliance with the Government Paperwork
Elimination Act and the Freedom to E-File Act, which require Government
agencies in general and NRCS in particular to provide the public the
option of submitting information or transacting business electronically
to the maximum extent possible. NRCS is designing its program forms to
allow the public to conduct business with NRCS electronically.
The NRCS plans to publish the following rules during FY 2006:
1. Final Rule for the Conservation Security Program (CSP)
2. Amendment to the Final Rule for the Environmental Quality Incentives
Program (EQIP)
The rulemakings for CSP and EQIP are minor changes to existing rules.
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS)
-----------
PROPOSED RULE STAGE
-----------
1. NATIONAL ORGANIC PROGRAM: HARVEY V. JOHANNS
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
7 USC 6501
CFR Citation:
7 CFR 205
Legal Deadline:
NPRM, Judicial, June 9, 2006.
Abstract:
The Agricultural Marketing Service is revising certain sections of the
National Organic Program regulations to comply with the final judgment
in the case of Harvey v. Johanns issued on June 9, 2005, by the United
States District Court, District of Maine. The proposed regulatory
action would: prohibit the use of the term ``organic'' on products
containing a minimum of 95 percent organic ingredients when such
products also contain added synthetic ingredients unless such
synthetics are otherwise authorized by statute or regulation, and
prohibit anything less than 100 percent organic feed for organic dairy
animals during conversion. The rulemaking must be completed by June 6,
2006.
Statement of Need:
This regulatory action is needed to comply with a Consent Final
Judgment and Order issued June 9, 2005, in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Maine, in the case of Harvey v. Johanns (Civil No. 02-
216-P-H). This regulatory action must be completed within one year of
the court order (June 9, 2006).
Summary of Legal Basis:
This regulatory action is required as part of the Consent Final
Judgment and Order issued June 9, 2005, in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Maine, in the case of Harvey v. Johanns (Civil No. 02-
216-P-H).
Alternatives:
There are no alternatives to this regulatory action as alternatives are
precluded by the language of the court order and by the language of the
Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA). The court has held that the OFPA
prohibits the use of the term ``organic'' on products containing a
minimum of 95 percent organic ingredients when such products also
contain added synthetic ingredients unless such synthetics are
otherwise authorized by statute or regulation; use of the USDA seal on
such ``organic'' products is precluded. The court order also prohibits
anything less than 100 percent organic feed for organic dairy animals
during conversion.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
The agency's analysis of anticipated costs and benefits of the
regulatory action is in the very early stages. The agency currently
assumes zero benefits to the regulatory action.
The agency's early analysis indicates the costs of this regulatory
action with respect to the dairy sector could exceed $4.1 million
annually. Preliminary analysis of the costs of this regulatory action
with respect to the processed products in on-going due to the
complexity of the sector and associated product lines. Our analysis of
this sector is based on an assumption that up to 90 percent of the
multi-ingredient organic products will have to be relabeled as ``made
with organic'' products. Sales revenue for such relabeled products may
be affected by the court's prohibition of the use of the USDA seal.
Therefore, the agency will also analyze the costs of manufacturer's
investment in and goodwill associated with the USDA seal on products
sold, labeled or represented as ``organic''.
Risks:
AMS has not identified any risks at this time.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 12/00/05
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Yes
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses
Government Levels Affected:
State
Agency Contact:
Mark A. Bradley
Associate Deputy Administrator, National Organic Program
Department of Agriculture
Agricultural Marketing Service
Room 4008, South Building
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250
Phone: 202 720-3252
Fax: 202 205-7808
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0581-AC54
[[Page 64102]]
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--AMS
-----------
FINAL RULE STAGE
-----------
2. MANDATORY COUNTRY OF ORIGIN LABELING OF BEEF, PORK, LAMB, FISH,
PERISHABLE AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES, AND PEANUTS (LS-03-04)
Priority:
Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.
Legal Authority:
7 USC 1621 through 1627, Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946
CFR Citation:
7 CFR 60
Legal Deadline:
Final, Statutory, September 30, 2006.
Abstract:
The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (Farm Bill) (Pub. L.
107-171) and the 2002 Supplemental Appropriations Act (2002
Appropriations) (Pub. L. 107-206) amended the Agricultural Marketing
Act of 1946 (Act) (7 U.S.C. 1621 et seq.) to require retailers to
notify their customers of the country of origin of covered commodities
beginning September 30, 2004. Covered commodities include muscle cuts
of beef (including veal), lamb, and pork; ground beef, ground lamb, and
ground pork; farm-raised fish and shellfish; wild fish and shellfish;
perishable agricultural commodities; and peanuts. The FY 2004
Consolidated Appropriations bill (2004 Appropriations) (Pub. L. 108-
199) delayed the implementation of mandatory COOL for all covered
commodities except wild and farm-raised fish and shellfish until
September 30, 2006.
Statement of Need:
Under current Federal laws and regulations, country of origin labeling
is not universally required for the covered commodities. In particular,
labeling of U.S. origin is not mandatory, and labeling of imported
products at the consumer level is required only in certain
circumstances. This intent of the law is to provide consumers with
additional information on which to base their purchasing decisions.
Summary of Legal Basis:
Section 10816 of Public Law 107-171 amended the Agricultural Marketing
Act of 1946 to require retailers to inform consumers of the country of
origin for covered commodities beginning September 30, 2004. The 2004
Appropriations delayed the implementation of mandatory COOL for all
covered commodities except wild and farm-raised fish and shellfish
until September 30, 2006.
Alternatives:
The October 30, 2004, proposed rule specifically invited comment on
several alternatives including alternative definitions for ``processed
food item,'' alternative labeling of mixed origin, and alternatives to
using ``slaughtered'' on the label. In addition, the October 5, 2004,
interim final rule contained an impact analysis which included an
analysis of alternative approaches. The interim final rule also invited
comment on several key issues including the definition of a processed
food item.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
USDA has examined the economic impact of the rule as required by
Executive Order 12866. The estimated benefits associated with this rule
are likely to be small. The estimated 1st-year incremental cost for
directly affected firms are estimated at $89 million for fish and
shellfish only. The estimated cost to the U.S. economy in terms of
reduced purchasing power resulting from a loss in productivity after a
10-year period of adjustment are estimated at $6.2 million. A final
cost benefit assessment for the other covered commodities will be
completed in the final rule.
Risks:
AMS has not identified any risks at this time.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 10/30/03 68 FR 61944
NPRM Comment Period End 12/29/03
Interim Final Rule 10/05/04 69 FR 59708
Interim Final Rule
Comment Period End 01/03/05
Interim Final Rule
Effective 04/04/05
Final Action 09/00/06
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Yes
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses
Government Levels Affected:
State
Federalism:
This action may have federalism implications as defined in EO 13132.
Additional Information:
The U.S. Department of Agriculture issued an interim final rule with
request for comments for the labeling of fish and shellfish covered
commodities that will become effective on April 4, 2005. A final
regulatory action for all covered commodities will be issued by
September 30, 2006.
Agency Contact:
Erin Morris
Department of Agriculture
Agricultural Marketing Service
Poultry Program
14th & Independence Avenue, S.W.
Washington, DC 20250
Phone: 202 720-1749
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0581-AC26
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--AMS
3. CALIFORNIA CLINGSTONE PEACH DIVERSION PROGRAM (TREE PULL), FV05-82-
01
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
7 USC 612c
CFR Citation:
7 CFR 82
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
The Agricultural Marketing Service is proposing regulations to specify
procedures for a voluntary program that offers a $100 per-acre payment
to growers who remove a portion of their clingstone peach trees from
production. Funds to remove the trees would come from both USDA and the
industry, with the program implemented by the California Canning Peach
Association. The Association is a grower-owned marketing and bargaining
cooperative representing nearly 600 growers who produce 80 percent of
the clingstone peaches grown in California. The program would ensure
that removal is not part of a normal process of tree replacement. Also,
the growers must guarantee that they have not made prior arrangements
to sell the land or remove the trees for commercial purposes.
[[Page 64103]]
Statement of Need:
The program is designed to bring long-term clingstone peach supplies
more in line with canned-market demands.
Summary of Legal Basis:
The program would be implemented under clause (3) of Section 32 of the
Act of August 24, 1935, as amended, which allows the Secretary of
Agriculture to use Section 32 funds to reestablish the purchasing power
of U.S. farmers by making payments in connection with the normal
production of any agricultural commodity for domestic consumption.
Alternatives:
The alternative of not establishing a tree removal program was also
considered, however, under a tree removal program, supplies can be
quickly aligned with demand.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
The major direct cost of the program would be the payment to growers
for removing their clingstone peach trees. A total of $5 million, less
the costs associated with local administration of the program, would be
made available by USDA for the tree removal program. Administrative
costs for reviewing applications and verifying tree removals are
expected to be about $125,000. Total grower costs associated with the
completion of diversion program applications, payment requests, and
record maintenance for the period specified after tree removal are
expected to be about $530. Payments made through this program could
help California clingstone peach growers by addressing the over-supply
problem that is adversely affecting their industry. The implementation
of a tree removal program could reduce available supply more quickly
than if the industry relied on market forces alone. While market forces
could also result in supplies being reduced, such an adjustment may
occur more slowly, with resultant economic hardships for growers and
processors. In addition, a tree removal program could be beneficial in
reducing the risk of loan default for lenders that financed clingstone
peach growers. This program could also help small, under-capitalized
growers stay in business.
Risks:
None.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 08/03/05 70 FR 44525
NPRM Comment Period End 09/02/05
Final Action 10/00/05
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Yes
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses
Government Levels Affected:
None
Agency Contact:
Michael V. Durando
Chief, Marketing Order Administration Branch
Department of Agriculture
Agricultural Marketing Service
1400 Independence Avenue SW
STOP 0237
Washington, DC 20250-0237
Phone: 202 720-2491
Fax: 202 720-8938
RIN: 0581-AC45
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)
-----------
PROPOSED RULE STAGE
-----------
4. TUBERCULOSIS IN CATTLE; IMPORT REQUIREMENTS (SECTION 610 REVIEW)
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
7 USC 8301 to 8317
CFR Citation:
9 CFR 93
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
This rulemaking would amend the regulations regarding the importation
of animals into the United States to establish several levels of risk
classifications to be applied to foreign regions with regard to
tuberculosis, and to establish requirements governing the importation
of cattle based on each risk classification. These changes are
necessary to help ensure that cattle infected with tuberculosis are not
imported into the United States.
Statement of Need:
Bovine tuberculosis (tuberculosis) is a contagious, infectious, and
communicable disease caused by Mycobacterium bovis. It affects cattle,
bison, deer, elk, goats, and other warm-blooded species, including
humans. Tuberculosis in infected animals and humans manifests itself in
lesions of the lung, bone, and other body parts, causes weight loss and
general debilitation, and can be fatal. At the beginning of the past
century, tuberculosis caused more losses of livestock than all other
livestock diseases combined. This prompted the establishment in the
United States of the National Cooperative State/Federal Bovine
Tuberculosis Eradication Program for tuberculosis in livestock. To
protect against the spread of tuberculosis within the United States and
aid in our domestic tuberculosis eradication effort, APHIS administers
interstate movement regulations, which are contained in 9 CFR part 77.
For the domestic eradication program to be successful, APHIS must also
take measures to ensure that cattle imported into the United States are
free of tuberculosis. The regulations governing the importation of
cattle into the United States are contained in 9 CFR part 93.
Currently, the import regulations related to tuberculosis in cattle are
the same for cattle from all foreign regions, with some exceptions for
cattle imported from Mexico and Canada. Our domestic regulations,
however, are based on the tuberculosis risk classification of States,
or zones within States, and interstate movement requirements for cattle
are based on the risk classification of the State or zone from which
the cattle are moved. As our domestic eradication program has
progressed, our criteria for State and zone classifications and
corresponding interstate movement requirements have become more
stringent. The import regulations need to be amended to be consistent
with our domestic regulations and provide an equivalent level of
protection.
Summary of Legal Basis:
The Animal Health Protection Act authorizes the Secretary of
Agriculture to prohibit or restrict the importation, entry, and
interstate movement of any article when necessary to prevent the
introduction into or dissemination within the United States of any pest
or disease of livestock.
Alternatives:
One alternative would be to maintain consistent import restrictions
regardless of the region of origin of cattle. This alternative was
rejected because it
[[Page 64104]]
would not recognize levels of risk in foreign regions and because our
import regulations would be inconsistent with our domestic regulations.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
This rulemaking could reduce the number of tuberculosis tests required
for some cattle imported into the United States from Mexico.
Specifically, feeder cattle from areas of Mexico that qualify for
advanced tuberculosis status might require one or no test instead of
two tests. A decrease in testing requirements would result in some cost
savings to exporters. Those savings could be passed on to feeder cattle
buyers in the United States. This could result in an increase in the
number of feeder cattle imported from Mexico, resulting in some losses
for U.S. sellers of feeder cattle (cow-calf operations). Feeder cattle
buyers and sellers in the border States of Arizona, California, New
Mexico, and Texas would be most likely to be affected. These losses and
gains are not expected to be significant, however.
Risks:
This action would base tuberculosis-related import requirements for
cattle on the tuberculosis-risk of the region of origin. It is also
expected to encourage control and eradication efforts in Mexico, which
would reduce the tuberculosis risk presented by cattle imported from
that country.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 03/00/06
NPRM Comment Period End 05/00/06
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Undetermined
Government Levels Affected:
Undetermined
Additional Information:
APHIS documents published in the Federal Register and related
information are available on the Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/
ppd/rad/webrepor.html.
Agency Contact:
Dr. Kelly Rhodes
Senior Staff Veterinarian, Regionalization Evaluation Services Staff,
NCIE, VS
Department of Agriculture
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
4700 River Road Unit 38
Riverdale, MD 20737-1231
Phone: 301 734-4356
RIN: 0579-AB44
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--APHIS
5. ANIMAL WELFARE; REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS FOR BIRDS, RATS, AND MICE
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
7 USC 2131 to 2159
CFR Citation:
9 CFR 3
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
APHIS intends to establish standards for the humane handling, care,
treatment, and transportation of birds other than birds bred for use in
research and is considering establishing specific standards for rats
and mice, other than rats of the genus Rattus and mice of the genus Mus
bred for use in research.
Statement of Need:
The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 amended the
definition of animal in the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) by specifically
excluding birds, rats of the genus Rattus, and mice of the genus Mus,
bred for use in research. While the definition of animal in the
regulations contained in 9 CFR part 1 has excluded rats of the genus
Rattus and mice of the genus Mus bred for use in research, that
definition has also excluded all birds (i.e., not just those birds bred
for use in research). In line with this change to the definition of
animal in the AWA, APHIS intends to establish standards in 9 CFR part 3
for the humane handling, care, treatment, and transportation of birds
other than those birds bred for use in research. Currently, the general
standards in 9 CFR part 3, subpart F, apply to covered rats and mice.
APHIS is also considering adopting specific standards for those
animals.
Summary of Legal Basis:
The Animal Welfare Act (AWA) authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to
promulgate standards and other requirements governing the humane
handling, care, treatment, and transportation of certain animals by
dealers, research facilities, exhibitors, operators of auction sales,
and carriers and immediate handlers. Animals covered by the AWA include
birds, rats of the genus Rattus, and mice of the genus Mus that are not
bred for use in research.
Alternatives:
To be identified.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
To be determined.
Risks:
Not applicable.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM 06/04/04 69 FR 31537
ANPRM Comment Period End 08/03/04
ANPRM Comment Period
Extended 07/21/04 69 FR 43538
ANPRM Comment Period End 11/01/04
NPRM 09/00/06
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Undetermined
Government Levels Affected:
Undetermined
Additional Information:
APHIS documents published in the Federal Register and related
information are available on the Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/
ppd/rad/webrepor.html.
Agency Contact:
Jerry DePoyster
Senior Veterinary Medical Officer, Animal Care
Department of Agriculture
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Unit 84
4700 River Road
Riverdale, MD 20737-1234
Phone: 301 734-7586
Related RIN: Related to 0579-AB87
RIN: 0579-AB69
[[Page 64105]]
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--APHIS
6. REVISION OF FRUITS AND VEGETABLES IMPORT REGULATIONS
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
7 USC 450; 7 USC 7701 to 7772; 7 USC 8311; 21 USC 136 and 136a; 31 USC
9701
CFR Citation:
7 CFR 305; 7 CFR 319; 7 CFR 352
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
This rule would revise and reorganize the regulations pertaining to the
importation of fruits and vegetables to consolidate requirements of
general applicability and eliminate redundant requirements, update
terms and remove outdated requirements and references, update the
regulations that apply to importations into territories under U.S.
administration, and make various editorial and nonsubstantive changes
to regulations to make them easier to use. The rule would also make
substantive changes to the regulations, including: (1) Establishing
criteria within the regulations that, if met, would allow us to approve
certain new fruits and vegetables for importation into the United
States and to acknowledge pest-free areas in foreign countries without
undertaking rulemaking; (2) doing away with the practice of listing
specific commodities that may be imported subject to certain types of
phytosanitary measures; and (3) providing for the issuance of special
use permits for fruits and vegetables. These changes are intended to
simplify and expedite our processes for approving certain new imports
and pest-free areas while continuing to allow for public participation
in the processes. If adopted, the rule would represent a significant
structural revision of the fruits and vegetables import regulations and
would establish a new process for approving certain new commodities for
importation into the United States. It would not, however, allow the
importation of any specific new fruits or vegetables, nor would it
alter the conditions for importing currently approved fruits or
vegetables except as specifically described in this document.
Statement of Need:
The volume of requests for new imports of fruits and vegetables has
risen sharply in recent years with expanding global trade. APHIS is
seeking an alternative process for certain new imports to expedite
their evaluation and, where applicable, their approval.
Summary of Legal Basis:
Under the Plant Protection Act of 2000, it is the responsibility of the
Secretary to facilitate . . . imports . . . in agricultural products
and other commodities that pose a risk of harboring plant pests or
noxious weeds in ways that will reduce, to the extent practicable, as
determined by the Secretary, the risk of dissemination of plant pests
or noxious weeds. This proposed rule, if adopted, would expedite the
process for approving certain new imports.
Alternatives:
We considered making no changes to the existing fruit and vegetable
import approval process, but the existing process can take upwards of 3
years to complete, and simply is not as responsive enough in this era
of increased global trade. We also considered designing a new expedited
approval process which would apply to all imports, regardless of the
type or extent of risk mitigation measures required. We determined that
it would be better to gauge domestic support for a limited system prior
to expanding its use to fruits and vegetables that may require
complicated risk mitigation strategies that are derived from complex
risk analyses--often for fruit and vegetable imports that may be
opposed by domestic stakeholders due to economic issues.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
There would be no new costs associated with this rule. Benefits could
include more timely action on import requests, which could also lead to
reciprocal action by trading partners as they evaluate our export
requests.
Risks:
This action is administrative in nature and poses no direct specific
risks. If new import requests are evaluated using the system proposed
in this rule, each would be based on a unique risk analysis.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 02/00/06
NPRM Comment Period End 04/00/06
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Undetermined
Government Levels Affected:
None
Additional Information:
APHIS documents published in the Federal Register and related
information are available on the Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/
ppd/rad/webrepor.html.
Agency Contact:
Karen Bedigian
Import Specialist, PIM, PPQ
Department of Agriculture
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
4700 River Road
Unit 140
Riverdale, MD 20737-1236
Phone: 301 734-4382
RIN: 0579-AB80
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--APHIS
7. REVISION OF THE NURSERY STOCK REGULATIONS (SECTION 610 REVIEW)
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
7 USC 450; 7 USC 7701 to 7772; 21 USC 136 and 136a
CFR Citation:
7 CFR 319
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
APHIS intends to amend its regulations that govern the importation of
nursery stock, also known as plants for planting. Under the current
regulations, all plants for planting are allowed to enter the United
States if they are accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate and if
they are inspected and found to be free of plant pests, unless their
importation is specifically prohibited or further restricted by the
regulations. We are considering several possible changes to this
approach, including establishing a category in the regulations for
plants for planting that would be excluded from importation pending
risk evaluation and approval; developing ongoing programs to reduce the
risk of entry and establishment of quarantine pests via imported plants
for planting; combining existing regulations governing the importation
of plants for planting into one subpart; and reevaluating the risks
posed by
[[Page 64106]]
importation of plants for planting whose importation is currently
prohibited.
Statement of Need:
APHIS typically relies on inspection at a Federal plant inspection
station or port of entry to mitigate the risks of pest introduction
associated with the importation of plants for planting. Importation of
plants for planting is further restricted or prohibited only if there
is specific evidence that such importation could introduce a quarantine
pest into the United States. Most of the taxa of plants for planting
currently being imported have not been thoroughly studied to determine
whether their importation presents a risk of introducing a quarantine
pest into the United States. The volume and the number of types of
plants for planting have increased dramatically in recent years, and
there are several problems associated with gathering data on what
plants for planting are being imported and on the risks such
importation presents. In addition, quarantine pests that enter the
United States via the importation of plants for planting pose a
particularly high risk of becoming established within the United
States. The current regulations need to be amended to better address
these risks.
Summary of Legal Basis:
The Secretary of Agriculture may prohibit or restrict the importation
or entry of any plant if the Secretary determines that the prohibition
or restriction is necessary to prevent the introduction into the United
States of a plant pest or noxious weed (7 USC 7712).
Alternatives:
APHIS has identified two alternatives to the approach we are
considering. The first is to maintain the status quo; this alternative
was rejected because, given our limited resources and the risks of pest
introduction posed by the rapid increase in the importation of plants
for planting, we do not believe that this approach would allow us to
address the potential risks posed by quarantine pests in a timely
manner. The second is to prohibit the importation of all nursery stock
pending risk evaluation, approval, and notice-and-comment rulemaking,
similar to APHIS's approach to regulating imported fruits and
vegetables; this approach was rejected because, in the absence of
additional resources for conducting risk evaluation and rulemaking,
this approach would lead to a major interruption in international trade
and would have significant economic effects on both U.S. importers and
U.S. consumers of plants for planting.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
In general, the costs associated with plant pests that are introduced
into the United States via imported nursery stock are expected to
increase in the absence of some action to revise the nursery stock
regulations to better address pest risks. Specific costs and benefits
will be determined.
Risks:
In the absence of some action to revise the nursery stock regulations
to allow us to better address pest risks, increased introductions of
plant pests via imported nursery stock are likely, causing extensive
damage to both agricultural and natural plant resources.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM 12/10/04 69 FR 71736
ANPRM Comment Period End 03/10/05
Comment Period Extended 03/10/05 70 FR 11886
Comment Period End 04/11/05
Public Meeting and
Reopening of Comment
Period 05/02/05 70 FR 22612
Comment Period End 06/03/05
NPRM 09/00/06
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Undetermined
Government Levels Affected:
Undetermined
Additional Information:
APHIS documents published in the Federal Register and related
information are available on the Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/
ppd/rad/webrepor.html.
Agency Contact:
Arnold T. Tschanz
Senior Staff Officer, Permits, Registrations and Imports, PPQ
Department of Agriculture
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
4700 River Road Unit 133
Riverdale, MD 20737-1236
Phone: 301 734-5306
RIN: 0579-AB85
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--APHIS
8. IMPORTATION OF BONELESS BEEF FROM JAPAN
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
7 USC 8301 to 8317
CFR Citation:
9 CFR 94
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
This rulemaking would amend the regulations governing the importation
of meat and other edible animal products by allowing the importation of
whole muscle-cuts of boneless beef derived from cattle born, raised,
and slaughtered in Japan under conditions that would prevent the
introduction of bovine spongiform encephalopathy.
Statement of Need:
APHIS regulates the introduction of meat and edible products from
ruminants due to bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) under 9 CFR
part 94. In response to a request from the Government of Japan and
after analyzing the risk associated with the importation of whole
muscle-cuts of boneless beef derived from cattle born, raised, and
slaughtered in Japan, APHIS has determined that it is unnecessary to
continue to prohibit the importation this commodity from Japan,
provided that certain conditions are met.
Summary of Legal Basis:
The Animal Health Protection Act authorizes the Secretary of
Agriculture to prohibit or restrict the importation, entry, and
interstate movement of any article if necessary to prevent the
introduction into or dissemination within the United States of any pest
or disease of livestock, including BSE.
Alternatives:
APHIS could have continued to prohibit the importation of whole muscle-
cuts of boneless beef from Japan or to impose a more restrictive set of
import conditions. These alternatives were rejected because they are
not necessary in order to prevent the introduction of BSE into the
United States through boneless beef from Japan.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
Based on historic import levels and information from the Government of
[[Page 64107]]
Japan, APHIS expects this action to result in the importation from
Japan of approximately 10 metric tons of boneless beef per year, which
is a very small quantity when compared to U.S. boneless beef imports
generally. Further, we expect that the type of beef imported would be
Wagyu beef, which is a high-priced beef typically sold to a niche
market of consumers. This action is expected to have little economic
impact for most beef consumers and producers in the United States.
Risks:
This rulemaking sets import conditions that address the BSE-related
risks of importing a commodity into the United States from a region
where BSE is known to exist.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 08/18/05 70 FR 48494
NPRM Comment Period End 09/19/05
Next Action Undetermined
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Yes
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions
Government Levels Affected:
None
Additional Information:
APHIS documents published in the Federal Register and related
information, including the names of organizations and individuals who
have commented on APHIS dockets, are available on the Internet at
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppd/rad/webrepor.html.
Agency Contact:
Dr. Gary Colgrove
Director, National Center for Import and Export, VS
Department of Agriculture
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Unit 38
4700 River Road
Riverdale, MD 20737-1231
Phone: 301 734-4356
RIN: 0579-AB93
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--APHIS
-----------
FINAL RULE STAGE
-----------
9. IMPORTATION OF SMALL LOTS OF SEED WITHOUT PHYTOSANITARY CERTIFICATES
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
7 USC 450; 7 USC 7701 to 7772; 21 USC 136 and 136a
CFR Citation:
7 CFR 319
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
This rulemaking would amend the nursery stock regulations to allow the
importation of small lots of seed under an import permit with specific
conditions as an alternative to the current phytosanitary certificate
requirement. This proposed change is necessary because several entities
that import small lots of seed--individual importers, horticultural
societies, arboreta, and small businesses--have had difficulty
obtaining the necessary certificates and have been adversely affected
by the phytosanitary certificate requirement. The proposed change would
make it feasible for those entities to import small lots of seed and
would ensure prompt and consistent service for such importers while
continuing to protect against the introduction of plant pests into the
United States and providing the Animal and Plant Inspection Service
with necessary information about the quality, quantity, and diversity
of the imported material.
Statement of Need:
APHIS prohibits or restricts the importation of living plants, plant
parts, and seeds for propagation to prevent the introduction of plant
pests and noxious weeds into the United States. Recently, APHIS began
requiring a phytosanitary certificate of inspection for all imported
nursery stock, including small lots of seed. In response to requests
from several entities who have had difficulty obtaining a phytosanitary
certificate for small lots of seed or found the costs to be too high,
APHIS is amending the regulations to allow small lots of seed to be
imported under an import permit, with specific conditions, instead of
with a phytosanitary certificate. APHIS has determined that this
alternative for small lots of seed will provide an equivalent level of
phytosanitary protection.
Summary of Legal Basis:
The Plant Protection Act (7 USC 7701 to 7773) authorizes the Secretary
to prohibit or restrict the importation of any plant, plant product, or
other article if the Secretary determines that the prohibition or
restriction is necessary to prevent the introduction of a plant pest
into the United States.
Alternatives:
APHIS could have continued requiring that imported seeds be inspected
and be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate. However, in the
countries that do offer inspection and certification services for small
lots of seed, the costs of these services has been prohibitive for the
seed importers. As a result, seed importers have either been unable to
obtain the necessary phytosanitary certificates for small lots of seed
or have had to pay fees that greatly exceeded the value of the seeds
themselves. We rejected this alternative because maintaining the status
quo would not be an economically feasible option for importers of small
lots of seed, and because our preferred action imposes only those
restrictions on the importation of small lots of seed that are
necessary to prevent the introduction of plant pests into the United
States.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
The changes will result in a slight cost increase for the Federal
Government since import permits and the port of entry inspection
activities are currently provided without a fee. If the changes result
in increased importation of small lots of seed, there could also be a
slight increase in the workload for processing the permits, but, since
imports of small lots of seed are a very small fraction of the total
domestic supply of seeds, no significant change in supply or price is
expected.
However, as a result of these changes, seed importers will be able to
more widely acquire new kinds of seeds to expand plant diversity,
private gardeners will benefit from an increased availability of
special seeds, the entry of imported seeds through plant inspection
stations will provide APHIS with a more accurate picture of seed import
activity, and we expect that the risk of the introduction or
dissemination of plant diseases due to illegal importation will be
reduced.
[[Page 64108]]
Risks:
This rulemaking sets import conditions that address the risks
associated with importing small lots of seed into the United States.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 04/29/04 69 FR 23451
NPRM Comment Period End 06/28/04
Final Rule 12/00/05
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Government Levels Affected:
None
Additional Information:
APHIS documents published in the Federal Register and related
information are available on the Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/
ppd/rad/webrepor.html.
Agency Contact:
Arnold T. Tschanz
Senior Staff Officer, Permits, Registrations and Imports, PPQ
Department of Agriculture
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
4700 River Road Unit 133
Riverdale, MD 20737-1236
Phone: 301 734-5306
RIN: 0579-AB78
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--APHIS
10. PHYTOPHTHORA RAMORUM; QUARANTINE AND REGULATIONS
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
7 USC 7701 to 7772
CFR Citation:
7 CFR 301
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
This action will amend the Phytophthora ramorum regulations to make the
regulations consistent with a Federal Order issued by APHIS in December
2004 and that established restrictions on the interstate movement of
nursery stock from nurseries in nonquarantined counties in California,
Oregon, and Washington. This action will also update conditions for the
movement of regulated articles of nursery stock from quarantined areas,
as well as restrict the interstate movement of all other nursery stock
from nurseries in quarantined areas. We are also updating the list of
plants regulated because of P. ramorum and the list of areas that are
quarantined for P. ramorum and making other miscellaneous revisions to
the regulations. These actions are necessary to prevent the spread of
P. ramorum to noninfested areas of the United States. We will continue
to update the regulations through additional rulemakings as new
scientific information on this pathogen becomes available.
Statement of Need:
Since 1995, oaks and tanoaks have been dying in the coastal counties of
California. Since then, other types of plants have been found to be
infected or associated with this disease, referred to as Sudden Oak
Death (SOD), ramorum leaf blight, ramorum dieback, or in Federal
regulations, as Phytophthora ramorum. P. ramorum was first seen in 1995
in Mill Valley (Marin County) on tanoak. Since that time, the disease
has been confirmed on various native hosts in 14 coastal California
counties (Marin, Santa Cruz, Sonoma, Napa, San Mateo, Monterey, Santa
Clara, Mendocino, Solano, Alameda, Contra Costa, Humboldt, Lake, and
San Francisco) and in Curry County, Oregon. The pathogen has been
confirmed to infect 39 host plant taxa, and there are over 30
additional taxa that are suspected to be hosts. In 2004, the pathogen
was detected in plants shipped interstate from nonquarantined areas in
California, Oregon, and Washington. Given the uncertainty associated
with the spread of the pathogen and its potential effects on eastern
oak forests, APHIS is taking action to define the extent of the
pathogen's distribution in the United States and limit its artificial
spread beyond infected areas through quarantine and a public education
program. Completing this action is integral to having a scientifically
sound quarantine as the foundation of our program.
Summary of Legal Basis:
The Plant Protection Act (7 USC 7701 to 7773) authorizes the Secretary
to prohibit or restrict the movement in interstate commerce of any
plant, plant product, or other article if the Secretary determines that
the prohibition or restriction is necessary to prevent the
dissemination of a plant pest within the United States.
Alternatives:
The two most significant alternatives APHIS considered were to (1)
eliminate the Federal quarantine for P. ramorum because of the
likelihood that the pathogen has already spread to other parts of the
United States via interstate trade in articles that may be infested,
and (2) quarantine the entire states of California, Oregon, and
Washington and prohibit the interstate movement of P. ramorum host
articles to protect against the interstate spread of the pathogen. We
rejected the first alternative because of insufficient evidence about
the presence of the pathogen in eastern U.S. nurseries or forests. The
lack of evidence of spread despite the significant amount of trade in
potentially infected material that has already occurred is the reason
we did not select the second alternative. Our preferred action balances
the need to protect eastern forests and nurseries with the goal of
imposing only those restrictions on trade that are necessary to prevent
the spread of the pathogen.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
The anticipated costs of this rulemaking mirror those of the Federal
Order of 2004. Specifically, nurseries in regulated and quarantined
areas will have to meet certain criteria prior to engaging in the
interstate trade of nursery stock. Depending on the location of the
nursery, the classification of nursery stock propagated within, and on
the classification of articles to be shipped, the nursery will have to
undergo annual inspection; and/or inspection, sampling, and testing of
individual shipments in order to receive certification for interstate
shipment. Currently, USDA covers the costs of annual inspection during
normal business hours; however, as with all government subsidized
programs, the budget allowable may differ from year to year. There are
other intangible costs of rulemaking, such as the potential for lost
revenue while holding plants during sampling and testing. Further,
there has been some negative stigma associated with nursery stock from
regulated areas of Oregon and Washington state as a result of the P.
ramorum rulemaking and restrictions on interstate movement, although it
is hard to quantify the effect of any perceived stigma.
Because knowledge of the P. ramorum pathogen and how it spreads is
still in its infancy, the benefits of proactively
[[Page 64109]]
addressing the situation in hopes of preventing widespread infestation
far outweigh any costs associated with the rulemaking. The total value
of sales of nursery stock reported in 2004 from operations with
$100,000 or more in sales in the United States was over $4.8 billion.
California, Oregon, and Washington alone account for about 25 percent
of that total, with sales of over $1.2 billion. With new hosts being
consistently added to the list, and our knowledge of the pathogen's
pathways increasing, this rulemaking is necessary, not only for
protecting the nursery industry in the pacific northwest, but also for
protecting the nursery industry nationwide.
Risks:
This rulemaking addresses risks associated with the interstate movement
of articles that may spread P. ramorum to areas of the United States
where the disease is not known to exist.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
Interim Final Rule 12/00/05
Interim Final Rule
Comment Period End 02/00/06
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Undetermined
Government Levels Affected:
Local, State
Additional Information:
APHIS documents published in the Federal Register and related
information are available on the Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/
ppd/rad/webrepor.html.
Agency Contact:
Jonathan Jones
National Phytophthora Ramorum Program Manager, Pest Detection and
Management Programs, PPQ
Department of Agriculture
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
4700 River Road Unit 160
Riverdale, MD 20737
Phone: 301 734-8247
RIN: 0579-AB82
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--Food and Nutrition Service (FNS)
-----------
PROPOSED RULE STAGE
-----------
11. FSP: DISCRETIONARY QUALITY CONTROL PROVISIONS OF TITLE IV OF PUBLIC
LAW 107-171
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
7 USC 2011 to 2032; PL 107-171
CFR Citation:
7 CFR 271; 7 CFR 273; 7 CFR 275; 7 CFR 277
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
This proposed rule will implement several quality control changes to
the Food Stamp Act required by sections 4118 and 4119 of title IV of
the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-171).
The provisions in this rule affect the following areas: 1) The
elimination of enhanced funding; 2) revisions to the time frames for
completing individual case reviews; 3) extending the time frames in the
procedures for households that refuse to cooperate with QC reviews; 4)
procedures for adjusting liability determinations following appeal
decisions; 5) negative case reviews; and 6) conforming and technical
changes. (02-015)
Statement of Need:
The rule is needed to implement several food stamp quality control
provisions of Public Law 107-171 the Farm Security and Rural Investment
Act of 2002. Elimination of enhanced funding is required by the Act.
The Act also requires the Department to propose rules for adjusting
liability determinations following appeals decisions. The remaining
changes are either conforming changes resulting from the required
changes or policy changes already in effect but not updated in the
regulations.
Summary of Legal Basis:
The legal basis for this rule is Public Law 107-171 the Farm Security
and Rural Investment Act of 2002.
Alternatives:
This rule deals in part with changes required by title IV of Public Law
107-171 the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002. The
Department has no discretion in eliminating enhanced funding for fiscal
years 2003 and beyond. The provision addressing results of appeals is
required to be regulated by Public Law 107-171. The remaining changes
amend existing regulations and are required to make technical changes
resulting from these changes or to update policy consistent with
current requirements.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
The provisions of this rule are not anticipated to have any impact on
benefit levels. The provisions of this rule are anticipated to reduce
administrative costs.
Risks:
The FSP provides nutrition assistance to millions of Americans
nationwide. The quality control system measures the accuracy of States
providing food stamp benefits to the program recipients. This rule is
intended to implement some of the quality control provisions of title
IV of Public Law 107-171 the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of
2002. The provisions of this rule will eliminate enhanced funding for
low payment error rates. It will revise the system for determining
State agency liabilities and sanctions for high payment error rates
following appeal decisions.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 09/23/05
NPRM Comment Period Ends 12/22/05
Final Action 10/00/06
Final Action Effective 11/00/06
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Small Entities Affected:
No
Government Levels Affected:
Federal, Local, State
[[Page 64110]]
Agency Contact:
Sharon Ackerman
Agency Regulatory Officer
Department of Agriculture
Food and Nutrition Service
Room 918
3101 Park Center Drive
Alexandria, VA 22302
Phone: 703 305-2246
Fax: 703 605-0220
Email: [email protected]
Related RIN: Split from 0584-AD31
RIN: 0584-AD37
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FNS
12. SPECIAL NUTRITION PROGRAMS: FLUID MILK SUBSTITUTIONS
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
PL 108-265, sec 102
CFR Citation:
7 CFR 210; 7 CFR 220
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
Currently, by regulation, schools must make substitutions for fluid
milk for students with a disability when the request is authorized by a
licensed physician and may make substitutions for students with medical
or other dietary needs if requested by recognized medical authority.
These regulatory provisions were included in Public Law 108-265 which
amended the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act. Public Law
108-265 also amended the current law to allow schools to substitute
non-dairy beverages nutritionally equivalent (as established by the
Secretary) to fluid milk for medical or other special dietary needs at
the request of a parent/guardian. In response to Public Law 108-265,
the National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program
regulations will be revised to add these provisions.
(04-016)
Statement of Need:
The changes made to the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act
concerning substitutions for fluid milk are intended to assist children
with an intolerance to or a cultural or other restriction concerning
the consumption of milk. This regulation allows schools to make
substitutions at the request of a parent or guardian which assists
families that are unable to obtain a doctor's statement. However, the
Secretary must develop criteria to limit the substitutions for milk to
nutritionally equivalent beverages. The determination of nutritionally
equivalent beverages will require careful research and consultation.
Summary of Legal Basis:
These changes are being made in response to provisions in Public Law
108-265.
Alternatives:
USDA will be working with other Federal agencies to develop criteria
for nutritionally equivalent substitutes for fluid milk as well as
conducting research. USDA is issuing a proposed rule on this provision
in order to solicit public comments prior to any final decisionmaking.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
Schools may incur additional costs in obtaining and offering substitute
beverages. However, children who cannot consume milk will now have a
nutritionally equivalent beverage to milk.
Risks:
USDA must be diligent in making any determinations of nutritional
equivalency to milk.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 03/00/06
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Yes
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions
Government Levels Affected:
Local, State
Agency Contact:
Sharon Ackerman
Agency Regulatory Officer
Department of Agriculture
Food and Nutrition Service
Room 918
3101 Park Center Drive
Alexandria, VA 22302
Phone: 703 305-2246
Fax: 703 605-0220
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0584-AD58
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FNS
13. SPECIAL SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION PROGRAM FOR WOMEN, INFANTS
AND CHILDREN (WIC): REVISIONS IN THE WIC FOOD PACKAGES
Priority:
Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.
Legal Authority:
42 USC 1786
CFR Citation:
7 CFR part 246
Legal Deadline:
Final, Statutory, November 2006, CN and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004
requires issuance of final rule within 18 months of release of IOM
Report.
Abstract:
This proposed rule would revise regulations governing the WIC food
packages to change age specifications for assignment to infant feeding
packages; establish infant formula feeding or breastfeeding categories
for infants; revise the maximum monthly allowances and minimum
requirements for certain WIC foods; revise the substitution rates for
certain WIC foods and allow additional foods as alternatives; add
fruits and vegetables for WIC participants 6 months of age and older
and eliminate juice from infants food package; add whole grains to food
packages for children and women and baby food meat for fully breastfed
infants 6 through 11 months of age; revise the purpose, content, and
requirements for Food Package III; and address general provisions that
apply to all food packages. The revisions reflect recommendations made
by the Institute of Medicine in its report, WIC Food Packages: Time for
a Change, and certain other administrative revisions deemed necessary
by the Department. These revisions would bring the WIC food packages in
line with the 2005 Dietary Guidelines for Americans and current infant
feeding practice guidelines, better promote and support the
establishment of successful long-term breastfeeding, provide WIC
participants with a wider variety of food, provide WIC State agencies
with greater flexibility in prescribing food packages to accommodate
participants with cultural food preferences, and serve all participants
with certain medical provisions under one food package to facilitate
efficient management of medically fragile participants. (05-006)
[[Page 64111]]
Statement of Need:
The revisions proposed in this rulemaking reflect recommendations made
by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) in its report, WIC Food Packages:
Time for a Change, and certain administrative revisions deemed
necessary by the Department. The Child Nutrition and WIC
Reauthorization Act of 2004, enacted on June 30, 2004, requires the
Department to issue a final rule within 18 months (November 2006) of
receiving the IOM's report.
Summary of Legal Basis:
The Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004, enacted on
June 30, 2004, requires the Department to issue a final rule within 18
months of receiving the Institute of Medicine's report on revisions to
the WIC food packages. This report was published and released to the
public on April 27, 2005.
Alternatives:
FNS is in the process of developing a regulatory impact analysis that
will address a variety of alternatives that are considered in the
proposed rulemaking.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
The IOM was charged by FNS to develop recommendations that were cost-
neutral. The regulatory impact analysis will provide a more detailed
summary of specific costs/benefits associated with the proposed
revisions to the WIC Food Packages.
Risks:
The proposed rule has a 90-day comment period, during which interested
parties may submit comments on any and all provisions contained in the
rulemaking. Once the comment period has expired, all comments received
will be carefully considered in the development of the final rule.
Opportunities for training on and discussion of the revised WIC food
packages will be offered to State agencies and other entities as
necessary.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 01/00/06
NPRM Comment Period End 04/00/06
Interim Final Rule 11/00/06
Interim Final Rule
Effective 11/00/06
Interim Final Rule
Comment Period End 05/00/08
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses
Government Levels Affected:
Local, State, Tribal
Federalism:
Undetermined
URL For More Information:
www.fns.usda.gov/wic
URL For Public Comments:
www.fns.usda.gov/wic
Agency Contact:
Sharon Ackerman
Agency Regulatory Officer
Department of Agriculture
Food and Nutrition Service
Room 918
3101 Park Center Drive
Alexandria, VA 22302
Phone: 703 305-2246
Fax: 703 605-0220
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0584-AD77
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FNS
-----------
FINAL RULE STAGE
-----------
14. FSP: ELIGIBILITY AND CERTIFICATION PROVISIONS OF THE FARM SECURITY
AND RURAL INVESTMENT ACT OF 2002
Priority:
Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.
Legal Authority:
PL 107-171, secs 4101 to 4109, 4114, 4115, and 4401
CFR Citation:
7 CFR 273
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
This rulemaking will amend Food Stamp Program regulations to implement
11 provisions of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002
that establish new eligibility and certification requirements for the
receipt of food stamps. (02-007)
Statement of Need:
The rule is needed to implement the food stamp certification and
eligibility provisions of Public Law 107-171, the Farm Security and
Rural Investment Act of 2002.
Summary of Legal Basis:
The legal basis for this rule is Public Law 107-171, the Farm Security
and Rural Investment Act of 2002.
Alternatives:
This final rule deals with changes required by Public Law 107-171, the
Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002. The Department has
limited discretion in implementing provisions of that law. Most of the
provisions in this rule were effective October 1, 2002, and must be
implemented by State agencies prior to publication of this rule.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
The provisions of this rule simplify State administration of the Food
Stamp Program, increase eligibility for the program among certain
groups, increase access to the program among low-income families and
individuals, and increase benefit levels. The provisions of Public Law
107-171 implemented by this rule have a 5-year cost of approximately
$1.9 billion.
Risks:
The FSP provides nutrition assistance to millions of Americans
nationwide--working families, eligible non-citizens, and elderly and
disabled individuals. Many low-income families don't earn enough money
and many elderly and disabled individuals don't receive enough in
retirement or disability benefits to meet all of their expenses and
purchase healthy and nutritious meals. The FSP serves a vital role in
helping these families and individuals achieve and maintain self-
sufficiency and purchase a nutritious diet. This rule implements the
certification and eligibility provisions of Public Law 107-171, the
Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002. It simplifies State
administration of the Food Stamp Program, increases eligibility for the
program among certain groups, increases access to the program among
low-income families and individuals, and increases benefit levels. The
provisions of this rule increase benefits by approximately $1.95
billion over 5 years. When fully effective in FY 2006, the provisions
of this rule will add approximately 415,000 new participants.
[[Page 64112]]
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 04/16/04 69 FR 20724
NPRM Comment Period End 06/15/04
Final Action 12/00/05
Final Action Effective 02/00/06
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Small Entities Affected:
No
Government Levels Affected:
Federal, Local, State, Tribal
Agency Contact:
Sharon Ackerman
Agency Regulatory Officer
Department of Agriculture
Food and Nutrition Service
Room 918
3101 Park Center Drive
Alexandria, VA 22302
Phone: 703 305-2246
Fax: 703 605-0220
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0584-AD30
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FNS
15. FSP: NON-DISCRETIONARY QUALITY CONTROL PROVISIONS OF TITLE IV OF
PUBLIC LAW 107-171
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
7 USC 2011 to 2032; PL 107-171
CFR Citation:
7 CFR 273; 7 CFR 275
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
This final rule implements several quality control changes to the Food
Stamp Act required by sections 4118 and 4119 of title IV of the Farm
Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-171). The
provisions in this rule affect the following areas: 1) Timeframes for
completing quality control reviews; 2) timeframes for completing the
arbitration process; 3) timeframes for determining final error rates;
4) the threshold for potential sanctions and time period for sanctions;
5) the calculation of State error rates; 6) the formula for determining
States' liability amounts; 7) sanction notification and method of
payment; and 8) corrective action plans. (02-014)
Statement of Need:
The rule is needed to implement the food stamp quality control
provisions of Public Law 107-171, the Farm Security and Rural
Investment Act of 2002.
Summary of Legal Basis:
The legal basis for this rule is Public Law 107-171, the Farm Security
and Rural Investment Act of 2002.
Alternatives:
This interim rule deals with changes required by Public Law 107-171,
the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002. The Department has
no discretion in implementing these provisions of that law. The
provisions in this rule are effective for the fiscal year 2003 quality
control review period and must be implemented by FNS and State agencies
during fiscal year 2003.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
The provisions of this rule are not anticipated to have any impact on
benefit levels or administrative costs.
Risks:
The FSP provides nutrition assistance to millions of Americans
nationwide. The quality control system measures the accuracy of States
providing food stamp benefits to the program recipients. This rule is
intended to implement the quality control provisions of Public Law 107-
701, the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002. It will
significantly revise the system for determining State agency
liabilities and sanctions for high payment error rates.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
Interim Final Rule 10/16/03 68 FR 59519
Interim Final Rule
Effective 12/15/03
Interim Final Rule
Comment Period End 01/14/04
Final Action 10/00/06
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Government Levels Affected:
Federal, Local, State
Agency Contact:
Sharon Ackerman
Agency Regulatory Officer
Department of Agriculture
Food and Nutrition Service
Room 918
3101 Park Center Drive
Alexandria, VA 22302
Phone: 703 305-2246
Fax: 703 605-0220
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0584-AD31
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FNS
16. FSP: EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING PROGRAM PROVISIONS OF THE FARM
SECURITY AND RURAL INVESTMENT ACT OF 2002
Priority:
Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.
Legal Authority:
PL 107-171
CFR Citation:
7 CFR 273.7
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
This final rule implements revisions to the Food Stamp Employment and
Training (E&T) Program funding requirements. (02-009)
Statement of Need:
This rule is necessary to implement statutory revisions to E&T Program
funding provisions.
Summary of Legal Basis:
All provisions of this proposed rule are mandated by Public Law 107-
171.
Alternatives:
The alternative is not to revise current funding rules. This is not
practical. The current rules have been superseded by changes brought
about by Public Law 107-171. These changes were effective on May 13,
2002, the date of enactment of Public Law 107-171.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
None.
Risks:
None.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 03/19/04 69 FR 12981
NPRM Comment Period End 05/18/04
[[Page 64113]]
Final Action 12/00/05
Final Action Effective 02/00/06
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Small Entities Affected:
No
Government Levels Affected:
Federal, Local, State
Agency Contact:
Sharon Ackerman
Agency Regulatory Officer
Department of Agriculture
Food and Nutrition Service
Room 918
3101 Park Center Drive
Alexandria, VA 22302
Phone: 703 305-2246
Fax: 703 605-0220
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0584-AD32
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FNS
17. CATEGORICAL ELIGIBILITY AND DIRECT CERTIFICATION FOR FREE AND
REDUCED PRICE MEALS AND FREE MILK IN SCHOOLS
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
PL 108-265, sec 104
CFR Citation:
7 CFR 245
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
In response to Public Law 108-265, which amended the Richard B. Russell
National School Lunch Act, 7 CFR 245, Determining Eligibility for Free
and Reduced Price Meals and Free Milk in Schools, will be amended to
establish categorical (automatic) eligibility for free meals and free
milk upon documentation that a child is (1) homeless as defined by the
McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act; (2) a runaway served by grant
programs under the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act; or (3) migratory as
defined in Sec. 1309(2) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
The rule also requires phase-in of direct certification for children
who are members of households receiving food stamps and continues
discretionary direct certification for other categorically eligible
children. (04-018)
Statement of Need:
The changes made to the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act
concerning direct certification are intended to improve program access,
reduce paperwork, and improve the accuracy of the delivery of free meal
benefits. This regulation will implement the statutory changes and
provide State agencies and local educational agencies with the policies
and procedures to conduct mandatory and discretionary direct
certification.
Summary of Legal Basis:
These changes are being made in response to provisions in Public Law
108-265.
Alternatives:
FNS will be working closely with State agencies to implement the
changes made by this regulation and will be developing extensive
guidance materials in conjunction with our cooperators.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
This regulation will reduce paperwork, target benefits more precisely,
and will improve program access of eligible school children.
Risks:
This regulation may require adjustments to existing computer systems to
more readily share information between schools, food stamp offices, and
other agencies.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
Interim Final Rule 03/00/06
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Yes
Small Entities Affected:
Governmental Jurisdictions
Government Levels Affected:
Local, State
Agency Contact:
Sharon Ackerman
Agency Regulatory Officer
Department of Agriculture
Food and Nutrition Service
Room 918
3101 Park Center Drive
Alexandria, VA 22302
Phone: 703 305-2246
Fax: 703 605-0220
Email: [email protected]
Related RIN: Merged with 0584-AD62
RIN: 0584-AD60
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FNS
18. SPECIAL SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION PROGRAM FOR WOMEN, INFANTS, AND
CHILDREN (WIC): WIC VENDOR COST CONTAINMENT
Priority:
Other Significant. Major status under 5 USC 801 is undetermined.
Legal Authority:
42 U.S.C. 1786
CFR Citation:
7 CFR 246
Legal Deadline:
Final, Statutory, December 2005.
Abstract:
This interim final rule amends the WIC regulations to strengthen vendor
cost containment. The rule incorporates into program regulations new
legislative requirements that affect the selection, authorization, and
reimbursement of retail vendors. These requirements are contained in
the Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-265),
which was enacted on June 30, 2004. The rule reflects the statutory
provisions that require WIC State agencies to implement a vendor peer
group system, competitive price selection criteria, and allowable
reimbursement levels in a manner that ensures that the WIC Program pays
authorized vendors competitive prices for supplemental foods. It also
requires State agencies to ensure that vendors that derive more than 50
percent of their annual food sales revenue from WIC food instruments do
not result in higher food costs to the program than do other vendors.
The intent of these provisions is to maximize the number of women,
infants, and children served with available Federal funding. (04-029)
Statement of Need:
This action is needed to implement the vendor cost containment
provisions of
[[Page 64114]]
the Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004, Public Law
108-265. The rule requires WIC State agencies to operate vendor
management systems that effectively contain food costs by ensuring that
prices paid for supplemental foods are competitive. The rule also
responds to data which indicate that WIC food expenditures increasingly
include payments to a type of vendor whose prices are not governed by
the market forces that affect most retail grocers. As a result, the
prices charged by these vendors tend to be higher than those of other
retail grocery stores participating in the program. To ensure that the
program pays competitive prices, this rule codifies the new statutory
requirements for State agencies to use in evaluating vendor applicants'
prices during the vendor selection process and when paying vendors for
supplemental foods following authorization.
Summary of Legal Basis:
Section 203 of Public Law 108-265, Child Nutrition and WIC
Reauthorization Act of 2004.
Alternatives:
This rule implements the vendor peer group provisions of the Child
Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004, which FNS believes is an
effective means of controlling WIC food costs. While this Act mandates
that States establish peer groups, competitive price criteria, and
allowable reimbursement levels, and states that these requirements must
result in the outcome of paying above-50-percent vendors no more than
regular vendors, the rule does not specify particular criteria for peer
groups or acceptable methods of setting competitive price criteria and
allowable reimbursement levels. FNS considered mandating specific means
of developing peer groups, competitive price criteria, and allowable
reimbursement levels in order to ensure that the outcome of this
legislation was achieved.
However, given States' responsibility to manage WIC as a discretionary
grant program and the varying market conditions in each State, FNS
believes that States need flexibility to develop their own peer groups,
competitive price criteria, and allowable reimbursement levels. At the
October 2004 meeting the FNS convened to gain input for this rule,
States indicated that they needed the ability to design cost
containment practices that would be effective in their own markets and
would ensure participant access. In addition, there is little
information about the effectiveness of particular cost containment
practices in the variety of markets represented by the 89 WIC State
agencies. Mandating more specific means of developing peer groups,
competitive price criteria, and allowable reimbursement levels could
have unintended negative consequences for participant access, food
costs and administrative burden.
As States gain experience and the results of their vendor cost
containment practices become apparent, FNS may develop further
regulations and guidance to improve vendor cost containment. In the
interim, FNS believes that the current rule will substantially
accomplish the goal of the Act of containing food costs and ensuring
that above-50-percent vendors do not result in higher costs to the WIC
Program than regular vendors.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
Costs: This rule places new requirements on State agencies; therefore,
the cost implications of this rule relate primarily to administrative
burden for WIC State agencies. These cost implications are partially
dependent on the current practices of State agencies relative to the
requirements of the rule. Detailed information regarding the cost
implications of this rule is contained in the Regulatory Impact
Analysis developed by FNS to accompany this rulemaking.
Benefits: The WIC Program will benefit from the provisions of this rule
by reducing unnecessary food expenditures, thus increasing the
potential to serve more eligible women, infants, and children for the
same cost. This rule should have the effect of ensuring that payments
to vendors, particularly vendors that derive more than 50 percent of
their annual food sales revenue from WIC food instruments, reflect
competitive prices for WIC foods. The Regulatory Impact Analysis
prepared by FNS to accompany this rulemaking projects an estimated
monthly cost savings of over $6.25 million. (Details of this projection
can be found in the complete Regulatory Impact Analysis.)
Risks:
Because the vendor peer group provisions in the Child Nutrition and WIC
Reauthorization Act of 2004 and this rule provide for some flexibility
in implementation, and because there is a wide degree of variation in
food prices and current vendor cost containment practices across State
agencies, the impact of many of the provisions of this rule is
uncertain. Uncertainties include the administrative burden State
agencies will incur and the savings that can be realized nationally or
in any State agency. The major uncertainties for both administrative
burden and program savings are discussed in greater detail in the
Regulatory Impact Analysis.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
Interim Final Rule 11/00/05
Interim Final Rule
Comment Period End 11/00/06
Interim Final Rule
Effective 12/00/05
Final Action 02/00/07
Final Action Effective 03/00/07
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions
Government Levels Affected:
Federal, Local, State, Tribal
URL For More Information:
www.fns.usda.gov/wic
Agency Contact:
Sharon Ackerman
Agency Regulatory Officer
Department of Agriculture
Food and Nutrition Service
Room 918
3101 Park Center Drive
Alexandria, VA 22302
Phone: 703 305-2246
Fax: 703 605-0220
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0584-AD71
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)
-----------
PROPOSED RULE STAGE
-----------
19. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR PUMPED OR MASSAGED BACON
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
21 USC 601 et seq
CFR Citation:
9 CFR 424.22(b)
[[Page 64115]]
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
FSIS is proposing to revise the regulatory provisions concerning the
production and testing of pumped or massaged bacon (9 CFR 424.22(b)).
FSIS is proposing to remove provisions that prescribe the substances
and amounts of such substances that must be used to produce pumped or
massaged bacon. FSIS is proposing to replace these provisions with an
upper limit for nitrite and a performance standard that establishments
producing pumped or massaged bacon must meet. To meet the proposed
performance standard, the process used to produce pumped or massaged
bacon would be required to limit the presence of nitrosamines when the
product is cooked.
Statement of Need:
FSIS is proposing to replace restrictive provisions concerning the
processing of pumped or massaged bacon with an upper limit for nitrite
and a performance standard. The proposed performance standard concerns
limiting the presence of volatile nitrosamines in pumped or massaged
bacon. These proposed changes are necessary to make the regulations
concerning pumped or massaged bacon consistent with those governing
Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) systems.
Summary of Legal Basis:
Under the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 601 to 695), a meat or
meat food product is adulterated ``if it bears or contains any
poisonous or deleterious substance that may render it injurious to
health; but in case the substance is not an added substance, such
article shall not be considered adulterated under this clause if the
quantity of such substance in or on such article does not ordinarily
render it injurious to health'' (21 U.S.C. 601(m)(1)). Volatile
nitrosamines are deleterious because they are carcinogenic, and though
not added directly to pumped or massaged bacon, they may be produced
when the pumped or massaged bacon is fried. Processors can control the
levels of nitrosamines that may be present when the product is fried by
controlling the levels of ingoing nitrite and ingoing curing
accelerators that are used in the production of pumped or massaged
bacon. In 1978, USDA stated that nitrosamines present at confirmable
levels in pumped bacon after preparation for eating were deemed to
adulterate the product. FSIS still maintains that pumped bacon with
confirmable levels of nitrosamines after preparation for eating is
adulterated. Under this proposed rule, processors meeting the
performance standard would control the levels of nitrosamines in the
finished product by complying with a performance standard.
Alternatives:
No action; performance standards for all types of bacon (not just
pumped or massaged bacon, as proposed).
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
Because FSIS is proposing to convert existing regulations to a
performance standard and is not proposing any new requirements for
establishments producing pumped or massaged bacon, FSIS does not
anticipate that this proposed rule would result in any significant
costs or benefits. Pumped or massaged bacon processing establishments
whose HACCP plans do not currently address nitrosamines as hazards
reasonably likely to occur may incur some costs. Also, establishments
that choose to test their products for nitrosamines after this rule
becomes effective may incur some costs. Because this rule provides
establishments the flexibility to develop new procedures for producing
bacon, this rule may result in profits to processors who develop
cheaper means of producing product or who develop a pumped or massaged
bacon product with wide consumer appeal.
Risks:
None.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 09/00/06
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses
Government Levels Affected:
None
Agency Contact:
Dr. Daniel L. Engeljohn
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Policy, Program, and Employee
Development
Department of Agriculture
Food Safety and Inspection Service
Room 402 Cotton Annex Building
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250
Phone: 202 205-0495
Fax: 202 401-1760
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0583-AC49
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FSIS
20. EGG PRODUCTS INSPECTION REGULATIONS
Priority:
Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.
Unfunded Mandates:
Undetermined
Legal Authority:
21 USC 1031 to 1056
CFR Citation:
9 CFR 590.570; 9 CFR 590.575; 9 CFR 590.146; 9 CFR 590.10; 9 CFR
590.411; 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 and establishments that pasteurize shell eggs to
develop and implement Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points
(HACCP) systems and Sanitation Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs).
FSIS also is proposing pathogen reduction performance standards that
would be applicable to egg products and pasteurized shell eggs. Plants
would be expected to develop HACCP systems that ensure products meet
the pathogen reduction performance standards. Finally, FSIS is
proposing to amend the Federal 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. This proposal will not
encompass shell egg packers. In the near future, FSIS will initiate
non-regulatory outreach efforts
[[Page 64116]]
for shell egg packers that will provide information intended to help
them to safely process shell eggs intended for human consumption or
further processing.
The actions being proposed are part of FSIS' regulatory reform effort
to improve FSIS' 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 egg
products regulations as consistent as possible with the Agency's meat
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:
FSIS is proposing to require egg products plants and plants
pasteurizing shell eggs to develop and implement HACCP systems and
sanitation SOPs. FSIS also is proposing pathogen reduction performance
standards that would be applicable to pasteurized shell eggs and egg
products. Plants would be expected to develop HACCP systems that ensure
that these products meet the lethality required by the pathogen
reduction performance standards. In addition, FSIS is proposing to
amend the Federal egg products inspection regulations by removing
current requirements for approval by FSIS of egg product plant
drawings, specifications, and equipment prior to their use in official
plants. Finally, the Agency plans to eliminate the pre-marketing label
approval system for egg products but to require safe-handling labels on
all shell eggs.
The actions being proposed are part of FSIS' regulatory reform effort
to improve FSIS' 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 egg
products regulations as consistent as possible with the Agency's meat
and poultry products regulations. FSIS also is taking these actions in
light of changing inspection priorities and recent findings of
Salmonella in pasteurized egg products.
This proposal is directly related to FSIS' PR/HACCP initiative.
Summary of Legal Basis:
This proposed rule is authorized under the Egg Products Inspection Act
(21 U.S.C. 1031 to 1056). It is not the result of any specific mandate
by the Congress or a Federal court.
Alternatives:
A team of FSIS economists and food technologists is conducting a cost-
benefit analysis to evaluate the potential economic impacts of several
alternatives on the public, egg products industry, and FSIS. These
alternatives include: (1) Taking no regulatory action; (2) requiring
all inspected egg products plants to develop, adopt, and implement
written sanitation SOPs and HACCP plans; and (3) converting to a
lethality-based pathogen reduction performance standard many of the
current highly prescriptive egg products processing requirements. The
team will consider the effects of a uniform, across-the-board standard
for all egg products; a performance standard based on the relative risk
of different classes of egg products; and a performance standard based
on the relative risks to public health of different production
processes.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
FSIS is analyzing the potential costs of this proposed rulemaking to
industry, FSIS and other Federal agencies, State and local governments,
small entities, and foreign countries. The expected costs to industry
will depend on a number of factors. These costs include the required
lethality, or level of pathogen reduction, and the cost of HACCP plan
and sanitation SOP development, implementation, and associated employee
training. The pathogen reduction costs will depend on the amount of
reduction sought and in what classes of product, product formulations,
or processes.
Relative enforcement costs to FSIS and Food and Drug Administration may
change because the two agencies share responsibility for inspection and
oversight of the egg industry and a common farm-to-table approach for
shell egg and egg products food safety. Other Federal agencies and
local governments are not likely to be affected.
FSIS has cooperative agreements with four States and the Commonwealth
of Puerto Rico under which they provide inspection services to egg
processing plants under Federal jurisdiction. FSIS reimburses the
States for staffing costs and expenses for full-time State inspectors.
HACCP implementation may result in a reduction of staffing resource
requirements in the States and a corresponding reduction of the Federal
reimbursement. As a result, some States may decide to stop providing
inspection services and convert to Federal inspection of egg products
plants.
Egg and egg product inspection systems of foreign countries wishing to
export eggs and egg products to the U.S. must be equivalent to the U.S.
system. FSIS will consult with these countries, as needed, if and when
this proposal becomes effective.
This proposal is not likely to have a significant impact on small
entities. The entities that would be directly affected by this proposal
would be the approximately 75 federally inspected egg products plants,
most of which are small businesses, according to Small Business
Administration criteria. If necessary, FSIS will develop compliance
guides to assist these small firms in implementing the proposed
requirements.
Potential benefits associated with this rulemaking include:
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 from this rulemaking are likely to be small
because of the low level of (chiefly post-processing) contamination of
pasteurized egg products. In light of recent scientific studies that
raise questions about the efficacy of current regulations, however, it
is likely that measurable reductions will be achieved in the risk of
foodborne illness.
Risks:
FSIS believes that this regulatory action may result in a further
reduction in the risks associated with egg products. The development of
a lethality-based pathogen reduction performance standard for egg
products, replacing command-and-control regulations, will remove
unnecessary regulatory obstacles to, and provide incentives for,
innovation to improve the safety of egg products.
To assess the potential risk-reduction impacts of this rulemaking on
the public, an intra-Agency group of
[[Page 64117]]
scientific and technical experts is conducting a risk management
analysis. The group has been charged with identifying the lethality
requirement sufficient to ensure the safety of egg products and the
alternative methods for implementing the requirement. The egg products
processing and distribution module of the Salmonella enteritidis Risk
Assessment, made public June 12, 1998, will be appropriately modified
to evaluate the risk associated with the regulatory alternatives.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 09/00/06
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Yes
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses, Governmental Jurisdictions
Government Levels Affected:
Federal, State
Federalism:
Undetermined
Agency Contact:
Viki Levine
Program Analyst, Regulations and Petitions Policy Staff
Department of Agriculture
Food Safety and Inspection Service
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250
Phone: 202 720-5627
Fax: 202 690-0486
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0583-AC58
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FSIS
21. PERFORMANCE STANDARD FOR CHILLING OF READY-TO-COOK POULTRY
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
21 USC 451 to 470
CFR Citation:
9 CFR 381.66
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
FSIS is proposing a performance standard for the chilling of ready-to-
cook poultry products that is intended to ensure the control of
microorganisms on the products from a point after evisceration until
the products are frozen, further processed, or packaged for shipment
from the processing plant. The current specific time and temperature
requirements for chilling poultry carcasses of various weights would be
retained as alternative requirements that poultry processors could
choose to meet. FSIS is taking this action to provide poultry
processors with greater flexibility in achieving the purposes of the
poultry chilling requirements whilst complying with the Agency's Hazard
Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) and other regulations. This
proposal responds to petitions from industry trade associations.
Statement of Need:
This proposed rule addresses Federal regulations that are inconsistent
with the PR/HACCP regulations because they restrict the ability of
poultry processors to choose appropriate and effective measures to
eliminate, reduce, or control biological hazards identified in their
hazard analyses. The regulations also complicate efforts by
establishments to comply with the terms of the January 9, 2001, final
rule further restricting the amount of water that may be retained in
raw meat or poultry products after post-evisceration processing; some
establishments may have to use chilling procedures that result in
higher levels of retained water in carcasses than may be necessary to
achieve the same food safety objective. For example, establishments
that operate automated chillers may have to subject poultry carcasses
to higher agitation rates or longer dwell times in the chillers. Also,
as discussed above, the time/temperature chilling regulations for
poultry are inconsistent with the PR/HACCP regulations, the retained
water regulations, and the meat inspection regulations.
Summary of Legal Basis:
This regulatory action is authorized under the Poultry Products
Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 451 to 470).
Alternatives:
FSIS evaluated five regulatory alternatives: (1) Taking no regulatory
action; (2) replacing the command-and-control requirements with a
performance standard; (3) requiring meatpackers, as well as poultry
processors, to comply with such a performance standard; (4) requiring
all establishments that prepare raw meat or poultry products or handle,
transport, or receive the products in transportation to comply with a
performance standard; or (5) removing the command-and-control
requirements from the poultry products inspection regulations. The
Agency chose the second alternative but would make the existing
requirements a ``safe harbor.''
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
Poultry processors would gain the flexibility to choose the best
processing techniques and procedures for achieving production
efficiencies, meeting HACCP food safety objectives, and preventing
economic adulteration of raw product with retained water in amounts
greater than those which are unavoidable for food-safety purposes. They
would be able to operate with a wider range of chilling temperatures
consistent with the requirements of the PR/HACCP regulations. The
poultry products industry could achieve energy efficiencies resulting
in annual savings of as much as $2.8 million. The industry could also
reduce carcass ``dwell times'' in immersion chillers and thereby reduce
the amount of water absorbed and retained by the carcasses. The
reduction in dwell time might enable some establishments, particularly
those currently operating at the throughput capacity of their chillers,
to increase production by installing additional evisceration lines.
Poultry establishments would therefore be able to operate more
efficiently to provide consumers with product that is not adulterated.
FSIS also would gain some flexibility by being able to reallocate some
inspection resources from measuring the temperature of chilled birds to
such activities as HACCP system verification.
This proposed rule would directly impose no new costs on the regulated
industry. It would relieve burdens arising from the disparate impacts
of the current regulations on the meat and poultry industries.
Risks:
None
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 09/00/06
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses
Government Levels Affected:
None
[[Page 64118]]
Agency Contact:
Dr. Daniel L. Engeljohn
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Policy, Program, and Employee
Development
Department of Agriculture
Food Safety and Inspection Service
Room 402 Cotton Annex Building
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250
Phone: 202 205-0495
Fax: 202 401-1760
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0583-AC87
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FSIS
22. SHARING OF FIRMS' DISTRIBUTION LISTS OF RETAIL CONSIGNEES DURING
MEAT OR POULTRY PRODUCT RECALLS
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
5 USC 301, 552
CFR Citation:
9 CFR 390
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is proposing to amend the
federal meat and poultry products inspection regulations to provide
that the Agency will make available to the public lists of the retail
consignees of meat and poultry products that have been voluntarily
recalled by a federally inspected meat or poultry products
establishment. FSIS is proposing this action because it believes that
making this information available will be of significant value to
consumers and the industry. It will clarify what products should be
removed from commerce and from consumers' possession because there is
reason to believe they are adulterated or misbranded.
Statement of Need:
The objective to be accomplished by this regulatory action is to
provide important information to consumers while ensuring the
appropriate flexibility for FSIS to protect proprietary information.
While FSIS does not have mandatory recall authority under the Federal
Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) (21 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) or the Poultry
Products Inspection Act (PPIA) (21 U.S.C. 451 et seq.), the Agency, to
protect the public health, does ask establishments to voluntarily
recall adulterated or misbranded meat and poultry products. FSIS
verifies that such recalls are conducted expeditiously and effectively.
In 2002, FSIS promulgated regulations defining the circumstances and
criteria under which it would share customer lists with States and
other Federal agencies in connection with voluntary meat and poultry
product recalls. In short, FSIS will disclose product distribution
lists that have been obtained during voluntary recalls to States and
other Federal government agencies to verify the removal of the recalled
product, provided that the State or Federal agency has provided: (1) A
written statement establishing its authority to protect confidential
distribution lists from public disclosure and (2) a written commitment
not to disclose any information provided by FSIS without the written
permission of the submitter of the information or written confirmation
by FSIS that the information no longer has confidential status.
Currently, FSIS will not disclose distribution lists to the general
public or to States or other Federal government agencies that have not
provided to FSIS the written statement and commitment required by the
Agency's Freedom of Information and public information regulations.
Consumer activists and States have increasingly demanded the public
release of information on where recalled meat and poultry products have
been shipped. The States have requested this information be provided
without the limitations imposed by FSIS's regulations. Consumer groups
have claimed that the public needs this information to fully protect
itself. In response to these requests, FSIS is proposing to make
available to the public the names of likely retail consignees of
recalled meat and poultry products.
Summary of Legal Basis:
This proposed rule is authorized under 5 U.S.C. section 301,
Departmental regulations, and 5 U.S.C. section 552, Public information;
agency rules, opinions, orders, records, and proceedings. It is not the
result of any specific mandate by the Congress or a Federal court.
Alternatives:
FSIS is preparing a regulatory impact analysis to evaluate the
potential economic impacts of several alternatives on the public, the
meat and poultry industry, and FSIS. These alternatives include: (1)
Taking no regulatory action; (2) including local health departments as
entities that could receive recall distribution lists; (3) making
available to the general public, without any limitations, recall
distribution lists, including all levels of distributors; (4) requiring
recalling establishments to make their distribution lists available to
any member of the public who requests it; and (5) allowing the Agency
to make available to the general public the names of likely retail
consignees of recalled meat and poultry products.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
FSIS is analyzing the potential costs of this proposed rulemaking.
This proposed rule would provide information to consumers about meat
and poultry products sold at retail establishments that are believed to
be adulterated or misbranded and are therefore subject to being
recalled. The consumption of such products may cause food borne illness
and other adverse health consequences, including death. Providing
information of this sort that is more accessible and likely to be used
by the consumer will reduce the likelihood of food borne illnesses and
related consequences.
Risks:
FSIS believes that this regulatory action may result in a further
reduction in the risks associated with the consumption of meat and
poultry products.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 09/00/06
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Small Entities Affected:
No
Government Levels Affected:
Undetermined
Agency Contact:
Mr. Philip Derfler
Assistant Administrator, Office of Policy, Program, and Employee
Development
Department of Agriculture
Food Safety and Inspection Service
Room 350, Jamie L. Whitten Building
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250-3700
Phone: 202 720-2709
Fax: 202 720-2025
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0583-AD10
[[Page 64119]]
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FSIS
-----------
FINAL RULE STAGE
-----------
23. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR THE PRODUCTION OF PROCESSED MEAT AND
POULTRY PRODUCTS
Priority:
Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.
Legal Authority:
21 USC 451 et seq; 21 USC 601 et seq
CFR Citation:
9 CFR 301; 9 CFR 303; 9 CFR 317; 9 CFR 318; 9 CFR 319; 9 CFR 320; 9 CFR
325; 9 CFR 331; 9 CFR 381; 9 CFR 417; 9 CFR 430; 9 CFR 431
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
FSIS has proposed to establish pathogen reduction performance standards
for all ready-to-eat (RTE) and partially heat-treated meat and poultry
products. The performance standards spell out the objective level of
pathogen reduction that establishments must meet during their
operations in order to produce safe products but allow the use of
customized, plant-specific processing procedures other than those
prescribed in the earlier regulations. With HACCP, food safety
performance standards give establishments the incentive and flexibility
to adopt innovative, science-based food safety processing procedures
and controls, while providing objective, measurable standards that can
be verified by Agency inspectional oversight. This set of performance
standards will include and be consistent with standards already in
place for certain ready-to-eat meat and poultry products.
Statement of Need:
The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) has proposed to amend the
Federal meat and poultry inspection regulations by establishing food
safety performance standards for all ready-to-eat and all partially
heat-treated meat and poultry products. The proposed performance
standards set forth both levels of pathogen reduction and limits on
pathogen growth that official meat and poultry establishments must
achieve during their operations in order to produce unadulterated
products but allow the use of customized, plant-specific processing
procedures. The proposed performance standards apply to ready-to-eat
meat and poultry products, categorized as follows: Dried products
(e.g., beef or poultry jerky); salt-cured products (e.g., country ham);
fermented products (e.g., salami and Lebanon bologna); cooked and
otherwise processed products (e.g., beef and chicken burritos, corned
beef, pastrami, poultry rolls, and turkey franks); and thermally
processed, commercially sterile products (e.g., canned spaghetti with
meat balls and canned corned beef hash).
Although FSIS routinely samples and tests some ready-to-eat products
for the presence of pathogens prior to distribution, there are no
specific regulatory pathogen reduction requirements for most of these
products. The proposed performance standards will help ensure the
safety of these products; give establishments the incentive and
flexibility to adopt innovative, science-based food safety processing
procedures and controls; and provide objective, measurable standards
that can be verified by Agency oversight.
The proposal also contained provisions addressing Listeria
monocytogenes in RTE products. An Interim Final Rule on this subject
was published June 6, 2003 (68 FR 34208).
FSIS also has proposed to eliminate its regulations that require that
both ready-to-eat and not-ready-to-eat pork and products containing
pork be treated to destroy trichinae (Trichinella spiralis). These
requirements are inconsistent with HACCP, and some will be unnecessary
if FSIS makes final the proposed performance standards for ready-to-eat
meat and poultry products.
Summary of Legal Basis:
Under the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 601 to 695) and the
Poultry Product Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 451 to 470), FSIS issues
regulations governing the production of meat and poultry products
prepared for distribution in commerce. The regulations, along with FSIS
inspection programs, are designed to ensure that meat and poultry
products are safe, not adulterated, and properly marked, labeled, and
packaged.
Alternatives:
As an alternative to all of the proposed requirements, FSIS considered
taking no action. As alternatives to the proposed performance standard
requirements, FSIS considered end-product testing and requiring ``use-
by'' date labeling on ready-to-eat products.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
Benefits are expected to result from less contaminated products
entering commercial food distribution channels as a result of improved
sanitation and process controls and in-plant verification. FSIS
believes that the benefits of the rule would exceed the total costs of
implementing its provisions.
The main provisions of the proposed rule are: Lethality performance
standards for Salmonella and E. coli 0157:H7 and stabilization
performance standards for C. perfringens that firms must meet when
producing RTE meat and poultry products. Most of the costs of these
requirements would be associated with one-time process performance
validation in the first year of implementation of the rule and with
revision of HACCP plans. Total direct industry-wide costs are estimated
at $23.3 million on an annual basis. Annual net benefits are estimated
at about $26.2 million annually. Benefits are expected to result from
the entry into commercial food distribution channels of product with
lower levels of contamination resulting from improved in-plant process
verification and sanitation.
Risks:
None.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 02/27/01 66 FR 12590
NPRM Comment Period End 05/29/01
NPRM Comment Period
Extended 07/03/01 66 FR 35112
NPRM Comment Period End 09/10/01
Interim Final Rule 06/06/03 68 FR 34208
Interim Final Rule
Effective 10/06/03
Interim Final Rule
Comment Period End 01/31/05
NPRM Comment Period
Reopened 03/24/05 70 FR 15017
NPRM Comment Period End 05/09/05
Final Action 09/00/06
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Yes
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses
Government Levels Affected:
Undetermined
[[Page 64120]]
Agency Contact:
Dr. Daniel L. Engeljohn
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Policy, Program, and Employee
Development
Department of Agriculture
Food Safety and Inspection Service
Room 402 Cotton Annex Building
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250
Phone: 202 205-0495
Fax: 202 401-1760
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0583-AC46
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FSIS
24. NUTRITION LABELING OF SINGLE-INGREDIENT PRODUCTS AND GROUND OR
CHOPPED MEAT AND POULTRY PRODUCTS
Priority:
Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.
Legal Authority:
21 USC 601 et seq; 21 USC 451 et seq
CFR Citation:
9 CFR 317; 9 CFR 381
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
FSIS has proposed to amend the Federal meat and poultry products
inspection regulations to require nutrition labeling for the major cuts
of single-ingredient, raw meat and poultry products, either on their
label or at their point-of-purchase, unless an exemption applies. FSIS
also proposed to require nutrition information on the label of ground
or chopped meat and poultry products, unless an exemption applies. The
requirements for ground or chopped products will be consistent with
those for multi-ingredient products.
FSIS also proposed to amend the nutrition labeling regulations to
provide that when a ground or chopped product does not meet the
regulatory criteria to be labeled ``low fat,'' a lean percentage claim
may be included on the label or in labeling, as long as a statement of
the fat percentage also is displayed on the label or in labeling.
Statement of Need:
The Agency will require that nutrition information be provided for the
major cuts of single-ingredient, raw meat and poultry products, either
on their label or at their point-of-purchase, because during the most
recent surveys of retailers, the Agency did not find significant
participation in the voluntary nutrition labeling program for single-
ingredient, raw meat and poultry products. Without the nutrition
information for the major cuts of single-ingredient, raw meat and
poultry products that would be provided if significant participation in
the voluntary nutrition labeling program existed, FSIS has concluded
that these products would be misbranded.
Because consumers cannot easily estimate the level of fat in ground or
chopped meat and poultry products and because producers are able to
formulate precisely the fat content of ground or chopped products, FSIS
has concluded that ground or chopped meat and poultry products that do
not bear nutrition information on their labels would also be
misbranded.
Finally, FSIS will amend the nutrition labeling regulations to provide
that when a ground or chopped product does not meet the criteria to be
labeled ``low fat,'' a lean percentage claim may be included on the
product, as long as a statement of the fat percentage is also displayed
on the label or in labeling. FSIS will include these provisions in the
final nutrition labeling regulations because many consumers have become
accustomed to this labeling on ground beef products and because this
labeling provides a quick, simple, accurate means of comparing all
ground or chopped meat and poultry products.
Summary of Legal Basis:
This action is authorized under the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21
U.S.C. 601 to 695) and the Poultry Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C.
451 to 470).
Alternatives:
No action; nutrition labels required on all single-ingredient, raw
products (major cuts and non-major cuts) and all ground or chopped
products; nutrition labels required on all major cuts of single-
ingredient, raw products (but not non-major cuts) and all ground or
chopped products; nutrition information at the point-of-purchase
required for all single-ingredient, raw products (major and non-major
cuts) and for all ground or chopped products.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
Costs will include the equipment for making labels, labor, and
materials used for labels for ground or chopped products. The cost of
providing nutrition labeling for the major cuts of single-ingredient,
raw meat and poultry products should not be significant, because retail
establishments would have the option of providing nutrition information
through point-of-purchase materials.
Benefits of the nutrition labeling rule would result from consumers
modifying their diets in response to new nutrition information
concerning ground or chopped products and the major cuts of single-
ingredient, raw products. Reductions in consumption of fat and
cholesterol are associated with reduced incidence of cancer and
coronary heart disease.
FSIS has concluded that the quantitative benefits will exceed the
quantitative costs of the rule.
Risks:
None.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 01/18/01 66 FR 4970
NPRM Comment Period End 04/18/01
Extension of Comment
Period 04/20/01 66 FR 20213
NPRM Comment Period End 07/17/01
Final Action 09/00/06
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses
Government Levels Affected:
None
Agency Contact:
Robert Post, Ph.D.
Director, Labeling and Consumer Protection Staff
Department of Agriculture
Food Safety and Inspection Service
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250
Phone: 202 205-0279
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0583-AC60
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FSIS
25. FOOD STANDARDS; GENERAL PRINCIPLES AND FOOD STANDARDS MODERNIZATION
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
21 USC 601 et seq; 21 USC 451 et seq; 21 USC 321 et seq
[[Page 64121]]
CFR Citation:
9 CFR 410; 21 CFR 130
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) and the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) are proposing to modernize their food standards.
The agencies are proposing a set of general principles for food
standards. The adherence to these principles will result in standards
that will better promote honesty and fair dealing in the interest of
consumers, protect the public, allow for technological advances in food
production, are consistent with international food standards, and are
clear, simple, and easy to use for both manufacturers and the agencies
that enforce compliance with the standards. The proposed general
principles will establish the criteria that the agencies will use in
considering whether a petition to establish, revise, or eliminate a
food standard will be the basis for a proposed rule.
Statement of Need:
This rule is necessary to modernize FDA and FSIS food standards, so
that they are consistent with the agencies' authorizing statutes, allow
for technological advances in food production, are consistent with
international food standards to the extent feasible, and are clear,
simple, and easy to use for both manufacturers and the agencies that
enforce compliance with the standards.
Summary of Legal Basis:
Under 21 U.S.C. 341, FDA has authority to fix and establish standards
of identity, standards of quality, or standards of fill of container
for food products regulated by FDA, when such regulations will promote
honesty and fair dealing in the interest of consumers. Similarly, under
21 U.S.C. 607(c) and 457(b), FSIS has authority to establish meat and
poultry product standards of identity or composition whenever such
regulations are necessary for the protection of the public. The
proposed rule will ensure that FDA and FSIS food standards are
consistent with the authorizing statutes.
Alternatives:
In addition to the option chosen, the Agencies considered the following
options: 1) No action; 2) removing all food standards from the
regulations and treating all foods as nonstandardized foods; 3) using
Agency resources to review and revise food standards rather than
relying on external petitions; and 4) requesting external industry
groups to review, revise, and administer the food standards (private
certification).
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
Establishing general principles for food standards ensures that FSIS
and FDA use a consistent and systematic approach when assessing
standards. These principles would also apprise external parties of the
framework FDA and FSIS intend to use when assessing standards, thereby
reducing the costs for external parties to petition the agencies to
change standards. An additional benefit is that establishing the set of
principles specified in this proposed rule ensures that FDA and FSIS
assess standards with respect to their ability to reduce consumers'
search costs, while also reducing the likelihood that standards will
impose unnecessary costs, or reduce competition and thereby increase
prices.
FSIS and FDA expect the costs associated with this rule to be small and
the benefits to be relatively substantial. Therefore, the Agencies
believe that the benefits of establishing the proposed principles
outweigh the costs.
Risks:
None
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 05/20/05 70 FR 29214
Other/Final Rule 09/00/06
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses
Government Levels Affected:
None
Agency Contact:
Robert Post, Ph.D.
Director, Labeling and Consumer Protection Staff
Department of Agriculture
Food Safety and Inspection Service
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250
Phone: 202 205-0279
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0583-AC72
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--FSIS
26. PROHIBITION OF THE USE OF SPECIFIED RISK MATERIALS FOR HUMAN FOOD
AND REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DISPOSITION OF NON-AMBULATORY DISABLED CATTLE
Priority:
Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.
Legal Authority:
21 USC 601 et seq
CFR Citation:
Not Yet Determined
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
On January 12, 2004, the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)
issued an interim final rule to amend the Federal meat inspection
regulations to designate the brain, skull, eyes, trigeminal ganglia,
spinal cord, vertebral column (excluding the vertebrae of the tail, the
transverse processes of the thoracic and lumbar vertebrae, and the
wings of the sacrum), and dorsal root ganglia (DRG) of cattle 30 months
of age and older, and the tonsils and distal ileum of the small
intestine of all cattle, as ``specified risk materials'' (SRMs). The
Agency declared that SRMs are inedible and prohibited their use for
human food. In addition, as a result of the interim final rule, FSIS
now requires that all non-ambulatory disabled cattle presented for
slaughter be condemned. The Agency also requires that federally
inspected establishments that slaughter cattle and federally inspected
establishments that process the carcasses or parts of cattle develop,
implement, and maintain written procedures for the removal,
segregation, and disposition of SRMs. Establishments must incorporate
these procedures into their HACCP plans or in their Sanitation SOPs or
other prerequisite program. FSIS took this action in response to the
diagnosis on December 23, 2003, by the U.S. Department of Agriculture
of a positive case of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in an
adult Holstein cow in the State of Washington. This action is intended
to minimize human exposure to materials that scientific studies have
demonstrated as containing the BSE agent in cattle infected with the
disease. Infectivity has never been demonstrated in the muscle tissue
of
[[Page 64122]]
cattle experimentally or naturally infected with BSE at any stage of
the disease.
Statement of Need:
FSIS issued an interim final rule to amend the meat inspection
regulations to add provisions to prevent meat and meat products that
may contain the BSE agent from entering commerce.
BSE is a chronic, degenerative, neurological disorder of cattle.
Worldwide, there have been more than 185,000 cases since the disease
was first diagnosed in 1986 in Great Britain. Recent laboratory and
epidemiological research indicate that there is a causal association
between BSE and variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (vCJD), a slow
degenerative disease that affects the central nervous system of humans.
Both BSE and vCJD are always fatal.
USDA policy in regard to BSE has been to be proactive and preventive.
The regulations: (1) Prohibit certain materials that have been shown to
contain the BSE agent in BSE-infected cattle to be used for human food
or in the production of human food; (2) prescribe handling, storage,
and transportation requirements for such materials; (3) prohibit
slaughter procedures that may cause potentially infective tissues to
migrate to edible tissues; (4) prescribe requirements for the
slaughtering and processing of cattle whose materials are most likely
to contain the BSE agent if the animal is infected with BSE; and (5)
prescribe requirements for the sanitation or disposal of plant
equipment that may be contaminated with the BSE agent.
Summary of Legal Basis:
Under the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 601 to 695), FSIS
issues regulations governing the production of meat and meat food
products. The regulations, along with FSIS inspection programs, are
designed to ensure that meat food products are safe, not adulterated,
and properly marked, labeled, and packaged.
Alternatives:
As an alternative to the interim final rule, FSIS considered taking no
action. FSIS rejected this option because, as previously mentioned,
USDA policy in regard to BSE has been to be proactive and preventive.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
This interim final rule could result in costs to the regulated
industry. FSIS expects to minimize the costs by targeting the
regulations to apply to those cattle whose materials are most likely to
contain the BSE agent if the animal is infected with BSE. Banning
certain materials, such as brain and spinal cord, for use as human food
may require additional staff and time to remove such materials.
Materials prohibited for use as human food could not be sold
domestically or exported. Companies may be required to find new ways to
handle and dispose of these materials, which would impose additional
costs. Prohibiting the use of bovine vertebral column as a source
material in AMRS could result in a decrease in product yield and may
require companies that use these systems to produce boneless beef and
beef products to find other uses for bovine vertebral column.
Establishments whose equipment may have been contaminated with the BSE
agent may have costs associated with sanitation or disposal of plant
equipment.
FSIS may incur costs to increase inspection and compliance activities
to ensure that the measures taken to prevent meat and meat food
products that may contain the BSE agent from entering commerce are
effective. Producers may receive lower prices from processors, and some
of their stock may be condemned outright. The price consumers pay for
meat may rise or fall depending on how the discovery of BSE in the U.S.
affects consumer demand for beef.
The main benefit of this proposed rule is the prevention of vCJD in the
United States. There have been over 100 definite and probable cases of
vCJD detected worldwide since the disease was first identified in 1986
in the United Kingdom. While vCJD is still considered a rare condition,
the extent or occurrence of a vCJD epidemic in the United Kingdom
cannot be determined because of the long incubation period (up to 25
years). Thus, the interim final rule could have widespread public
health benefits if it serves to prevent a vCJD epidemic from developing
in the U.S. Even if vCJD remains a rare condition, this proposed rule
will still have public health benefits because of the severity of the
symptoms associated with vCJD and the fact that vCJD is always fatal.
This interim final rule may benefit the meat industry by helping to
restore confidence in the domestic meat supply. This may limit losses
to meat slaughter and processing operations in the long run.
Risks:
Although vCJD is a rare condition, the symptoms are severe, and it is
always fatal. This interim final rule is intended to reduce the risk of
humans developing vCJD in the U.S. in the event BSE is detected in
native cattle. The measures implemented by FSIS are intended to
minimize human exposure to materials from cattle that could potentially
contain the BSE agent. In April 1998, USDA entered into a cooperative
agreement with Harvard University's School of Public Health to conduct
a risk analysis to assess the potential pathways for entry into U.S.
cattle and the U.S. food supply, to evaluate existing regulations and
policies, and to identify any additional measures that could be taken
to protect human and animal health. FSIS used the findings of the risk
assessment to inform its decision to prohibit certain bovine materials
for human food.
Unlike bacterial and viral pathogens that may be found in or on meat
food products, the BSE agent cannot be destroyed by conventional
methods, such as cooking or irradiation. Also, although it is rare,
vCJD, the human disease associated with exposure to the BSE agent, is
generally more severe than the human illnesses associated with exposure
to bacterial and viral pathogens. Thus, additional measures to reduce
the risk of human exposure to the BSE agent are necessary to protect
public health.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
Interim Final Rule 01/12/04 69 FR 1862
Interim Final Rule
Comment Period End 05/07/04
Interim Final Rule
Amendment 07/07/05 70 FR 53043
Interim Final Rule
Amendment Comment
Period End 10/07/05
Final Action 09/00/06
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Yes
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses
Government Levels Affected:
Undetermined
[[Page 64123]]
Agency Contact:
Dr. Daniel L. Engeljohn
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Policy, Program, and Employee
Development
Department of Agriculture
Food Safety and Inspection Service
Room 402 Cotton Annex Building
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250
Phone: 202 205-0495
Fax: 202 401-1760
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0583-AC88
_______________________________________________________________________
USDA--Forest Service (FS)
-----------
PROPOSED RULE STAGE
-----------
27. TRAVEL MANAGEMENT (PROPOSED DIRECTIVES, FOREST SERVICE
MANUAL 2300 AND 7700)
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
E.O. 11644
CFR Citation:
None
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
Once the final regulation entitled ``Travel Management; Designated
Routes and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use (36 CFR part 212)'' is adopted,
the Forest Service is planning to publish proposed directives to
implement the regulation. The proposed directive changes are needed to
provide guidance on implementation of the Travel Management regulation,
conform terminology to the rule, and provide consistent direction on
the process of designating roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle
use.
The proposed changes consolidate policy for travel planning for roads
and trails in FSM 7710, while retaining separate chapters related to
operations and maintenance for roads (FSM 7730) and trails (FSM 2350).
The changes would expand the scope of the current roads analysis
process to encompass motorized trails and areas, while streamlining
travel analysis to ensure that it is completed in a timely manner.
Statement of Need:
Motor vehicles are a legitimate use of NFS lands -- in the right
places, and with proper management. Current regulations at 36 CFR part
295 were developed when Off-Highway Vehicles (OHVs) were less widely
available and less powerful than today's models. The growing popularity
and capabilities of OHVs demand new regulations so that the Forest
Service can continue to provide these opportunities, while sustaining
the health of NFS lands and resources. From 1972 to 2004, the number of
Americans driving motor vehicles off road increased by a factor of ten.
Whole new classes of vehicles have been introduced by manufacturers.
These advances expand opportunities for Americans to enjoy Federal
lands. However, the magnitude and intensity of motor vehicle use have
increased to the point that without careful management, soil erosion,
water quality, wildlife habitat, adjacent property owners, and the
experiences of other visitors can be affected.
The clear identification of roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle
use on each National Forest will enhance management of National Forest
System lands; sustain natural resource values through more effective
management of motor vehicle use; enhance opportunities for motorized
recreation experiences of National Forest System lands; address needs
for access to National Forest System lands; and preserve areas of
opportunity on each National Forest for nonmotorized travel and
experiences.
On July 15, 2004, the Forest Service published a proposed rule in the
Federal Register (69 FR 42381) seeking public comment in amending
regulations at 36 CFR parts 212, 251, 261, and 295 to clarify policy
related to motor vehicle use on NFS lands, including the use of OHVs.
During the 60-day comment period that ended on September 13, 2004, the
agency received 81,563 letters or electronic messages in response to
the proposed rule. The final rule includes a response to comments
submitted on the proposed rule.
Summary of Legal Basis:
There is no aspect of this action that is required by statute or court
order. The final Travel Management rule is needed to provide consistent
management of motor vehicle use on NFS lands so that the Forest Service
can better meet the direction of E.O. 11644 and E.O. 11989.
Alternatives:
As an alternative to publishing the final Travel Management rule, the
Forest Service could continue to operate under current regulations at
36 CFR part 295. These existing regulations provide that motor vehicle
use off roads may be allowed, prohibited, or restricted, as determined
through individual land management plans. Management of motor vehicle
use under existing regulations has been inconsistent from one National
Forest to another, and has sometimes failed to either keep pace with
increasing demand or prevent damage to natural resources.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
The benefits and costs of the final rule and related proposed
directives are described qualitatively because the rule is procedural.
Actual travel management decisions will be made by field units with
public input and appropriate environmental analysis and documentation.
The benefits of the final rule include gains to users, the agency, and
the environment. Sustainable, reliable, high-quality public access to
National Forest System lands will lead to enhanced recreation
opportunities for visitors. Both users and the agency will benefit from
improved public communication, more effective law enforcement, and
improved travel management planning. Other benefits include reduced
environmental damage and a more consistent and defensible travel
planning framework. The costs of the final rule include reductions in
unconstrained cross-country motor vehicle use for those that value this
activity, and short-term agency planning costs as many National Forests
launch travel planning efforts following adoption of the rule.
Risks:
There are no risks addressed by the final rule and related proposed
directives. Unmanaged cross-country motor vehicle travel can affect
soil, water quality, wildlife habitat, cultural and historic resources,
invasive species, private property owners, and the experiences of other
recreational visitors. A managed system of routes and areas designated
for motor vehicle use can provide sustainable recreation opportunities
for visitors while addressing these effects. The final Travel
Management rule will provide a consistent national framework for making
travel management decisions at the local level, with public
participation and appropriate environmental analysis.
[[Page 64124]]
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
Proposed Directive 01/00/06
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Small Entities Affected:
No
Government Levels Affected:
None
Agency Contact:
Andria D. Weeks
Regulatory Analyst
Department of Agriculture
Forest Service
MS 1134
ATTN: ORMS, D&R Branch
1400 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20250-0003
Phone: 202 205-3610
Fax: 202-260-6539
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0596-AC39
BILLING CODE 3410-90-S
[[Page 64125]]
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE (DOC)
Statement of Regulatory and Deregulatory Priorities
Enhancing long-term economic growth is a central focus of the
President's policies and priorities. The mission of the Department of
Commerce is to promote job creation, economic growth, technological
competitiveness, sustainable development, and improved living standards
for all Americans by working in partnership with businesses,
universities, communities, and workers to:
Build for the future and promote U.S. economic 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 DOC mission statement, containing our three strategic themes,
provides the vehicle for understanding the Department's aims, how they
interlock, and how they are to be implemented through our programs.
This statement was developed 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.
We work 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 these
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. The President's
priorities for the Department range from issues concerning the economy
to the environment. For example, the President directs the Department
to promote electronic commerce activities; encourage open and free
trade; represent American business interests abroad; and assist small
businesses to expand and create jobs. We are able to address these
priorities 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.
The DOC also 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.
The DOC encourages development in every community, clearing the way for
private-sector growth by building and 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, the
DOC 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 helping industries prepare for long-term
success.
The DOC'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
the Department's economic and demographic statistics, businesses can
undertake the new ventures, investments, and expansions that make our
economy grow.
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 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 the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) plans a
``most important'' significant preregulatory or regulatory action for
this Regulatory Plan year. NOAA plans to complete two actions and has
completed four actions that rise to the level of ``most important'' of
the Department's ``significant regulatory actions''. The actions that
will be completed in the next year are entitled: (1) Northwest Hawaiian
Islands National Marine Sanctuary; Designation and Implementing
Regulations; and (2) Fisheries of the United States; National Standard
1. The actions that have been completed are: (1) Amendments 18 and 19
to the Fishery Management Plan for Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands King and
Tanner Crabs - Crab Rationalization Program; (2) Designate Critical
Habitat
[[Page 64126]]
for 7 Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs) of Pacific Salmon and
Steelhead in California; (3) Designate Critical Habitat for 12
Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs) of Pacific Salmon and Steelhead
in Washington and Oregon; and (4) and Listing Determinations for 27
Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs) of West Coast Salmon and
Oncorhynchus Mykiss. Further information on these actions are provided
below.
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. 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 so as to
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.
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 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 is where business and
environmental interests intersect, and the classic debate on the use of
natural resources is transformed into a ``win-win'' situation for the
environment and the economy.
Three of NOAA's major components, the National Marine Fisheries
Services (NMFS), the National Ocean Service (NOS), and the National
Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service (NESDIS),
exercise regulatory authority.
NMFS oversees the management and conservation of the Nation's marine
fisheries, protects 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 guided by a comprehensive
understanding of the environment. The Department, 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
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.
[[Page 64127]]
While most of these rulemakings will be minor, involving only the
opening or closing of a fishery under an existing FMP, five actions are
of particular significance and have been designated as the most
important regulatory actions undertaken by the Department. In the
action entitled ``Northwest Hawaiian Islands National Marine Sanctuary;
Designation and Implementation of Regulations,'' NOAA plans to
designate the Northwest Hawaiian Islands as a national marine sanctuary
and propose implementing regulations that best reflect the goals and
objectives of the proposed sanctuary. In the action entitled
``Fisheries of the United States; National Standard 1,'' NMFS amends
the national standard guidelines for national standard 1 to revise the
criteria for determining overfishing and establishing rebuilding
schedules. The four remaining actions that have been designated as the
most important regulatory actions have been completed during the past
year. In the action entitled ``Amendments 18 and 19 to the to the
Fishery Management Plan for Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands King and Tanner
Crabs in the Bering Sea and the Aleutian Islands - Crab Rationalization
Program,'' NMFS rationalized the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands crab
fisheries in the United States Exclusive Economic Zone off Alaska by
amending the Fishery Management Plan for Bering Sea and Aleutian
Islands King and Tanner Crabs. The goal of rationalization is to end
the race for fish and solve the problems of overcapacity while
providing for a balanced distribution of benefits and improving
fisheries management and resource conservation. In the action entitled
``Listing Determinations for 27 ESUs of West Coast Salmon and
Oncorhynchus Mykiss,'' NMFS listed ESUs as endangered or threatened,
and also delisted ESUs as necessary. Finally, in the actions entitled
``Designate Critical Habitat for 7 Evolutionarily Significant Units
(ESUs) of Pacific Salmon and Steelhead in alifornia`'' and ``Designate
Critical Habitat for 12 Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs) of
Pacific Salmon and Steelhead in Washington and Oregon'' NMFS designated
critical habitat for 20 Pacific salmon and O. mykiss Evolutionarily
Significant Units (ECUS) listed under the Endangered Species Act of
1973. The geographic areas designated as critical habitat included
lakes, riverine, and estuarian habitat in Washington, Oregon, Idaho,
and California.
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.
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 has updated
and added 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
Executive order.
Bureau of Industry and Security
The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) promotes U.S. national and
economic security and foreign policy interests by managing and
enforcing the Department's security-related trade and competitiveness
programs. BIS 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. BIS 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 BIS.
BIS 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.
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 subsectors is critical to our national
security.
Helping Ukraine, Kazakstan, Belarus, Russia, and other newly
emerging
[[Page 64128]]
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.
_______________________________________________________________________
DOC--National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
-----------
PROPOSED RULE STAGE
-----------
28. NORTHWEST HAWAIIAN ISLANDS NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY; DESIGNATION
AND IMPLEMENTATION OF REGULATIONS
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
PL 106-513; 16 USC 1431 et seq
CFR Citation:
Not Yet Determined
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
The National Marine Sanctuaries Program, together with State and
Federal partners and other stakeholders, designates the Northwest
Hawaiian Islands as a national marine sanctuary and implements
regulations that best reflects the goals and objectives of the proposed
sanctuary.
Statement of Need:
By designating the Northwest Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) as a national
marine sanctuary, the National Marine Sanctuary Program (NMSP),
together with state and federal partners and other stakeholders, hope
to catalyze the collaborative development of an ecosystem approach to
address management issues. The NWHI are among the few, large-scale,
intact, predator-dominated coral reef ecosystems left in the world.
Significant Native Hawaiian cultural and maritime historical resources
are found throughout the region. These vast and remote coral reef
ecosystems support a distinctive assemblage of marine mammals, fish,
sea turtles, birds, and invertebrates, including species that are
endemic, rare, threatened, or endangered. Unfortunately, coral reef
systems like the NWHI are in a state of decline as direct or indirect
result of human activities.
Fishing is one of many human activities that may have direct and
indirect effects on the health and integrity of coral reef ecosystems.
Some of the direct impacts of fishing on coral reef ecosystems include
depletion of fish stocks and habitat degradation. Examples of indirect
effects include shifts in community structure and predatory-prey
relationships. Historically, fisheries management approaches have been
conducted through a single species approach. While this fishery
management approach can provide valuable information, it does not
consider the broader impacts of the activity on an ecosystem. The NMSP
and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) as a
whole are working toward an ecosystem approach to resource management.
This form of management is adaptive, is geographically specified, takes
account of ecosystem knowledge and uncertainties, considers multiple
external influences, and strives to balance diverse social objectives.
Fishing in the NWHI must be carefully considered and evaluated in the
context of an ecosystem approach to management in order to achieve a
healthy, functional, and resilient ecosystem.
Summary of Legal Basis:
The NMSP of NOAA is in the process of designating the Northwest
Hawaiian Islands Coral Reef Ecosystem Reserve (Reserve) as a national
marine sanctuary as directed by the National Marine Sanctuaries
Amendments Act (NMSAA) of 2000 and Executive Orders 13178 and 13196,
and in accordance with the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA). The
Reserve was established in 2000 by E.O. 13178 with the principal
purpose of long-term conservation and protection of the coral reef
ecosystem and related marine resources and species of the Northwest
Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) in their natural character. The sanctuary
designation process is described in Section 304 of the NMSA and
requires the preparation of an environmental impact statement.
Alternatives:
The NMSP is considering seven alternatives. The first alternative
(Status Quo/No Action Alternative) maintains the NWHI Research and E.O.
provisions as is. It assumes a sanctuary will not be designated. This
places caps on all fishing activities that were active at the time the
E.O. was issued, and prohibits the development of new or inactive
fisheries. This alternative makes provisions for several types of
commercial and recreational fishing including bottomfishing/pelagic
trolling, commercial trolling, sustenance fishing, and Native Hawaiian
cultural and subsistence use. The second alternative mirrors the
provisions of E.O. 13178 and 13196 but assumes those provisions will
become regulations promulgated under the NMSA. In addition, this
alternative provides straight-line boundaries, as opposed to fathom
boundaries, to define Reserve/Sanctuary Preservation Areas to aid in
user compliance and enforcement. Fishing regulations would be
promulgated that would prohibit precious coral and crustacean harvest,
but provide for bottomfish/pelagic trolling, commercial pelagic
trolling, various forms of recreational fishing, and Native Hawaiian
cultural and subsistence uses. The third alternative was developed by
the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council and assumes that the
Reserve would be designated as a national marine sanctuary, with
fishing regulations promulgated under the NMSA. However, fishing
activities would be managed in accordance with existing fishery
management plans for those fishing activities currently practiced. This
alternative also suggests that future harvest of precious corals and
crustaceans would be managed under previously developed FMPs. However,
in a Federal Register notice, NOAA issues a zero-harvest guideline and
cited the E.O. as a reason to continue closure of the crustacean
fishery.
The fourth alternative establishes a sanctuary with fishing regulations
that would protect the highest ecosystem values while allowing
compatible fishing activities in areas where they are likely to have
less impact on the ecosystem. It prohibits precious coral and
crustacean harvest, and pelagic
[[Page 64129]]
longlining, but provides for commercial bottomfish/pelagic trolling,
commercial pelagic trolling, various forms of recreational fishing, and
Native Hawaiian cultural and subsistence uses through a permitting
process. The fifth alternative is an iteration of the fourth
alternative and prohibits the same fishing activities. It also provides
for bottomfish/pelagic trolling, commercial pelagic trolling, various
forms of recreational fishing and Native Hawaiian cultural subsistence
uses. The sixth alternative was developed by the Reserve Advisory
Council and is similar to alternative 2 but would close bottomfish/
pelagic trolling within 1 year of sanctuary designation. It also calls
for a zoning system to limit commercial and recreational pelagic
fishing to minimize interactions with protected wildlife. The seventh
alternative closes immediately the entire area to all extractive use,
except for research or education.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
There are currently nine active commercial bottomfishermen in the NWHI,
five in the Mau zone and four in the Ho'omalu zone. Total reported 2003
gross revenue for the nine NWHI fishermen was just under $1.3 million
with $611 thousand for the Mau zone and $674 thousand for the Ho'omalu
zone. Total costs for 2003 were estimated at $974 thousand for the nine
NWHI fishermen. The first alternative (Status Quo/No Action
Alternative) would result in a 28 percent reduction in pounds landed
for bottomfish/pelagic trolling catch, and 13 percent reduction for
pelagic species compared to pre-E.O. levels based on full
implementation of the E.O. The second alternative would result in a 28
percent reduction in pounds landed for bottomfish/ pelagic trolling
catch, and 13 percent reduction in the pelagic catch associated with
bottomfishing, as compared to pre-E.O.. levels. The third alternative
would result in a 0 percent reduction in pounds landed. The fourth
alternative would reduce commercial bottomfish catch by 24 percent and
pelagic landings by 13 percent. The fifth alternative would reduce
bottomfish catch by 62 percent and pelagic catch by 10 percent due to
the phase-out of bottomfishing for the Ho'omalu zone. The sixth
alternative contemplates the complete phase-out of this industry within
one year and would impact the industry by 100 percent. The seventh
alternative would close the entire region to extractive use and would
impact the industry by 100 percent.
Risks:
The establishment of the NWHI as a national marine sanctuary would
protect one of the world's most productive and biologically rich
ecosystems on Earth. The NWHI are among the few, large-scale, intact,
predator-dominated coral reef ecosystems left in the world. Significant
Native Hawaiian cultural and maritime historical resources are found
throughout the region. These vast and remote coral reef ecosystems
support a distinctive assemblage of marine mammals, fish, sea turtles,
birds, and invertebrate, including species that are endemic, rare,
threatened, or endangered. Federally protected species include the
endangered Hawaiian monk seal. Roughly one-quarter of the 7,000 species
found in the NWHI are believed to be endemic to the Hawaiian Island
chain, found nowhere else on Earth.
Almost all of the alternatives would continue to allow some level of
human activity in the area, including fishing. Research, monitoring and
education activities would also be allowed pursuant to a permit system.
There would, therefore, be risks to human safety associated with
fishing and other vessels operating in remote areas of the Hawaiian
Islands. At times, vessels could be exposed to potentially serious
weather and sea conditions that could result in loss of life or injury
as well as loss of property. In addition, risks to the environment
could result from vessel groundings, lost fishing gear and other
equipment, fuel spills, unauthorized discharges including sewage, etc.
Depending on location, any of these incidents could harm or destroy
fragile coral reefs or marine life.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 02/00/06
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Yes
Small Entities Affected:
Businesses
Government Levels Affected:
Federal, Local, State
Federalism:
This action may have federalism implications as defined in EO 13132.
Agency Contact:
Aulani Wilhelm
Acting Superintendent
Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
6700 Kalaniana' Ole Highway
Honolulu, HI 96825
Phone: 808 397-2657
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 0648-AS83
_______________________________________________________________________
DOC--NOAA
-----------
FINAL RULE STAGE
-----------
29. FISHERIES OF THE UNITED STATES; NATIONAL STANDARD 1
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
16 USC 1801 et seq
CFR Citation:
50 CFR 600
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
NMFS is considering revisions to the national standard guidelines for
national standard 1 that specify criteria for determining overfishing
and establishing rebuilding schedules. There have been concerns
expressed by the scientific community, fisheries managers, the fishing
industry, and environmental groups regarding the appropriateness of
some aspects of these guidelines.
Statement of Need:
The overall intent of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) is to achieve optimum yield,
prevent overfishing and rebuild overfished stocks in as short a time as
possible. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the Regional
Fishery Management Councils (Councils) are charged with the difficult,
but important task of balancing the need to prevent overfishing and
rebuild overfished stocks in as short a time as possible, taking into
account the needs of fishing communities and fishing industry
infrastructure, and evaluating actions in terms of overall benefits to
the nation.
NMFS, the Councils, the public, and various stakeholders in fisheries
in the
[[Page 64130]]
Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) have worked with the current version of
the National Standards 1 (NS1) guidelines since June 1998, while
developing overfishing definitions and rebuilding plans for various
fisheries. Through this experience, NMFS has developed new perspectives
about the utility of the current NS1 guidelines.
NMFS decided in November 2003, after receiving public comment on the
current usefulness of the NS1 guidelines, and convening a NMFS Working
Group (Working Group) to review the guidelines, that it would propose
revisions to the guidelines. NMFS believes that the proposed revisions
would improve the ability of the Councils to establish meaningful
status determination criteria (SDC) and rebuilding plans that
facilitate compliance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
Summary of Legal Basis:
The Magnuson-Stevens Act serves as the chief authority for fisheries
management in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone. Section 301(a) of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act contains 10 national standards with which all FMPs
and their amendments must be consistent. Section 301(b) of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that ``the Secretary establish advisory
guidelines (which shall not have the force and effect of law), based on
the national standards, to assist in the development of fishery
management plans.'' Guidelines for the national standards are codified
in Subpart D of 50 CFR part 600. The guidelines for the national
standards were last revised through a final rule published in the
Federal Register on May 1, 1998 (63 FR 24212), by adding revisions to
the guidelines for National Standards 1 (OY), 2 (scientific
information), 4 (allocations), 5 (efficiency), and 7 (costs and
benefits), and adding new guidelines for National Standards 8
(communities), 9 (bycatch), and 10 (safety of life at sea).
The guidelines for NS1 were revised extensively in the final rule
published on May 1, 1998, to bring them into conformance to revisions
to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, as amended in 1996 by the Sustainable
Fisheries Act (SFA). In particular, the 1998 revisions to the NS1
guidelines addressed new requirements for FMPs brought about by SFA
amendments to section 304(e) (rebuilding overfished fisheries).
Alternatives:
If the proposed revisions to terminology are adopted, NMFS would
request that Regional Fishery Management Councils (Councils) begin
using the new terms in place of the old terms, revise FMP language
related to the revised terminology the next time a Council submits an
FMP amendment for Secretarial review. NMFS would begin using the new
terms in its next Annual Report to Congress of the Status of U.S.
Fisheries. Any codified language existing under 50 CFR Part 600 for
fisheries managed under the Magnuson-Stevens Act related to
``overfished'', ``minimum stock size threshold'', and ``maximum fishing
mortality threshold,'' would be revised by NMFS.
For the proposed revisions to the NS1 guidelines other than
terminology, the new guidelines would apply to some, but not all new
actions submitted by a Council. Any new action, that includes new or
revised SDC (``depleted'' or ``overfishing'' definitions), OY control
rules or rebuilding plans, would need to be developed and evaluated
according to the revised NS1 guidelines. However, if a Council action
containing SDC, OY control rules or rebuilding plans is already under
development and a draft environmental impact statement's (DEIS) notice
of availability has already been published in the Federal Register,
before the final rule implementing the revised NS1 guidelines is
effective, then a Council could submit an FMP or FMP amendment under
either the ``old'' or ``new'' NS1 guidelines. Likewise, if the public
hearing draft of an FMP amendment or other regulatory action not
containing an EIS has already been adopted by a Council for public
hearing, before the final rule implementing the revised NS1 guidelines
is effective, then a Council could submit an FMP or FMP amendment under
either the ``old'' or ``new'' NS1 guidelines.
After any final rule implementing the revisions to the NS1 guidelines
becomes effective, if a Council submits an action (e.g., annual
specifications, an FMP amendment, interim rulemaking, or a regulatory
amendment) that does not involve new or revised SDC, OY control rules,
or rebuilding plans, then that action could be reviewed and approved
without the FMP being amended to bring existing SDC, OY control rules,
and rebuilding plans into conformance with the new guidelines. The
proposed action would still need to be in conformance with all of the
national standard guidelines to be approvable. Any FMP amendment or
other regulatory action that involves: (1) Proposed SDC, an OY control
rule, or a rebuilding plan for a stock not previously managed by SDC or
by a rebuilding plan; or (2) proposed revisions to SDC, an OY control
rule, or a rebuilding plan for a stock already managed under SDC or by
a rebuilding plan, then the proposed SDC, OY control rule, and/or
rebuilding plan would need to comply with the new NS1 guidelines.
Regarding the proposed recommendation that stocks in FMPs be managed
according to core stocks and stock assemblages, if a Council determines
that a given FMP only has core stocks (e.g., the Mid-Atlantic Council's
Spiny Dogfish FMP, the New England Council's Atlantic Sea Scallops FMP,
the Deep-Sea Red Crab FMP, and the FMP for the Gulf of Mexico Stone
Crab Fishery), then the Council should make such a determination with
accompanying rationale in its next FMP amendment.
In the case of an FMP that has a mixture of SDC-known stocks and stocks
having an ``unknown status'' related to SDC (e.g., Snapper-Grouper FMP)
when a Council begins to align its management under ``core stocks'' and
``stock assemblages,'' the Council could begin such alignment in a
stepwise fashion (in a series of separate FMP actions) for given core
stocks or stock assemblages, once new or revised SDC, OY control rules,
or rebuilding plans are developed. If a Council determines that the
stepwise method is problematic it could take action to realign all of
the FMP's stocks into core stocks and stock assemblages in one action.
If some stocks are not being managed effectively under a given FMP
because their status relative to SDC is unknown, and the proposed
revisions to the NS1 guidelines are approved, then the Council should
re-evaluate those stocks as soon as possible, to decide whether or not
any grouping of some or all stocks having an unknown status could be
managed by an SDC under one or more indicator stocks, or through stock
assemblage-wide SDC. A Council should clearly designate which stocks in
the FMP are in the FMPs and thus subject to SDC and to inclusion in the
NMFS Annual Report to Congress on the Status of U.S. Fisheries. Stocks
that are listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered
Species Act would be exempt from being evaluated according to SDC, but
must be evaluated against SDC within 1 year of
[[Page 64131]]
being de-listed. Finally, stocks that are primarily dependent on
artificial propagation from hatcheries would be exempt from being
evaluated according to SDC. If any stocks are currently undergoing
overfishing as part of an approved rebuilding plan (e.g., reductions in
F are being phased in over a number of years until F is less than or
equal to Film), then, the first time that the Council submits a revised
rebuilding plan for those stocks, overfishing must be prevented,
beginning in the first year of the revised rebuilding plan, except
under circumstances listed under section 304(e)(4)(A) of the Magnuson-
Stevens Act.
In general, the Councils would not be required to amend their SDC, OY
control rules and rebuilding plans approved under the SFA by any ``date
certain,'' with the following exceptions. In the event that NMFS, on
behalf of the Secretary of Commerce, determines that a fishery is
overfished or approaching an overfished condition under section
304(e)(1) or (e)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, or a rebuilding plan
needs to be revised under section 304(e)(7) of the Magnuson-Stevens
Act, then the Council needs to take action consistent with the revised
NS1 guidelines. NMFS should notify the appropriate Council if
overfishing is occurring in a fishery, even if the fish stock is not
determined to be overfished, under the same procedures as described in
Section 304(e) (1) and (2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
If one or more stocks in an FMP do not currently have OY control rules,
or the OY control rule equals its respective MY control rule, then the
appropriate Council would need to develop and submit an FMP amendment
or other appropriate regulatory action and analyses when the SDC or the
rebuilding plan for such a fishery needs to be revised. Revisions are
necessary when a stock's rebuilding plan is not making adequate
progress under section 304(e)(7) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, or new
data or an assessment indicates that SDC or the rebuilding target needs
revision. A Council can submit an OY control rule for Secretarial
review before SDC or the rebuilding plan needs to be revised, if it
chooses to do so.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
There will be no immediate economic or social impacts upon
effectiveness of the final rule for the revised NS1 guidelines.
Management actions that incorporate the new NS1 guidelines in their
SDC, rebuilding plans would be evaluated individually and would not
begin to have any economic or social impacts until about 1 1/2 to 2
years after the effective date of this action.
Risks:
The National Marine Fisheries Service intends to clarify, amplify and
simplify the NS1 guidelines in several instances so that the regional
fishery management councils and the public have a better understanding
of how to: (1) Establish definitions for ``depleted'' and
``overfishing'' for fish stocks that vary in data quality, (2)
construct and revise rebuilding plans, and (3) improve the ability of
Councils and NMFS to comply with the requirements of section 304 of the
Manson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The proposed
revisions should improve the Councils' ability to protect stocks of
unknown status (i.e., core stocks and stock assemblages provision),
manage towards ending overfishing and rebuilding overfished stocks
(i.e., biomass stock size limits, OY control rules, rebuilding targets,
revision of rebuilding plans) and provide better clarity in the NS1
guidelines. Improved conservation of various stocks should enhance the
likelihood that optimum yield will be attained for those stocks, a
chief goal of the Manson-Stevens Act.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM 02/14/03 68 FR 7492
ANPRM Comment Period End 03/17/03
Comment Period Extended 03/03/03 68 FR 9967
NPRM 06/22/05 70 FR 36240
Comment Period Extended 08/15/05 70 FR 47777
NPRM Comment Period End 08/22/05
Final Action 10/00/05
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Government Levels Affected:
None
Agency Contact:
Mark Millikin
Fishery Management Specialist
Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
1315 East-West Highway
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Phone: 301 713-2341
RIN: 0648-AQ63
BILLING CODE 3510-BW-S
[[Page 64132]]
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, 16 Defense agencies, and 11 DoD field
activities. It has over 1,390,000 military personnel and 675,000
civilians assigned as of June 30, 2005, and over 200 large and medium
installations in the continental United States, U. S. territories, and
foreign countries. The overall size, composition, and dispersion of 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 affected 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 affect 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
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 in the Department while 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 seldom issues significant regulations, the probability of
developing conflicting regulations is low. Conversely, DoD is affected
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 cost-benefit analysis and the decisionmaking
process.
Cost-Benefit
[[Page 64133]]
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 worldwide communications capabilities that
are available on the Internet. 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 and increase public
access in the regulatory process. Notable progress has been made in the
Defense acquisition regulations area toward achieving the
Administration's E-government initiative of making it simpler for
citizens to receive high-quality service from the Federal Government,
inform citizens, and allow access to the development of rules.
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 that
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.
The Department is actively engaged in addressing the requirements of
the Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA) in implementing
electronic government and in achieving IT accessibility for individuals
with disabilities. This is consistent with the Administration's
strategy of advancing E-government as expressed in ``The President's
Management Agenda'' The Department is actively participating in the
eRulemaking Initiative to develop a government-wide docket management
system that will provide the framework for wider citizen input and
improve regulatory policies and outcomes by cultivating public
participation in Federal decision-making.
Coordination
DoD has enthusiastically embraced the coordination process between and
among other Federal agencies in the development of new and revised
regulations. Annually, DoD receives regulatory plans from key
regulatory agencies and has established a systematic approach to
providing the plans to the appropriate policy officials within the
Department. Feedback from the DoD components indicates that this
communication among the Federal agencies is a major step forward in
improving regulations and the regulatory process, as well as in
improving Government operations.
Minimize Burden
In the regulatory process, there are more complaints concerning burden
than anything else. In DoD, much of the burden is in the acquisition
area. Over the years, acquisition regulations have grown and become
burdensome principally because of legislative action. But, in
coordination with Congress, the Office of Federal Procurement Policy,
and the public, DoD is initiating significant reforms in acquisition so
as to effect major reductions in the regulatory burden on personnel in
Government and the private sector. DoD has 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. 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.
In summary, the rulemaking process in DoD should produce a rule that:
Addresses an identifiable problem, implements the law, incorporates the
President's policies defined in Executive Order 12866, is in the public
interest, is consistent with other rules and policies, is based on the
best information available, is rationally justified, is cost-effective,
can actually be implemented, is acceptable and enforceable, is easily
understood, and stays in effect only as long as is necessary. Moreover,
the proposed rule or the elimination of a rule should simply make
sense.
Regulations Related to the Events of September 11, 2001
Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Case 2003-
D107, Firefighting Service Contracts, implements Section 331 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004. Section 331
provides authority for contractor performance of firefighting functions
at military installations or facilities for periods of one year or
less, if the functions would otherwise have to be performed by members
of the Armed Forces who are not readily available by reason of a
deployment. The final rule was published in the Federal Register on
December 15, 2004 (69 FR 75000).
Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Case 2004-
D032, Contractor Performance of Security Guard Functions, conditionally
extends from December 1, 2005 to September 30, 2006, authority for
contractor performance of security-guard functions at military
installations
[[Page 64134]]
or facilities to meet the increased need for such functions since
September 11, 2001. It implements Section 324 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005, which requires DoD to submit a
report to Congress on the use of this authority, no later than December
1, 2005, to permit extension of the authority. The final rule was
published in the Federal Register on March 23, 2005 (70 FR 14576).
Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Case 2003-022, Special Emergency
Procurement Authority, implements Section 1443 of the Fiscal Year 2004
Consolidated Appropriations Act and also incorporates the higher
thresholds authorized by Section 822 of the Ronald W. Reagan National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005. This rule provides
continuing authorities for acquisitions of property and services by or
for an executive agency that are to be used in support of a contingency
operation or to facilitate defense against or recovery from terrorism
or nuclear, biological, chemical, or radiological attack. The final
rule was published in the Federal Registeron December 20, 2004 (69 FR
8312).
Regulations of Particular Interest to Small Business
The Department will work to clarify in the FAR that prime contractors
must confirm HUBZone certification and permit small business credit for
subcontracts awarded to certain Alaska Native Corporations and Indian
tribes.
Suggestions From the Public for Reform Status of DoD Items
Rulemaking Actions in Response to Public Nominations
The Army Corps of Engineers has not undertaken any rulemaking actions
in response to the public nominations submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget in 2001, 2002, or 2004. Those nominations were
discussed in Making Sense of Regulation: 2001 Report to Congress on the
Costs and Benefits of Regulations and Unfunded Mandates on State,
Local, and Tribal Entities, Stimulating Smarter Regulation: 2002 Report
to Congress on the Costs and Benefits of Regulations and Unfunded
Mandates on State, Local, and Tribal Entities, and Progress in
Regulatory Reform: 2004 Report to Congress on the Costs and Benefits of
Federal Regulations and Unfunded Mandates on State, Local, and Tribal
Entities.
Specific Priorities
For this regulatory plan, there are five 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 regulations that
incorporate the provisions of the President's priorities and objectives
under the Executive order.
DoD has focused its regulatory resources on the most serious
environmental, health, and safety risks. Perhaps most significant is
that each of the priorities described below promulgates regulations to
offset the resource impacts of Federal decisions on the public or to
improve the quality of public life, such as those regulations
concerning civil functions of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
acquisition, installations and the environment, health affairs, and the
Defense personnel system.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Directorate of Civil Works
Compensatory Mitigation in the Army Regulatory Program
Section 314 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2004 (Public Law 108-136) requires the Secretary of the Army, acting
through the Chief of Engineers, to issue regulations that establish
performance standards and criteria for the use of compensatory
mitigation for wetland functions lost as a result of activities
authorized by Department of the Army (DA) permits. The statute also
requires the regulation to contain provisions for the application of
equivalent standards and criteria to each type of compensatory
mitigation. The statutory deadline for publishing the final regulation
is November 24, 2005.
The proposed regulation will be developed by considering concepts in
current Federal compensatory mitigation guidance documents, and
updating and modifying those concepts to improve compensatory
mitigation decision-making and processes. We believe that the proposed
regulation should take a watershed approach to compensatory mitigation
for permitted impacts to wetlands, streams, and other aquatic
resources. Although the statute refers only to wetlands, we believe
that the regulation should be broader in scope, and address
compensatory mitigation requirements for impacts to other aquatic
resources, such as streams, in addition to wetlands.
Army Regulatory Program's Compliance with the National Historic
Preservation Act
In 1990, the Army Corps of Engineers published as appendix C of 33 CFR
part 325, a rule that governs compliance with the National Historic
Preservation Act (NHPA) for the Army's Regulatory Program. Over the
years, there have been substantial changes in policy, and the NHPA was
amended in 1992, leading to the publication in December 2000 of new
implementing regulations at 36 CFR part 800, issued by the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation. Those regulations were amended on
July 6, 2004. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
regulations allow Federal agencies to utilize alternate procedures in
lieu of the regulations at 36 CFR part 800. To solicit public comment
on the appropriate mechanism for revising the Army Regulatory Program's
process for considering effects to historic properties resulting from
activities authorized by DA permits, the Army Corps of Engineers
published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) to obtain
the views of interested parties. After reviewing the comments received
in response to the ANPRM, the Army Corps of Engineers will hold
facilitated stakeholder meetings to determine the best course of action
for revising its procedures to comply with the requirements of Section
106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
Defense Procurement and Acquisition
The Department continues its efforts to reengineer its acquisition
system to achieve its vision of an acquisition system that 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 during this next
year on implementing and institutionalizing initiatives that 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 of Defense continuously reviews its supplement to the
Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and continues to lead Government
efforts to simplify the acquisition process to:
Transform the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation
Supplement (DFARS) to improve the efficiency and
effectiveness of the acquisition
[[Page 64135]]
process, while allowing the acquisition workforce
flexibility to innovate. The transformed DFARS will contain
only requirements of law, DoD-wide policies, delegations of
FAR authorities, deviations from FAR requirements, and
policies/procedures that have a significant effect beyond
the internal operating procedures of DoD or a significant
cost or administrative impact on contractors or offerors.
Revise the uniform treatment of contractor personnel who are
authorized to accompany the U.S. Armed Forces deployed
outside the United States in contingency operations,
humanitarian or peacekeeping operations, other military
operations, or training exercises designated by the
combatant commander, to implement the new DoD Instruction,
and require training for contractor personnel who interact
with detainees.
Also coordinate with a representative of the Department of
State to provide a FAR rule to address uniform treatment of
other contractor personnel who are performing outside the
United States in a theater of operations during contingency
operations; humanitarian or peacekeeping operations; other
military operations; or military exercises designated by
the combatant commander; or at a diplomatic or consular
mission, when designated by the chief of mission.
Implement new Free Trade Agreements with Morocco and Dominican
Republic-Central American FTA countries in the FAR and
DFARS, as well as increased thresholds for all trade
agreements.
Phase in DFARS requirements for contractors to affix radio
frequency identification (RFID) tags to the exterior
packaging of items delivered under DoD contracts. This
practice will improve visibility of DoD assets in the
supply chain, increase the accuracy of shipment and receipt
data, and reduce the amount of time it takes to deliver
material to the warfighter.
Require DoD contractors to provide Item Unique Identification
(IUID) data electronically in the IUID Registry for all DoD
personal property in possession of the contractor, in lieu
of annual reporting of Government property.
Improve debt collection by evaluating existing FAR controls
and procedures for ensuring contract debts are identified
and recovered in a timely manner, properly accounted for in
each agencies' books and records, and properly coordinated
with the appropriate Government officials.
Implement in the DFARS the statutory requirement that provides
for up to 100 percent levy against contract payments for
taxes owed by contractors, with consideration given to
national security implications.
Add the process of validating a central Contractor
Registration registrant's taxpayer identification number
(TIN) with the Internal Revenue Service to improve data
accuracy in the Federal Procurement Data System.
Permit use of a time-and-materials contract or a labor-hour
contract for a procurement of certain commercial services.
Ensure that IT security requirements are included in all
relevant Government contracts. Require Federal agencies to
acquire only approved products and services for a complete
category of Authentication Services, which includes
electronic authentication for browser-based access, Federal
identity credentials for electronic and physical
authentication, and Public Key Infrastructure services.
Establish consistent procedures for protecting sensitive
information from unauthorized use or disclosure, when the
performance of support service contracts requires the prime
contractor to have access to the sensitive information of
other contractors.
Adjust acquisition-related thresholds in the FAR and DFARS for
inflation (except Davis-Bacon Act, Service Contract Act,
and trade agreements).
Finalize the rewrite of FAR Part 27, Patents, Data and
Copyrights, to clarify, streamline, and update guidance and
clauses on patents, data, and copyrights.
Provide FAR guidance on acceptability of photocopies of powers
of attorney for bid bonds and allow treatment of questions
regarding the authenticity and enforceability of the power
of attorney at the time of bid opening as a matter of
responsibility.
Review various FAR cost principles 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.
Implement Earned Value Management in the FAR.
Revise the FAR Part 45, Government Property, to organize and
streamline the management of Government property.
Defense Installations and the Environment
The Department is committed to reducing the total ownership costs of
the military infrastructure while providing the Nation with military
installations that efficiently support the warfighter in: Achieving
military dominance, ensuring superior living and working conditions,
and enhancing the safety of the force and the quality of the
environment. DoD has focused its regulatory priorities on explosives
safety, human health, and the environment. These regulations provide
means for the Department to provide information about restoration
activities at Federal facilities and to take public advice on the
restoration activities.
Revitalizing Base Closure Communities and Addressing Impacts of
Realignment
The Department of Defense, in order to promote an efficient and
successful base closure and realignment implementation process, has
submitted proposed changes to its existing regulations in 32 CFR parts
174, 175, and 176. These proposed changes would bring the regulations
up-to-date with statutory requirements enacted after the 1995 round of
base closures. The changes will also address changes in Departmental
policy. The proposed rule making was published in the Federal Register
for public comment August 9, 2005.
Restoration Advisory Boards
The requirement for the establishment of Restoration Advisory Board
(RABs) is grounded in Section 324(a) of Public Law 104-106, which
requires the Secretary of Defense to ``prescribe regulations regarding
the establishment, characteristics, composition, and funding of
restoration advisory boards.'' Section 324(a) also stated that DoD's
issuance of regulations should not be a precondition to the
establishment of RABs (amended title 10 section 2705(d)(2)(B)). In
August 1996, the Department proposed and requested public comments on
regulations regarding the characteristics, composition, funding, and
establishment of RABs. These regulations were not finalized.
[[Page 64136]]
As a consequence of litigation in 2001, the Department substantially
revised the regulations and shared a draft rule with RAB community
members as part of the Department's outreach to affected members of the
public. On March 26, 2003, OMB reviewed the draft proposed rule and
agreed that it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under EO
12866. The Department published the proposed rule in Federal Register
January 28, 2005. The proposed rule addressed scope, characteristics,
composition, funding, establishment, operation and adjournment. The
public comment period ended on March 29, 2005. The Department received
a total of 219 comments from 29 individuals and organizations. We are
now preparing a draft final rule that will address the comments. No
significant changes are being made to the draft final RAB Rule. The
Department plans to publish the final rule in fiscal year 2006.
Munitions Response Site Prioritization Protocol
Section 2710(b)(1) of Title 10, United States Code, directs the
Secretary of Defense to develop, in consultation with representatives
of the States and Indian tribes, a proposed protocol for assigning to
each defense site a relative priority for munitions response
activities. Section 2710 provides for public notice and comment on the
proposed protocol. DoD is directed to issue a final protocol to be
applied to defense sites listed in the Department's munitions response
site inventory.
The Department met with State and tribal representatives and also
representatives of other federal agencies during preparation of the
proposed rule published on August 22, 2003. The Department reviewed and
incorporated comments from the sixteen sets of comments received during
the public comment period that ended on November 19, 2003. The draft
final rule is under review within the Department, which plans to
publish the final rule in fiscal year 2006.
Most of the changes pertain to clarification of terms and definitions
based on comments received or new statutory definitions promulgated in
the National Defense Authorization Act for 2004 and codified at 10
U.S.C. Section 101. The most significant change to the proposed rule
pertains to the module that evaluates health hazards associated with
munitions constituents and other chemical constituents. The Department
also revised the rule to clarify that current landowners may
participate in the application of the rule at Formerly Used Defense
Sites and that the quality assurance panel that reviews each priority
score will consist only of Department personnel.
Health Affairs, Department of Defense
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 healthcare
providers, facilities, and services under contract to DoD through the
TRICARE program. TRICARE is a major healthcare initiative designed to
improve the management and integration of DoD's healthcare delivery
system. The program's goal is to increase access to healthcare
services, improve healthcare quality, and control healthcare costs.
The TRICARE Management Activity plans to submit an interim final rule
that prescribes double coverage payment procedures and makes revisions
to TRICARE rules to accommodate beneficiaries who are eligible under
both Medicare and TRICARE, and who participate in Medicare's outpatient
prescription drug program under Medicare Part D. These revisions are
mandated by the requirements contained in the CMS final rule for the
Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit, Part D Plans with Other
Prescription Drug Coverage, and the mandated effective date of January
1, 2006, for the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit. This interim final
rule outlines procedures whereby TRICARE becomes second payer for
Medicare Part D enrollees. The rule also establishes requirements and
procedures for implementation of improvements to the TRICARE Pharmacy
Benefits Program regarding the Uniform Formulary process, as directed
by Section 714 of the NDAA for FY05. The economic impact of this
interim final rule is estimated to be less than $100 million. It is
anticipated that the final rule will be published by February 1, 2006.
National Security Personnel System
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (PL 108-
136, November 24, 2003) provided the Department of Defense (DoD) the
authority to establish a more flexible civilian personnel management
system. The National Security Personnel System (NSPS) will allow the
Department to be a more competitive and progressive employer at a time
when the country's national security demands a highly responsive system
of civilian personnel management.
NSPS will establish new rules for how DoD civilians are hired,
assigned, compensated, promoted, and disciplined. NSPS will also
address the Department's labor relations and appeals processes. This
will all be within the framework of merit principles, veterans'
preference, and employees' rights to organize and bargain collectively.
The goal of NSPS is to strengthen DoD's ability to accomplish its
mission in an ever-changing defense environment.
In April 2004, the Department established a DoD Program Executive
Office, National Security Personnel System (PEO-NSPS) to manage,
oversee, and coordinate the development, design, and implementation of
NSPS throughout the Department. This includes drafting (with OPM)
regulations establishing NSPS.
Human Resources Management System
Section 9902(a) of Public Law 108-136 authorizes the Secretary of
Defense and the Director of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to
issue jointly prescribed regulations to establish a human resources
management system for the Department of Defense. These regulations will
provide for new rules and flexibilities in the areas of:
Position classification and pay;
Performance management (including a pay for performance
system, as required in section 9902(b)(6)(I) of Public Law
108-136);
Hiring, assignment, and reduction in force.
Labor Management Relations System
Section 9902(m) of Public Law 108-136 authorizes the Secretary of
Defense and the Director, OPM to establish a new labor management
relations system for the Department, and allow for a collaborative,
issue-based approach to labor management relations. Regulations
developed jointly with OPM will provide a new framework for labor
relations in DoD, with the goal of streamlined processes to allow for
quicker and more efficient resolution of labor relations issues, while
preserving collective bargaining rights for DoD employees.
Employee Appeals
Section 9902(h) of Public Law 108-136 provides the Secretary of Defense
with authority to establish an appeals process in conjunction with NSPS
to provide employees fair treatment in decisions relating to their
employment.
[[Page 64137]]
The new appeals will be designed to streamline appeals procedures while
ensuring that employees are afforded the protections of due process, as
required by law.
NSPS Design Process and Timeline
The design of NSPS (which will result in regulations to be issued in
the Federal Register) includes an extensive outreach effort to gather
input and feedback from a variety of stakeholder groups, including DoD
labor unions, employees, supervisors, managers, military commanders,
and external groups such as veteran service organizations, (non-union)
employee interest groups, and ``good-government'' groups. DoD working
groups, comprised of DoD and OPM human resources experts, line
managers, and system practitioners (e.g., legal, EEO) met in the late
summer 2004 to identify and craft NSPS design options. In addition, DoD
and OPM have met several times with DoD labor union representatives to
gather input and discuss potential system designs.
After DoD and OPM senior leadership decided upon the NSPS design
options, proposed regulations establishing and governing NSPS were
published via the Federal Register for public comment. The Department
issued proposed NSPS regulations on February 14, 2005. A 30-day public
comment period ended on March 16, 2005; over 58,000 comments were
received. Statutory procedures for collaborating with employee
representatives on the content of the regulations, known as ``meet and
confer,'' are provided in sections 9902(f) and 9902(m)(3). The meet and
confer process began on April 18, 2005. The meet and confer process was
extended beyond the minimum 30 days provided for in the statute. Based
upon the comments received and the input from employee representatives,
changes were made to the proposed regulations. The final regulations
are expected to be published in fiscal year 2006. After a 30-day
notification period to Congress, the regulations will become effective
and the phased implementation of NSPS will begin.
National Security Personnel System-Hiring Authorities
The NSPS regulations will provide the authority for the Secretary of
Defense, together with the Director of OPM, to establish new hiring
authorities for the Department. Concurrent with the initial
implementation of the system, the Department, jointly with OPM, intends
to establish several new hiring authorities during the first and second
quarters of fiscal year 2006. This will be accomplished, in accordance
with the NSPS regulations, via a notice in the Federal Register.
BILLING CODE 5001-06-S
[[Page 64138]]
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (ED)
Statement of Regulatory and Deregulatory Priorities
General
We support States, local communities, institutions of higher
education, and others in improving education nationwide. Our roles
include providing leadership and financial assistance for education to
agencies, institutions, and individuals in situations in which there is
a national interest; monitoring and enforcing Federal civil rights laws
in programs and activities that receive Federal financial assistance;
and supporting research, evaluation, and dissemination of findings to
improve the quality of education.
We administer programs, grants, and loans that touch nearly every
American at one point in their lives--approximately 14,000 public
school districts, nearly 54 million students attending 93,000
elementary and secondary schools, and almost 22 million postsecondary
students. We have forged effective partnerships with customers and
others to develop policies, regulations, guidance, technical
assistance, and approaches to compliance. We have a record of
successful communication and shared policy development with affected
persons and groups, including parents, students, educators,
representatives of State, local, and tribal governments, neighborhood
groups, schools, colleges, rehabilitation service providers,
professional associations, advocacy organizations, businesses, and
labor organizations.
In particular, we continue to seek greater and more useful customer
participation in our rulemaking activities through the use of
consensual rulemaking and new technology. If we determine that the
development of regulations is necessary, we seek customer participation
at all stages in the rulemaking process. We invite the public to submit
comments on all proposed regulations through the Internet or by regular
mail.
We are continuing our efforts to streamline information collections,
reduce burden on information providers involved in our programs, and
make information maintained by us easily available to the public.
New Initiatives
Among our new undertakings is bringing No Child Left Behind to the
high school level. The President has called recent evidence of poor
performance by America's high schools ``a warning and a call to
action.'' The Administration's response is a comprehensive proposal
that builds on the stronger accountability of No Child Left Behind to
improve the quality of secondary education and ensure that every
student not only graduates from high school, but, also, graduates
prepared to enter college or the workforce with the skills to succeed.
This initiative includes creation of several new programs and
significant funding increases for existing programs that can have a
major impact on secondary education. The actual appropriations will
depend on congressional action. The appropriations may, in turn, result
in additional regulatory activities by the Department.
Another new initiative is the Teacher Incentive Fund, a program to
develop and implement innovative ways--including performance-based
compensation systems--to provide financial incentives for teachers and
principals who raise student achievement and close the achievement gap
in some of the Nation's highest-need schools.
No Child Left Behind
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, which reauthorized the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, increases
accountability for States, school districts, and schools; provides
greater choice for parents and students, particularly those attending
low-performing schools; provides more flexibility for States and local
educational agencies in the use of Federal education dollars; and
places a stronger emphasis on reading, especially for our youngest
children.
Each State, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia has submitted an
accountability plan, which the Department approved. Each submitting
jurisdiction has used its respective plan to hold schools and school
districts accountable in school years 2002-03, 2003-04, and 2004-05 for
the academic achievement of all their students, including students in
specific subgroups such as students with disabilities and limited
English proficient (LEP) students.
With respect to students with disabilities and LEP students, in
particular, the Department has initiated regulatory actions to address
unique issues in the implementation of No Child Left Behind. Our
current regulations permit a State to (1) develop alternate achievement
standards for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities
and (2) include those students' proficient and advanced scores in
adequate yearly progress (AYP) determinations, subject to a cap of one
percent of the number of students in a school district or State.
We also published proposed regulations to permit a State to (1) exempt
LEP students new to schools in the United States from one
administration of the State's reading assessment and (2) include, for
up to two years, former LEP students in the LEP subgroup when making
AYP determinations.
We are continuing to focus on helping States place a highly qualified
teacher in every classroom; identifying schools and districts in need
of improvement and making sure they are getting the assistance they
need to get back on track; expanding the opportunities for eligible
students to receive tutoring and other supplemental educational
services; and helping districts create capacity in order to make public
school choice available to all eligible students who wish to change
schools.
We are also peer-reviewing evidence of each State's standards and
aligned assessment systems that implement No Child Left Behind's
requirements for annual testing in reading/language arts and
mathematics in grades 3 through 8 and once in high school. These new
reading/language arts and mathematics standards and assessments must be
in place by the end of the 2005-06 school year.
Regulatory and Deregulatory Priorities for the Next Year
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004
(Pub. L. 108-446) made substantial changes to the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). These changes are designed to
improve (1) implementation of the education of children with
disabilities program (including preschool services) under part B and
the early intervention program for infants and toddlers with
disabilities under part C and (2) the effectiveness of national
discretionary grants, contracts, and cooperative agreements for
improving the education of children with disabilities under part D.
Consistent with those statutory changes, the Department published a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on June 21, 2005 proposing
revisions to 34 CFR Parts 300, 301, and 304 concerning the education of
children with disabilities program (including
[[Page 64139]]
preschool services) under part B of IDEA and the service obligation
under the personnel development to improve services for children with
disabilities program under part D of IDEA. The Department held a series
of public hearings on this NPRM in June and July 2005 and received
public comment until September 6, 2005. We anticipate issuing final
regulations before spring 2006.
The Department also published, on June 29, 2005, an NPRM proposing to
establish a National Instructional Materials Accessibility Standard, as
directed by the reauthorized IDEA. We expect to issue final regulations
on this standard in late fall 2005. Proposed regulations to implement
changes to the part C program are expected to be issued in fall 2005,
with final regulations issued some time in 2006.
Under No Child Left Behind, we are working on developing a notice of
proposed rulemaking that would provide further flexibility by
permitting a State to develop modified achievement standards and
assessments for some students with disabilities in addition to
students, referenced elsewhere in this plan, with the most significant
cognitive disabilities.
Congress is developing legislation to amend and extend the Higher
Education Act of 1965 (HEA). If enacted, changes to the regulations
governing the grant, loan, and work assistance programs authorized
under title IV of the HEA will be necessary in order to improve
educational quality, expand access, and ensure affordability in
postsecondary education. Any regulatory activity that becomes necessary
as a result of amendments to the HEA would need to balance reduction in
burden on program participants, especially on students, with the need
to adequately safeguard taxpayers' funds. Unless the HEA is amended to
remove the requirement, regulations governing HEA title IV programs
will continue to be developed through negotiated rulemaking. The HEA
also authorizes other important programs, and changes to regulations
may be necessary to improve the implementation of the teacher-quality-
enhancement programs under title II, the institutional-assistance
programs under titles III and V, the international and foreign language
studies programs under title VI, and the graduate education and
postsecondary education improvement programs under title VII. Under
current law, these programs are not subject to negotiated rulemaking.
Other Potential Regulatory Activities
Congress is developing legislation that would reauthorize a number of
the Department's other major programs. Enactment of these legislative
undertakings could result in various regulatory activities by the
Department. These include reauthorization of the Carl D. Perkins
Vocational and Technical Education Act of 1998, which would make
changes designed to improve the State grant and other programs
providing assistance under this statute and considered necessary to
help States and local communities strengthen career and technical
education and improve educational opportunities for career and
technical education students. The Administration is working with
Congress to ensure that this reauthorization emphasizes student
achievement, particularly the academic achievement of career and
technical education students, and increases accountability and program
quality.
Congress also is considering legislation to reauthorize the Adult
Education and Family Literacy Act (AEFLA) (title II of the Workforce
Investment Act of 1998)--including the National Institute for
Literacy--and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The Administration is
working with Congress to ensure that these changes improve and
streamline the State grant and other programs providing assistance for
adult basic education under the AEFLA and for vocational rehabilitation
and independent living services for persons with disabilities under the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and that they provide greater
accountability in the administration of programs under both statutes.
Principles for Regulating
Our Principles for Regulating determine when and how we will regulate.
Through consistent application of the following principles, we have
eliminated unnecessary regulations and identified situations in which
major programs could be implemented without any regulations or with
only limited regulations.
We will regulate only if regulating improves the quality and equality
of services to our customers, learners of all ages. We will regulate
only if absolutely necessary and then in the most flexible, most
equitable, and least burdensome way possible.
When regulating, we consider:
Whether a regulation is essential to promote quality and
equality of opportunity in education.
Whether a demonstrated problem cannot be resolved without
regulation.
Whether a regulation is necessary to provide a legally binding
interpretation to resolve ambiguity.
Whether 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.
_______________________________________________________________________
ED--Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS)
-----------
FINAL RULE STAGE
-----------
30. ASSISTANCE TO STATES FOR THE EDUCATION OF CHILDREN WITH
DISABILITIES; PRESCHOOL GRANTS FOR CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES; AND
SERVICE OBLIGATIONS UNDER SPECIAL EDUCATION--PERSONNEL DEVELOPMENT
(SECTION 610 REVIEW)
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
20 U.S.C. 1221e-3, 1406, 1411-1419, 1462(h)
CFR Citation:
34 CFR 300, 301 and 304
Legal Deadline:
None
Abstract:
These regulations would amend the regulations governing the Assistance
to States for Education of Children with Disabilities Program, the
Preschool Grants for Children With Disabilities Program, and Service
Obligations under the Special Education Personnel Development to
Improve Services and
[[Page 64140]]
Results for Children with Disabilities Program. These amendments are
needed to implement changes to the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act made by the recently enacted Individuals with
Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004.
Statement of Need:
These regulations are necessary to implement the reauthorized statute.
Summary of Legal Basis:
New legislation.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
Notice 01/10/02 67 FR 1411
NPRM 06/21/05 70 FR 35781
NPRM Comment Period End 09/06/05
Final Action 12/00/05
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Small Entities Affected:
No
Government Levels Affected:
None
Agency Contact:
Troy Justesen
Department of Education
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services
400 Maryland Avenue SW
Room 5138, PCP
Washington, DC 20202-2570
Phone: 202 245-7468
Related RIN: Related to 1820-AB54
RIN: 1820-AB57
BILLING CODE 4000-01-S
[[Page 64141]]
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (DOE)
Statement of Regulatory and Deregulatory Priorities
The Department of Energy (Department or DOE) makes vital contributions
to the Nation's welfare through its activities focused on improving
national security, energy supply, environmental remediation, and energy
research. The Department's mission is to:
Promote dependable, affordable and environmentally sound
production and distribution of energy;
Foster energy conservation;
Provide responsible stewardship of the Nation's nuclear
weapons;
Clean up the Department's sites and facilities, which include
sites dating back to the Manhattan Project;
Lead in the physical sciences and advance the biological,
environmental and computational sciences; and,
Provide premiere instruments of science for the Nation's
research enterprise.
The Department's regulatory activities are essential to achieving its
critical mission and to implementing major initiatives of the
President's National Energy Policy. Among other things, the Regulatory
Plan and the Unified Agenda contain the rulemakings the Department will
be engaged in during the coming year to implement provisions of the
Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT 2005). The Regulatory Plan and Unified
Agenda also reflect the Department's continuing commitment to cut
costs, reduce regulatory burden, and increase responsiveness to the
public.
Energy Efficiency Program for Consumer Products and Commercial
Equipment
EPACT 2005, enacted on August 8, 2005, will have a significant impact
on the Department's priorities for its rulemaking activities related to
energy efficiency standards, test procedures, and determinations. EPACT
2005 not only adds new products to those already covered by the Energy
Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), but it also affects ongoing
rulemakings.
With respect to those ongoing rulemakings, DOE has made it a priority
to take action to clear up the backlog of regulatory action on energy
efficiency standards and test procedures that are overdue under EPCA.
As part of the Department's annual priority-setting process for its
consumer products and commercial equipment rulemakings to be carried
out under the Process Rule, 61 FR 36974 (July 15, 1996), interested
members of the public will have an opportunity to give input to help
the Department prioritize the rulemakings it will conduct. The
Department will continue actions necessary to clear up the backlog of
standards and test procedures covered by the EPCA, such as the
standards for certain commercial equipment covered by amendments to
American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning
Engineers, Inc./Illuminating Engineering Society of North America
Standard 90.1. Information and timetables concerning these actions can
be found in the Department's Regulatory Agenda, which appears elsewhere
in this issue of the Federal Register.
EPACT 2005 adds both energy conservation standards and test procedure
requirements to the program. The Department will incorporate the
statutorily mandated and non-discretionary energy conservation
standards of EPACT 2005 into the Department's regulations before the
end of 2005. Included among these are standards for commercial central
air conditioners and central air conditioning heat pumps. Consistent
with EPACT 2005, the Department intends to continue its work on
adoption of amended energy efficiency standards for residential
furnaces and boilers and on new standards for electric distribution
transformers.
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 (10 CFR part 820) were published
as a final rule in 1993. The Department's substantive nuclear safety
requirements (10 CFR parts 830 and 835) were finalized in 2001 and
1998, respectively. The remaining action, 10 CFR part 834, Radiation
Protection and the Environment, is scheduled for publication by the end
of June 2006. In addition, by the end of March 2006, the Department is
scheduled to issue a final rule adding a new part, 10 CFR 851, Worker
Safety and Health, that will establish basic requirements to ensure
workers are protected from safety and health hazards at DOE facilities.
Strategic Petroleum Reserve Acquisition Procedures
The Department is committed to maintaining the Strategic Petroleum
Reserve as a cornerstone of U.S. energy security policy to protect
against the damaging effects of a severe energy supply interruption.
The Department's recent use of the Reserve to loan oil to companies
adversely affected by Hurricane Katrina, and particularly the
President's authorization to draw down and sell oil from the Reserve in
response to that hurricane, demonstrated both the importance of the
Reserve to national security and the excellent operating condition in
which DOE has maintained the Reserve.
The Department will continue to work to ensure that sufficient Reserve
inventory levels are maintained to provide the appropriate degree of
security. Consistent with this goal and as required by EPACT 2005, the
Department will be proposing in November 2005 procedures for the
acquisition of petroleum to fill the Reserve to its authorized one
billion barrel capacity. The procedures must take into account a number
of factors including the need to maximize availability of domestic
petroleum supply while minimizing costs and adverse impacts on current
and future prices, supplies and inventories. In addition, the
procedures must include criteria for reviewing requests for the
deferral of scheduled deliveries. As directed by EPACT 2005, the
Department intends to publish final procedures in February 2006.
Standby Support
EPACT 2005 authorizes the Secretary to enter into contracts for
standby support for advanced nuclear power facilities for certain
unexpected delays. These delays include those caused by failure of the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission to comply with schedules for review and
approval of inspection, tests, analyses, and acceptance criteria
established under the combined Construction Permit and Operating
License process, as well as delays caused by litigation of the
commencement of full-power operations of an advanced nuclear facility.
The
[[Page 64142]]
Department is committed to openness and public participation as it
develops rules and criteria for standby support and promptly will be
taking action to promulgate such rules.
_______________________________________________________________________
DOE--Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EE)
-----------
PRERULE STAGE
-----------
31. RULEMAKING TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE ENERGY CONSERVATION
STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL CENTRAL AIR CONDITIONERS AND AIR CONDITIONING
HEAT PUMPS SHOULD BE AMENDED
Priority:
Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.
Legal Authority:
42 USC 6295(d)
CFR Citation:
10 CFR 430
Legal Deadline:
Final, Statutory, January 1, 2001, Overdue for review of whether
amended standard is justified.
Abstract:
The Department is committed to becoming current on all energy standards
rulemakings, including whether the current standards for residential
central air conditioners and central air conditioning heat pumps should
be amended.
Statement of Need:
Standards need to be periodically reviewed and updated, as required by
EPCA, to reflect technological advances that make amended energy
efficiency standards technologically feasible and economically
justified.
Alternatives:
Congress has the ability to prescribe amended standards, as it did for
some consumer products and industrial equipment through EPACT 2005,
rather than DOE conducting rulemakings to determine whether amended
standards are appropriate.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM To Be Determined
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Undetermined
Government Levels Affected:
Local, State
Federalism:
Undetermined
Additional Information:
The timetable for this action will be determined during the annual
priority-setting of rulemakings.
Agency Contact:
Bryan Berringer, EE-2J
Office of Building Technologies Program
Department of Energy
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
1000 Independence Avenue SW.
Washington, DC 20585
Phone: 202 586-0371
Fax: 202 586-4617
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 1904-AB47
_______________________________________________________________________
DOE--EE
32. RULEMAKING TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE ENERGY CONSERVATION
STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL WATER HEATERS SHOULD BE AMENDED
Priority:
Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.
Unfunded Mandates:
Undetermined
Legal Authority:
42 USC 6295(e)
CFR Citation:
10 CFR 430
Legal Deadline:
Final, Statutory, January 1, 2000, Overdue for review of whether
amended standard is justified.
Abstract:
The Department is committed to becoming current on all energy standards
rulemakings, including whether the current standards for residential
water heaters should be amended.
Statement of Need:
Standards need to be periodically reviewed and updated, as required by
EPCA, to reflect technological advances that make amended energy
efficiency standards technologically feasible and economically
justified.
Alternatives:
Congress has the ability to prescribe amended standards, as it did for
some consumer products and industrial equipment through EPACT 2005,
rather than DOE conducting rulemakings to determine whether amended
standards are appropriate
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM To Be Determined
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Undetermined
Government Levels Affected:
Local, State
Federalism:
Undetermined
Additional Information:
The timetable for this action will be determined during the annual
priority-setting of rulemakings.
Agency Contact:
Bryan Berringer, EE-2J
Office of Building Technologies Program
Department of Energy
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
1000 Independence Avenue SW.
Washington, DC 20585
Phone: 202 586-0371
Fax: 202 586-4617
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 1904-AB48
_______________________________________________________________________
DOE--EE
33. RULEMAKING TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE ENERGY CONSERVATION
STANDARDS FOR ELECTRIC AND GAS RANGES AND OVENS, AND FOR MICROWAVE
OVENS SHOULD BE AMENDED
Priority:
Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.
Unfunded Mandates:
Undetermined
Legal Authority:
42 USC 6295(h)
CFR Citation:
10 CFR 430
Legal Deadline:
Final, Statutory, January 1, 1997, Overdue for review of whether
amended standard is justified.
[[Page 64143]]
Abstract:
The Department is committed to becoming current on all energy standards
rulemakings, including whether the current standards for electric and
gas ranges and ovens and microwave ovens should be amended.
Statement of Need:
The Department may determine that separate rulemakings may be warranted
for some of these individual products or equipment. The timetable for
this action will be determined during the annual priority-setting of
rulemakings
Alternatives:
Congress has the ability to prescribe amended standards, as it did for
some consumer products and industrial equipment through EPACT 2005,
rather than DOE conducting rulemakings to determine whether amended
standards are appropriate
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM To Be Determined
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Undetermined
Government Levels Affected:
Local, State
Federalism:
Undetermined
Additional Information:
The timetable for this action will be determined during the annual
priority-setting of rulemakings.
Agency Contact:
Bryan Berringer, EE-2J
Office of Building Technologies Program
Department of Energy
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
1000 Independence Avenue SW.
Washington, DC 20585
Phone: 202 586-0371
Fax: 202 586-4617
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 1904-AB49
_______________________________________________________________________
DOE--EE
34. RULEMAKING TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE ENERGY CONSERVATION
STANDARDS FOR FLUORESCENT LAMP BALLASTS SHOULD BE AMENDED
Priority:
Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.
Unfunded Mandates:
Undetermined
Legal Authority:
42 USC 6295(g)
CFR Citation:
10 CFR 430
Legal Deadline:
Final, Statutory, January 1, 2006.
Abstract:
This rulemaking is to determine whether the current standards for
fluorescent lamp ballasts should be amended.
Statement of Need:
Standards need to be periodically reviewed and updated, as required by
EPCA, to reflect technological advances that make amended energy
efficiency standards technologically feasible and economically
justified.
Alternatives:
Congress has the ability to prescribe amended standards, as it did for
some consumer products and industrial equipment through EPACT 2005,
rather than DOE conducting rulemakings to determine whether amended
standards are appropriate.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM To Be Determined
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Undetermined
Government Levels Affected:
Local, State
Federalism:
Undetermined
Additional Information:
The timetable for this action will be determined during the annual
priority-setting of rulemakings.
Agency Contact:
Bryan Berringer, EE-2J
Office of Building Technologies Program
Department of Energy
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
1000 Independence Avenue SW.
Washington, DC 20585
Phone: 202 586-0371
Fax: 202 586-4617
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 1904-AB50
_______________________________________________________________________
DOE--EE
35. RULEMAKING TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE ENERGY CONSERVATION
STANDARDS FOR ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS SHOULD BE AMENDED
Priority:
Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.
Unfunded Mandates:
Undetermined
Legal Authority:
42 USC 6295(c)
CFR Citation:
10 CFR 430
Legal Deadline:
Final, Statutory, September 24, 2002, Overdue for review of whether
amended standard is justified.
Abstract:
The Department is committed to becoming current on all energy standards
rulemakings, including whether the current standards for room air
conditioners should be amended.
Statement of Need:
Standards need to be periodically reviewed and updated, as required by
EPCA, to reflect technological advances that make amended energy
efficiency standards technologically feasible and economically
justified.
Alternatives:
Congress has the ability to prescribe amended standards, as it did for
some consumer products and industrial equipment through EPACT 2005,
rather than DOE conducting rulemakings to determine whether amended
standards are appropriate.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM To Be Determined
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Undetermined
Government Levels Affected:
Local, State
Federalism:
Undetermined
Additional Information:
The timetable for this action will be determined during the annual
priority-setting of rulemakings.
[[Page 64144]]
Agency Contact:
Bryan Berringer, EE-2J
Office of Building Technologies Program
Department of Energy
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
1000 Independence Avenue SW.
Washington, DC 20585
Phone: 202 586-0371
Fax: 202 586-4617
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 1904-AB51
_______________________________________________________________________
DOE--EE
-----------
PROPOSED RULE STAGE
-----------
36. ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL FURNACES AND BOILERS
Priority:
Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.
Unfunded Mandates:
This action may affect the private sector under PL 104-4.
Legal Authority:
42 USC 6295(f)
CFR Citation:
10 CFR 430
Legal Deadline:
Final, Statutory, January 1, 1994.
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 undertake two
subsequent rulemakings, at specified times, to determine whether the
extant standard for a covered product should be amended.
This is the initial review of the statutory standards for residential
furnaces and boilers.
Statement of Need:
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
costs. Thus, the law requires minimum energy efficiency standards for
appliances to eliminate inefficient appliances and equipment from the
market.
Summary of Legal Basis:
EPCA establishes initial energy efficiency standard levels for most
types of major residential appliances and certain commercial equipment.
EPCA generally requires DOE to undertake rulemakings, at specified
times, to determine whether the standard for a covered product should
be made more stringent. EPACT 2005 amended EPCA to authorize the
Department to set standards for electricity used in furnaces to
circulate air through duct work. Section 135(c)
Alternatives:
The statute requires the Department 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 the alternative standard
levels, including the existing standard, based on criteria specified by
statute. The process improvements that were announced (61 FR 36974,
July 15, 1996) further enhance the analysis of alternatives in the
appliance standards development process. For example, under this
process, the Department 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 nonregulatory
approaches for encouraging the purchase of energy efficient products.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
The specific costs and benefits for this rulemaking have not been
established because the final standard levels have not been determined.
Nevertheless, existing analysis from the Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking for energy conservation standards for furnace and boilers
projects saving between 0.28 and 9.29 quadrillion Btus of energy from
2012 to 2035, with a national financial impact on the consumer in terms
of national Net Present Value (NPV) ranging from $0.1 to $3.2 billion.
(69 FR 45420)
Risks:
At higher efficiency levels, consumers risk unintended condensation of
flue gases, whereas, without changes to the existing furnace and boiler
standards, energy use and energy costs for consumers will continue to
increase. Enhancing appliance energy efficiency also reduces
atmospheric emissions such as CO2 and NOx. Establishing standards that
are too stringent could result in excessive increases in the cost of
the product and possible reductions in product utility. It might also
place an undue burden on manufacturers that could result in loss of
jobs or other adverse economic impacts.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
ANPRM 09/08/93 58 FR 47326
Framework Workshop 07/17/01
Venting Workshop 05/08/02
ANPRM 07/29/04 69 FR 45419
DOE Review of Technical
Support Documents 08/11/05
Electricity Use Workshop 01/00/06
NPRM 09/00/06
Final Action 09/00/07
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Government Levels Affected:
Local, State
Additional Information:
DOE is planning a workshop on electricity use because section 135(c) of
EPACT 2005 expanded DOE's authority to consider electricity used by
furnaces for moving air through the ductwork. DOE may revise the
timetable if the outcome of the workshop indicates that such revision
is appropriate.
Agency Contact:
Mohammed Kahn, EE-2J
Department of Energy
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
Office of Building Technologies Program
1000 Independence Avenue SW.
Washington, DC 20585
Phone: 202 586-7892
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 1904-AA78
_______________________________________________________________________
DOE--EE
37. ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR ELECTRIC DISTRIBUTION TRANSFORMERS
Priority:
Economically Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.
Legal Authority:
42 USC 6317(a)(2)
CFR Citation:
10 CFR 431
[[Page 64145]]
Legal Deadline:
Final, Statutory, October 24, 1996.
Abstract:
Prior to enactment of EPACT 2005, the Energy Policy and Conservation
Act, as amended, (EPCA) did not establish energy efficiency standards
for electric distribution transformers. EPCA directed DOE to determine
whether standards for electric distribution transformers were
warranted. However, as a result of amendments recently adopted in EPACT
2005, Pub. L. No. 109-58, sec. 135(c)(4), EPCA now contains standards
for low voltage dry-type electric distribution transformers, but not
other types of distribution transformers. This rulemaking will
determine whether it is appropriate to establish standards for these
other types of electric distribution transformers. The Department will
also incorporate into its regulations the standards recently
incorporated into EPCA.
Statement of Need:
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:
EPCA authorizes the Department to establish energy conservation
standards for various consumer products and commercial and industrial
equipment, including distribution transformers, if DOE determines that
energy conservation standards would be technologically feasible and
economically justified, and would result in significant energy savings.
Title III of EPCA sets forth a variety of provisions designed to
improve energy efficiency. Part C of Title III, 42 USC 6311-6317,
establishes a program for ``Certain Industrial Equipment,'' similar to
the one for consumer products in Part B, and includes distribution
transformers. Since EPACT 2005, Pub. L. No 109-58, sec. 135(c),
establishes energy conservation standards for one group of
transformers, low-voltage, dry-type distribution transformers, that
category will no longer be covered by this rulemaking.
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 announced July 15, 1996, 61
FR 36974, 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 nonregulatory approaches for encouraging
the purchase of energy efficient products.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
The specific costs and benefits for this rulemaking have not been
established because the final standard levels have not been determined.
Nevertheless, existing analysis from the Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, 69 FR 45375, for energy conservation standards for
distribution transformers projects savings of from 7 to 16 quadrillion
Btus of energy from 2007 to 2035, with a national financial impact on
the consumer in terms of national Net Present Value (NPV) ranging from
4 to 12.77 billion dollars. .
Risks:
At higher efficiency levels, the limited availability of some core
steels is an important issue. Other issues that pose some risks include
significant capital investment requirements, core processing equipment,
retooling, and R&D. Establishing standards that are too stringent could
result in excessive increases in the cost of the product, with possible
reductions in product utility (larger/bulkier/heavier transformers),
with additional pressure on some manufacturers to move production out
of the U.S. and a possible risk that some small manufacturers would
exit.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
Determination Notice 10/22/97 62 FR 54809
ANPRM 07/29/04 69 FR 45375
DOE Review of Technical
Support Documents 08/11/05
NPRM 09/00/06
Final Action 09/00/07
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
Undetermined
Government Levels Affected:
None
Additional Information:
The timetable for this action reflects program priorities, which were
established with significant input from the public. The Department is
also assessing how it should proceed to incorporate into its rules the
standards prescribed in EPACT 2005 for low voltage dry-type electric
distribution transformers.
Agency Contact:
Antonio Bouza, EE-2J
Department of Energy
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
1000 Independence Avenue SW.
Washington, DC 20676
Phone: 202 586-0854
Fax: 202 586-4617
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 1904-AB08
_______________________________________________________________________
DOE--Departmental and Others (ENDEP)
-----------
PROPOSED RULE STAGE
-----------
38. ACQUISITION OF PETROLEUM FOR STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE
Priority:
Other Significant. Major under 5 USC 801.
Legal Authority:
42 USC 6240
CFR Citation:
Not Yet Determined
Legal Deadline:
NPRM, Statutory, December 6, 2005.
Final, Statutory, February 6, 2006.
Abstract:
This action would establish procedures for the acquisition of petroleum
to fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to the one billion barrel
capacity authorized under Section 154(a) of the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act. The procedures must include criteria for reviewing
requests for deferral of scheduled deliveries.
[[Page 64146]]
Statement of Need:
The recently enacted Energy Policy Act of 2005 requires promulgation of
these procedures. Procedures for filling strategic stocks must take
into account the need to maximize availability of domestic petroleum
supply while minimizing costs and adverse impacts on current and future
prices, supplies and inventories
Summary of Legal Basis:
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act provides the Department with
broad authority to acquire petroleum for the Reserve and sets broad
objectives as to the manner in which such acquisition is made. The
Energy Policy Act of 2005 amended the Energy Policy and Conservation
Act to require the Department to develop, with public notice and
opportunity to comment, and comply with procedures to acquire oil to
fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The proposed procedures shall
address acquisition by various means, including purchase, transfer of
royalty oil from the Department of the Interior and deferral of
deliveries under contracted schedules. These governing objectives set
forth in the Energy Policy and Conservation Act are the minimization of
costs, vulnerability to a supply disruption, and impact on supply
levels and market forces, while maximizing encouraging competition in
the petroleum industry. While recent fill has utilized the receipt of
royalties-in- kind from Federal offshore production and premium barrels
generated through renegotiation of delivery schedules, proposed
procedures will also address outright purchase of crude oil. DOE also
may acquire oil, and may address in its procedures, country-to-country
oil purchases, facility leases with payments in oil, contracts for oil
not owned by the United States as provided for by section 171 of the
Energy Policy and Conservation Act, and return of oil and associated
in-kind premiums for withdrawals from the Reserve for oil exchanges
Alternatives:
The governing objectives for the procedures set forth in the Energy
Policy and Conservation Act, are the minimization of costs,
vulnerability to a supply disruption, and impact on supply levels and
market forces, while encouraging competition in the petroleum industry.
While recent fill has utilized the receipt of royalties-in- kind from
Federal offshore production and premium barrels generated through
renegotiation of delivery schedules, proposed procedures will also
address outright purchase of crude oil. There are other circumstances
during which the Department of Energy may acquire oil for the Strategic
Petroleum Reserves.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
The specific costs and benefits for this rulemaking have not been
established because of the uncertainty inherent in petroleum markets in
general, the schedule of fill according to the development of strategic
storage capacity and the timing of any drawdown in response to a supply
disruption. However, several studies reinforce the value of a larger
Reserve in mitigating the adverse economic impacts of a disruption,
either through deterrence or supplemental supply. Additionally, global
stockpiling is enhanced through example.
Risks:
This rulemaking may reduce the risk of adverse market price and supply
impacts from filling the Reserve by providing transparency into
acquisition procedures and assurances that the statutory objectives are
met.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 12/00/05
Final Action 02/00/06
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Small Entities Affected:
No
Government Levels Affected:
Federal
Agency Contact:
Lynnette H LeMat
Director, Operations and Readiness, Office of Petroleum Reserves
Department of Energy
1000 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20585-0340
Phone: 202 586-4398
Fax: 202 586-0835
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 1901-AB16
_______________________________________________________________________
DOE--ENDEP
-----------
FINAL RULE STAGE
-----------
39. 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 include a dose
limitation system for protection of the public; requirements for
application optimization (As Low As is Reasonably Achievable, ALARA)
process; requirements for liquid discharges; reporting and monitoring
requirements; and residual radioactive material requirements.
Statement of Need:
The purpose of this rule is to ensure that the Department's obligation
to protect health and safety is fulfilled and to provide, if needed, a
basis for the 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.
[[Page 64147]]
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 Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 03/25/93 58 FR 16268
Second NPRM 08/31/95 60 FR 45381
Integrate new EPA
guidance 03/00/06
Final Action 06/00/06
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Government Levels Affected:
Federal
Additional Information:
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is considering revising the
Federal Guidance for Radiation Protection of the Public. This
Presidential-level guidance would refine the radiation protection and
dose limitation framework for the public, and may include numerical
Radiation Protection Goals (i.e., dose limits). Because it is DOE's
policy to be consistent with Federal radiation protection policy, the
Department is adjusting the schedule for part 834 in anticipation of
revised Federal Guidance and will issue the rule following EPA action
on the guidance. This will allow DOE to be consistent with the most
current Presidential-level guidance upon its release.
Agency Contact:
Andrew Wallo III
Director, Office of Air, Water and Radiation Protection, Policy and
Guidance
Department of Energy
Office of Environmental Guidance
1000 Independence Avenue SW.
Washington, DC 20585
Phone: 202 586-4996
Fax: 202 586-3915
RIN: 1901-AA38
_______________________________________________________________________
DOE--ENDEP
40. WORKER SAFETY AND HEALTH
Priority:
Other Significant
Legal Authority:
42 USC 2011; 42 USC 5801 to 5911; 42 USC 7101 to 7352
CFR Citation:
10 CFR 851
Legal Deadline:
Final, Statutory, December 2, 2003.
Abstract:
This action would add a new 10 CFR 851 regulation to DOE's regulations
establishing a body of rules setting forth basic requirements to ensure
workers are protected from safety and health hazards at DOE facilities.
Statement of Need:
The purpose of this rule is to ensure that the Department's obligation
to protect the safety and health of its workers is fulfilled and to
provide, if needed, a basis for the imposition of civil penalties
consistent with section 3173 of the Bob Stump National Defense
Authorization Act of 2003. This action is consistent with the
Department's commitment to the issuance of safety and health
requirements using notice and comment rulemaking.
Summary of Legal Basis:
Under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (AEA), as amended, the Department
of Energy has the authority to regulate activities at facilities under
its jurisdiction. On December 2, 2002, section 3173 of the National
Defense Authorization Act amended the AEA to add section 234C (codified
as 42 U.S.C. 2282c). Section 234C requires the Department to promulgate
regulations for industrial and construction safety and health at DOE
contractor facilities for contractors covered by an agreement of
indemnification. The regulation must provide a level of protection to
workers at such facilities that is substantially equivalent to the
level of protection currently being provided to workers. Section 234C
also makes DOE contractors that violate the safety and health
regulations subject to civil penalties or a reduction of fees and other
payments under its contract with DOE.
Alternatives:
None
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
The incremental costs of the proposed rules should be minimal because
contractors are currently bound by comparable contractual obligations.
Risks:
The proposed rule would provide for DOE to assess penalties as directed
by Congress for noncompliance. Therefore, if the proposed rule were
finalized, contractors would be put at risk if they violate the rule's
safety and health requirements. The proposed rule would also reduce the
injuries and illnesses of workers due to increased emphasis on
complaint programs.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
NPRM 12/08/03 68 FR 68276
NPRM Comment Period End 02/06/04
NPRM Suspension 02/27/04 69 FR 9277
Supplemental NPRM 01/26/05 70 FR 3811
Supplemental NPRM Comment
Period End 04/26/05
Final Action 03/00/06
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Small Entities Affected:
No
Government Levels Affected:
None
Additional Information:
A Notice of Suspension was issued on 02/27/2004 to allow time for the
Department to consult with the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board
(DNFSB) in order to resolve its concerns.
[[Page 64148]]
Agency Contact:
Bill McArthur
Department of Energy
1000 Independence Avenue, SW.
Washington, DC 20585
Phone: 301 930-9674
RIN: 1901-AA99
_______________________________________________________________________
DOE--ENDEP
41. STANDBY SUPPORT FOR ADVANCED NUCLEAR FACILITY DELAYS
Priority:
Other Significant
Unfunded Mandates:
This action may affect the private sector under PL 104-4.
Legal Authority:
PL 109-58, sec 638
CFR Citation:
Not Yet Determined
Legal Deadline:
Final, Statutory, August 8, 2005.
Other, Statutory, May 6, 2006, Interim Final Rule.
Abstract:
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT 2005) authorizes the Secretary to
provide standby support for sponsors of advanced nuclear power
facilities for certain unexpected delays such as those caused by
litigation or Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licensing problems
that delay a facility from obtaining full power operation.
Statement of Need:
A number of nuclear power facilities built in the U.S. during the
1970's and 1980's experienced long delays in obtaining authorization to
operate at full power after completed and initial operating licenses
were granted. As a result of these delays, the cost of many nuclear
facilities built during this period increased dramatically. To reduce
such delays, and as authorized the Congress in the Energy Policy Act of
1992, the NRC adopted a one-step combined ``Construction Permit and
Operating Licensing`` process. However, the new Construction Permit and
Operation Licensing process has not been tested, since no new nuclear
power facility has been ordered and commissioned in over two decades.
In response to concerns regarding the untested process, EPACT 2005
allows the Secretary of Energy to enter into contracts with sponsors of
advanced nuclear power facilities for standby support payments to cover
the costs related to certain ''covered delays`` (described below) in
the licensing process.
Summary of Legal Basis:
EPACT 2005 provides for standby support contracts for a total of six
advanced power reactors consisting of no more than three different
designs. Under such contracts, the Department would pay for 100 percent
of the covered costs associated with covered delays for the first two
reactors, up to $500 million each, and 50 percent of the covered costs
for the four remaining reactors, up to $250 million each. Covered
delays include failure of the NRC to comply with schedules for review
and approval of inspections, tests and analyses, and acceptance
criteria established by the NRC, and litigation that delays the
commencement of full-power operations of the advanced nuclear power
facility. Covered costs include principal or interest on any debt
obligation and the incremental difference between the fair market price
of power purchases but for the delay and the contractual price or power
from the advanced nuclear facility subject to the delay. The Department
would not cover those costs that are caused by the failure of the
project sponsor to take any action required by law or regulation,
events within the control of the sponsor, or normal business risks.
Alternatives:
EPACT 2005, enacted on August 8, 2005, requires the Secretary of Energy
to issue for public comment an interim final rulemaking governing
contracts for standby support no later than 270 days after enactment,
which is May 6, 2006. In addition, DOE is required to finalize the rule
no later than August 8, 2006. The Department is currently working to
formulate and implement the rule.
Anticipated Cost and Benefits:
The specific costs and benefits of this rulemaking have not been
established because the specific aspects of the rule have not been
determined.
Risks:
Regulatory uncertainty regarding the delay of full-power operations of
the first advanced nuclear power facilities is viewed as a serious risk
to sponsors of such nuclear facilities. A regulation providing sponsors
standby support for advanced nuclear power facilities would provide
financial incentives for sponsors to build such facilities. Absent such
a regulation, it is less likely that sponsors will construct new
nuclear facilities.
Timetable:
_______________________________________________________________________
Action Date FR Cite
_______________________________________________________________________
Notice of Inquiry 10/00/05
Workshop 11/00/05
Interim Final Rule 05/00/06
Final Action 08/00/06
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required:
No
Small Entities Affected:
No
Government Levels Affected:
None
Additional Information:
Timetable reflects program priorities.
Agency Contact:
K. Chuck Wade
Department of Energy
Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology
1000 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20585
Phone: 202 586-1889
Email: [email protected]
RIN: 1901-AB17
BILLING CODE 6450-01-S
[[Page 64149]]
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES (HHS)